[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[BLOCK F]

If true, and if this comes to pass, I'm happy. He has a funny voice but so did Thatcher till she was trained to speak differently.

He obviously has a good brain, but I haven't the first clue what his views are on anything except that he was an obsessive remainer.
Yvette's time has passed, and besides Lisa Nandy, who comes over as sensible and articulates what is wrong with the Labour Party, I reckon the others are no goers!
Sir Keir will need some serious 'meedja' training with his funny voice and rather boring delivery!
Personally, I would like to see Lisa Nandy as 'numero uno', but it is perhaps telling that she has only polled 5%!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

FACT - this generation (the generation of my children) is the first generation under capitalism that is going to be worse off than its parents -

<snip>

So what is required is not some abstract 'compromise with the electorate' - it is empowering the electorate to think for themselves, to inquire, to investigate, to debate, to discuss, to act. Only when a people act on the basis of mutual cooperation and solidarity will they be capable of empowering political representatives to enact the type of society that they want - and only by active engagement will people ensure that these policies are implemented (and by people I mean working class people because they make up the vast majority of the population).

Many thanks for your thoughts. I do find them interesting.

If I may jump to your summation (above), this is where you and I part company. I'm 61. I have been involved in 'politics' as it pertains to my scientific discipline for nearly 30 years (journal editorial boards, society committees, departmental and university committees). Taking your aphorism (about the electorate) to my sector, we can consider all my academic colleagues, committee members, editorial board members as my sector's equivalent of The Electorate. I would also say that they are already very much empowered to think for themselves where our ethos, practice, agendas, goals and direction of travel are concerned. However....do my colleagues use their freedom to 'think for themselves, to inquire, to investigate, to debate, to discuss, to act'? Largely, no. I won't bore you with all the detail but it is clear to me that even the so called leaders in my sector do not understand even the basic meaning of many of the words that underpin our science (for example, the difference between specificity and selectivity, and the inferences one can make about potency). Do they inquire? No, they don't. Do the investigate? No. Do they debate? Well, of a fashion, but the outcomes are often uninformed compromises (a recent editorial board meeting I attended, that reduced to a Trump-style propaganda session for the editor in chief springs to mine). Do they act? Again, not often, not often coherently.

In my institution working out a rubric for assessing the 'resit' work of a student who fails a course unit has been beyond the capabilities of the various committees (here I will give an example: a student passed the coursework that contributed 50% to the final mark, but failed the exam horribly, and just failed the course overall. She was asked to resit the exam, with a final mark capped at the pass mark. She failed the exam again but doubled her mark. In calculating her final mark, the rubric stated that the coursework mark is not carried over, in case the coursework had been failed (it was passed in this case). So this student's final mark was judged entirely on her resit exam. She would have passed the course esaily if her coursework had been carried over, but with only 35% in the exam (up from around 18%) she was failed. Next year the rules have changed; failed components are resat but the passed component marks will be carried over - bleeding obvious to me but it was changed only after I caused a massive row with colleagues (resulting in my being summoned by a senior colleague for a talking-to about upsetting colleagues).

Thus, I know that we don't apply rigorous assessment, and we don't teach to rigorous standards, and we don't do research using the best (indeed necessary) practices (blinding, randomization, methods validation). And 'we' have the power to change things.....we just....don't.

Meanwhile our academic life has been undermined by bean counting, target management, use of grant income and journal impact factors (JIF) as the sole arbiters of 'performance'. Our response has been to collude with senior management, for example, seeking and obtaining 'credit' for sitting on management committees etc....I was lucky to do my PhD in Canada at a time when science was like Nabokov's description of art: 'a cleaner room on a quieter floor'; consequently I always regarded my job as a privilage, and with that came responsibilities. It was only when I became an academic in the UK that I realised to my horror that most of my colleagues were either craven jobsworths, keeping their head down, or psychopaths feeding on the weaknesses of their colleagues.

This is my long-winded way of showing that leading academics in a leading university, and national and international leading academics in research societies and journal editorial boards are 'keeping their heads down' and not engaging properly with their own disciplines, institutions or colleagues. Very few are actively trying to make things better. The major slice of the rewards (salaries over £120K, 'freedom' to not have to do teaching) is handed to 'research superstars', all of whom are on the psychopathic spectrum, treating PhD students and post-docs as data-generating fodder at the better end, and actively fabricating data at the worse end.

My point? If the so-called intellectual cream cannot and will not engage with its own politics to make the workplace better for their colleagues and students, is ready to make craven deals with management over 'performance', and demonstrates a fundamental disinterest in what they should be bloody well doing as academics, what chance the electorate at large (many of whom a nastier, dimmer, and more lazy-minded than the worst of the cockwombles on NSC that I have on ignore) will see the error of their ways and join the socialists? None, my friend. None.

That's why I favour compromise with the electorate. Neither your nor I are actual politicians, and politics is the art of the possible. My vote will go to those (on the left) I consider have some chance of delivering something. That means being electable by the current electorate, not a fantasy electorate of self-educated active citizens.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He obviously has a good brain, but I haven't the first clue what his views are on anything except that he was an obsessive remainer.
Yvette's time has passed, and besides Lisa Nandy, who comes over as sensible and articulates what is wrong with the Labour Party, I reckon the others are no goers!
Sir Keir will need some serious 'meedja' training with his funny voice and rather boring delivery!
Personally, I would like to see Lisa Nandy as 'numero uno', but it is perhaps telling that she has only polled 5%!

Starmer needs to keep his vews quiet for now. I am confident he is not a member of the CCA (Corbyn Continuation Army). If the momentum folk take against him they will back another horse more loyal to the cause. As JRG has intimated, to those already singed up to the cause, the cause is more important than the leader. I'd prefer someone that the nation might be inclinde to support, but what do I know about politics?

 

[BLOCK F]

Starmer needs to keep his vews quiet for now. I am confident he is not a member of the CCA (Corbyn Continuation Army). If the momentum folk take against him they will back another horse more loyal to the cause. As JRG has intimated, to those already singed up to the cause, the cause is more important than the leader. I'd prefer someone that the nation might be inclinde to support, but what do I know about politics?

Likewise Harry, likewise.
Some of them just don't really care about support in the country and actually getting into in a position to do something; they would rather pontificate from huge ivory towers that house 'JRGs'.
Anyway, thank f--k for that, I wouldn't want the likes of them running the country and neither does the vast majority of the electorate, who are not as daft as the obsessives think they are!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Likewise Harry, likewise.
Some of them just don't really care about support in the country and actually getting into in a position to do something; they would rather pontificate from huge ivory towers that house 'JRGs'.
Anyway, thank f--k for that, I wouldn't want the likes of them running the country and nor would most ordinary sensible people either.

I admire JRG's idealism, but I have heard it all before so many times....I like it as a 'voice' within labour, especially when matched with actual activity in the community, but sitting in an ivory tower hoping and praying that the working class will rise up.....for those unaware of the notion of Human Nature (and its frailties), read 1984 and Animal Farm

 

[BLOCK F]

Many thanks for your thoughts. I do find them interesting.

If I may jump to your summation (above), this is where you and I part company. I'm 61. I have been involved in 'politics' as it pertains to my scientific discipline for nearly 30 years (journal editorial boards, society committees, departmental and university committees). Taking your aphorism (about the electorate) to my sector, we can consider all my academic colleagues, committee members, editorial board members as my sector's equivalent of The Electorate. I would also say that they are already very much empowered to think for themselves where our ethos, practice, agendas, goals and direction of travel are concerned. However....do my colleagues use their freedom to 'think for themselves, to inquire, to investigate, to debate, to discuss, to act'? Largely, no. I won't bore you with all the detail but it is clear to me that even the so called leaders in my sector do not understand even the basic meaning of many of the words that underpin our science (for example, the difference between specificity and selectivity, and the inferences one can make about potency). Do they inquire? No, they don't. Do the investigate? No. Do they debate? Well, of a fashion, but the outcomes are often uninformed compromises (a recent editorial board meeting I attended, that reduced to a Trump-style propaganda session for the editor in chief springs to mine). Do they act? Again, not often, not often coherently.

In my institution working out a rubric for assessing the 'resit' work of a student who fails a course unit has been beyond the capabilities of the various committees (here I will give an example: a student passed the coursework that contributed 50% to the final mark, but failed the exam horribly, and just failed the course overall. She was asked to resit the exam, with a final mark capped at the pass mark. She failed the exam again but doubled her mark. In calculating her final mark, the rubric stated that the coursework mark is not carried over, in case the coursework had been failed (it was passed in this case). So this student's final mark was judged entirely on her resit exam. She would have passed the course esaily if her coursework had been carried over, but with only 35% in the exam (up from around 18%) she was failed. Next year the rules have changed; failed components are resat but the passed component marks will be carried over - bleeding obvious to me but it was changed only after I caused a massive row with colleagues (resulting in my being summoned by a senior colleague for a talking-to about upsetting colleagues).

Thus, I know that we don't apply rigorous assessment, and we don't teach to rigorous standards, and we don't do research using the best (indeed necessary) practices (blinding, randomization, methods validation). And 'we' have the power to change things.....we just....don't.

Meanwhile our academic life has been undermined by bean counting, target management, use of grant income and journal impact factors (JIF) as the sole arbiters of 'performance'. Our response has been to collude with senior management, for example, seeking and obtaining 'credit' for sitting on management committees etc....I was lucky to do my PhD in Canada at a time when science was like Nabokov's description of art: 'a cleaner room on a quieter floor'; consequently I always regarded my job as a privilage, and with that came responsibilities. It was only when I became an academic in the UK that I realised to my horror that most of my colleagues were either craven jobsworths, keeping their head down, or psychopaths feeding on the weaknesses of their colleagues.

This is my long-winded way of showing that leading academics in a leading university, and national and international leading academics in research societies and journal editorial boards are 'keeping their heads down' and not engaging properly with their own disciplines, institutions or colleagues. Very few are actively trying to make things better. The major slice of the rewards (salaries over £120K, 'freedom' to not have to do teaching) is handed to 'research superstars', all of whom are on the psychopathic spectrum, treating PhD students and post-docs as data-generating fodder at the better end, and actively fabricating data at the worse end.

My point? If the so-called intellectual cream cannot and will not engage with its own politics to make the workplace better for their colleagues and students, is ready to make craven deals with management over 'performance', and demonstrates a fundamental disinterest in what they should be bloody well doing as academics, what chance the electorate at large (many of whom a nastier, dimmer, and more lazy-minded than the worst of the cockwombles on NSC that I have on ignore) will see the error of their ways and join the socialists? None, my friend. None.

That's why I favour compromise with the electorate. Neither your nor I are actual politicians, and politics is the art of the possible. My vote will go to those (on the left) I consider have some chance of delivering something. That means being electable by the current electorate, not a fantasy electorate of self-educated active citizens.

Wow, your colleagues sound like a right bunch of charmers.
Seems like a cull/clear-out wouldn't go amiss in the world of academia.
Bods like me have always been a wee bit suspicious of 'academics' and wonder how much of what they do is actually useful!..........Excepting yourself, of course!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Wow, your colleagues sound like a right bunch of charmers.
Seems like a cull/clear-out wouldn't go amiss in the world of academia.
Bods like me have always been a wee bit suspicious of 'academics' and wonder how much of what they do is actually useful!..........Excepting yourself, of course!

I agree. I visited a university, let's call it 'the university of Pembrokeshire' (it is a former poly located in England) a few years ago for their research day. There were PhD students, often paying high overseas fees, doing unpublishable research with antiquated techniques on a shoestring budget. My conclusion is the sector is bloated and we could happily lose 70% of our universities.

I do wonder whether my career adds up to anything. I have tought thousands of undergards and dozens of postgrads, but how do you measure outcomes? I consider I have made a real contribution to my sector, but my employers are not interested in any of that, and I keep my job owing to my teaching hours.

Meanwhile the psychopaths rebrand the departments every two years. I couldn't actually name my affilitaion now. Some centre of excellence in some division in some school.....and my employer actually imagines that people outside the institution actually give a shit what we call ourselves. We rebrand like Opal Fruits, only more regularly.

Time I retired...perhaps.

 

[BLOCK F]

I agree. I visited a university, let's call it 'the university of Pembrokeshire' (it is a former poly located in England) a few years ago for their research day. There were PhD students, often paying high overseas fees, doing unpublishable research with antiquated techniques on a shoestring budget. My conclusion is the sector is bloated and we could happily lose 70% of our universities.

I do wonder whether my career adds up to anything. I have tought thousands of undergards and dozens of postgrads, but how do you measure outcomes? I consider I have made a real contribution to my sector, but my employers are not interested in any of that, and I keep my job owing to my teaching hours.

Meanwhile the psychopaths rebrand the departments every two years. I couldn't actually name my affilitaion now. Some centre of excellence in some division in some school.....and my employer actually imagines that people outside the institution actually give a shit what we call ourselves. We rebrand like Opal Fruits, only more regularly.

Time I retired...perhaps.

I think many of us from all walks of life and careers can sit down and wonder similarly about our achievements............'when it all boils down, what the f--k does it matter how hard I have worked, got promotion, earned more dosh or whatever, has it really made one iota of difference and does anyone care except oneself'?
Pride, competitiveness, achieving and exceeding targets, effectively managing and mentoring others etc. gave me job satisfaction, but no-one else gives a toss!
I think , providing one has the means to pack in work and if it is no longer satisfying or enjoyable, then retire or do something else. Hey, the Labour Party are looking for a leader.......is it too late?

 

[Is it PotG?]

A propos nothing, this made me smile.

 

[Hastings gull]

I agree. I visited a university, let's call it 'the university of Pembrokeshire' (it is a former poly located in England) a few years ago for their research day. There were PhD students, often paying high overseas fees, doing unpublishable research with antiquated techniques on a shoestring budget. My conclusion is the sector is bloated and we could happily lose 70% of our universities.

I do wonder whether my career adds up to anything. I have tought thousands of undergards and dozens of postgrads, but how do you measure outcomes? I consider I have made a real contribution to my sector, but my employers are not interested in any of that, and I keep my job owing to my teaching hours.

Meanwhile the psychopaths rebrand the departments every two years. I couldn't actually name my affilitaion now. Some centre of excellence in some division in some school.....and my employer actually imagines that people outside the institution actually give a shit what we call ourselves. We rebrand like Opal Fruits, only more regularly.

Time I retired...perhaps.

Well, it is not for me to say but . .

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's April 4!

Good to see that Labour have put Maximum Importance Emphasis on getting the election of the new leader done.

So far:

"Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips, Sir Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry are all in contention.

A sixth contender, shadow business secretary Rebecca Long Bailey, is also expected to throw her hat into the ring. She is close to Mr Corbyn's inner circle and represented Labour in an election TV debate."

Thanks, BBC.

So, why has the chosen winner, RLB, not yet thrown her hat into the ring? Is she still being briefed by momentum on what her platform should be? Could it be that she doesn't understand a word of what the fools are saying because it isn't a platform, just a load of absurd promises and unrealisable goals?

Soon we shall know.

However, after the voting process starts, as Starmer defeats each left candidate one by one, momentum will organize so that one of theirs will pick up the freed votes and win. That's democracy, folks.

So, what page of NSC will this thread have sunk to by the end of January? The end of February? Unless it stays top of the list for the period it shows....we don't care anymore, already.

What a farce. It used to be said if you have 1000 monkey's typewritesr eventually they would come up with a work to rival Shakespear. Likewise, give Corbyn Labour enough months they may be able to come up with a winner to their own liking. Meanwhile the country.....You absolutely couldn't make it up.

 

[essbee1]

You'd have thought that the leadership, after the recent election, might have worked out that the general population
can see through their rather fixed leadership processes and realize that, unless they change, they are onto a loser yet again.

I'd love to see Starmer in charge - but it ain't gonna happen is it?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You'd have thought that the leadership, after the recent election, might have worked out that the general population
can see through their rather fixed leadership processes and realize that, unless they change, they are onto a loser yet again.

I'd love to see Starmer in charge - but it ain't gonna happen is it?

No.

Also they have opened a window for people to pay £25 for a right to vote. If I were a tory, I'd pay my money and back the most unelectable candidate....

You would have thought that after last time.....hang on - once again momentum are relaxed that anti-labour folk will have a leading role in electing the labour leader, because they know that the most unelectable candidate, theirs, will win!

What an absolute shower.

 

[BLOCK F]

You'd have thought that the leadership, after the recent election, might have worked out that the general population
can see through their rather fixed leadership processes and realize that, unless they change, they are onto a loser yet again.

I'd love to see Starmer in charge - but it ain't gonna happen is it?

I'm not overly impressed by any of them.
Thought Lisa Nandy was ok, but I'm not sure she has the oomph to take people with her. Anyway, it looks like she is an outsider, because she is too sensible and wouldn't go along with the 'continuity Corbyn' theme.Clive Lewis thinks Labour failed 'cos they weren't sufficiently leftie, so he's a no-no. Emily Thornberry is far too Metropolitan for me and I can't ever see her appeal to the northern roots.Keir Starmer, another Metropolitan, seems to be heavily hedging his bets and is coming over all' oh, we musn't completely ditch Corbynism', mainly so as he doesn't alienate the Momentum mob. I haven't really got a clue what he believes and I'm not sure he does, either. That leaves Jess Phillips, who at least has the balls to say what she thinks, although she appears to have had to make a huge U turn over her remark regarding campaigning to rejoin the EU.She'll have to avoid cock-ups like that in future. She is a bit of a comedian, but I'm not sure about her leadership qualities........maybe she could do a turn as deputy and her time could come later.As for RBL, as Harry says, she is probably still learning her lines from the Momentum stooges. If she wins, well, at least we will know that the Labour Party have no intention of being in Government , for the forseeable!

 

[Lower West Stander]

I admire JRG's idealism, but I have heard it all before so many times....I like it as a 'voice' within labour, especially when matched with actual activity in the community, but sitting in an ivory tower hoping and praying that the working class will rise up.....for those unaware of the notion of Human Nature (and its frailties), read 1984 and Animal Farm

So is Keir Napoleon or Snowball?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hampster Gull]

If Starmer is given a free run if elected then they have a fighting chance in 5 years. Otherwise the shower will continue

 

[Lower West Stander]

I'm not overly impressed by any of them.
Thought Lisa Nandy was ok, but I'm not sure she has the oomph to take people with her. Anyway, it looks like she is an outsider, because she is too sensible and wouldn't go along with the 'continuity Corbyn' theme.Clive Lewis thinks Labour failed 'cos they weren't sufficiently leftie, so he's a no-no. Emily Thornberry is far too Metropolitan for me and I can't ever see her appeal to the northern roots.Keir Starmer, another Metropolitan, seems to be heavily hedging his bets and is coming over all' oh, we musn't completely ditch Corbynism', mainly so as he doesn't alienate the Momentum mob. I haven't really got a clue what he believes and I'm not sure he does, either. That leaves Jess Phillips, who at least has the balls to say what she thinks, although she appears to have had to make a huge U turn over her remark regarding campaigning to rejoin the EU.She'll have to avoid cock-ups like that in future. She is a bit of a comedian, but I'm not sure about her leadership qualities........maybe she could do a turn as deputy and her time could come later.As for RBL, as Harry says, she is probably still learning her lines from the Momentum stooges. If she wins, well, at least we will know that the Labour Party have no intention of being in Government , for the forseeable!

I agree with everything you say here, but how many politicians “manage” their views to get elected? Boris has changed with the wind over the years and even Hilary Benn was a loonie leftie in the 80s.

I haven’t a clue what Starmer stands for either but I think that’s kind of the point for him. He wants to be leader first and foremost and then adopt policies which will command the majority of MPs support.

Utterly depressing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Wardy's twin]

I agree with everything you say here, but how many politicians “manage” their views to get elected? Boris has changed with the wind over the years and even Hilary Benn was a loonie leftie in the 80s.

I haven’t a clue what Starmer stands for either but I think that’s kind of the point for him. He wants to be leader first and foremost and then adopt policies which will command the majority of MPs support.

Utterly depressing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Utterly depressing or utterly realistic considering the state of the LP at present? Surely best approach is to get the leadership , go with the majority of MPs to build up power and then impose your views , it does assume though he has strong views to impose.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

No, no, yes, YES, no , no, yes

 

[Chicken Run]

No.

Also they have opened a window for people to pay £25 for a right to vote. If I were a tory, I'd pay my money and back the most unelectable candidate....

You would have thought that after last time.....hang on - once again momentum are relaxed that anti-labour folk will have a leading role in electing the labour leader, because they know that the most unelectable candidate, theirs, will win!

What an absolute shower.

I’m voting for Emily Thornberry, she’s the future of this great country, she’ll smash Bojo in 2024.