Just like that, could Yvette Cooper become Labour's first female leader and PM -politicalbetting.com

System

Just like that, could Yvette Cooper become Labour's first female leader and PM?– politicalbetting.com

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper 'eyes up No10' if poll disaster in May forces Starmer to quit… and Red Ed would be Chancellor https://t.co/2WRqHJ1i0p

Read the full story here

ydoethur

A reminder that last time she stood she came third. I don’t see either her or Ed Miliband winning unless they are unopposed. Which I also don’t see happening.

The risk is that one of them is the only serious candidate and loses to whatever clown the left put up.

ydoethur

On Ed Miliband as next Chancellor that might be value given his seniority if Reeves is forced out after the locals. But, ironically, given that Labour have made such a thing of having a female Chancellor the likeliest candidate is probably Cooper herself.

And that’s an outcome even the greatest conjurer of them all could not have predicted.

Alanbrooke

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

Sandpit

QTWTAIN.

Sandpit

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

As we should be thinking with Starmer at the moment, to those who say a change of scenery in No.10 can’t make things any worse; it can definitely make things worse.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

On Ed Miliband as next Chancellor that might be value given his seniority if Reeves is forced out after the locals. But, ironically, given that Labour have made such a thing of having a female Chancellor the likeliest candidate is probably Cooper herself.

And that’s an outcome even the greatest conjurer of them all could not have predicted.

Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Tommy Cooper reference in the headline.

Battlebus

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

On Ed Miliband as next Chancellor that might be value given his seniority if Reeves is forced out after the locals. But, ironically, given that Labour have made such a thing of having a female Chancellor the likeliest candidate is probably Cooper herself.

And that’s an outcome even the greatest conjurer of them all could not have predicted.

Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Tommy Cooper reference in the headline.

Fez up. Did you know he died 42 years ago.

Alanbrooke

Sandpit said:

QTWTAIN.

Normally I'd say she hasnt a chance as she's a woman and Labour dont do women as leader.

But given she has Balls she may be one of those Starmer women with a penis -so who knows ?

DougSeal

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Alanbrooke

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Like our current political class you have lots of words but no meaning.

Ratters

ydoethur said:

A reminder that last time she stood she came third. I don’t see either her or Ed Miliband winning unless they are unopposed. Which I also don’t see happening.

The risk is that one of them is the only serious candidate and loses to whatever clown the left put up.

Only 2% behind second placed Andy Burnham though.

Who himself came fourth in his first leadership contest.

squareroot2

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

DavidL

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Thatcher, May, Truss, Badenoch v.....nothing.

But if it makes you happy to believe that its the right that has problems voting for women carry on.

DougSeal

Alanbrooke said:

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Like our current political class you have lots of words but no meaning.

The comeback of a man who just lost an argument but can’t explain why. You used three words to say nothing about her politics, and now you're complaining that someone used too many words explaining exactly that.

Daveyboy1961

Battlebus said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

On Ed Miliband as next Chancellor that might be value given his seniority if Reeves is forced out after the locals. But, ironically, given that Labour have made such a thing of having a female Chancellor the likeliest candidate is probably Cooper herself.

And that’s an outcome even the greatest conjurer of them all could not have predicted.

Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Tommy Cooper reference in the headline.

Fez up. Did you know he died 42 years ago.

Just like that?

Stuartinromford

Pretty dismal how that piece goes from talking about Cooper to talking about Miliband.

If Starmer's premiership suffers death by ballot box in May, that certainly stuffs Burnham, probably Rayner. Then we definitely come down to the classic "Great Office" shortlist, which we probably did anyway. I think we can strike Mahmood and Reeves from that shortlist, which leaves Cooper and Lammy.

Then again, coming third in Gorton was meant to trigger Starmer's resignation.

Nigelb

.

Alanbrooke said:

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Like our current political class you have lots of words but no meaning.

That's not a rebuttal, just another ad hom.

DougSeal

DavidL said:

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Thatcher, May, Truss, Badenoch v.....nothing.

But if it makes you happy to believe that its the right that has problems voting for women carry on.

My specific target here was Alanbrooke’s appalling ad hom. If you can’t see the problems with is post you don’t have the intelligence I previously credited you with

In any event I expressly said “left” not Labour.

Battlebus

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

Sandpit

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

DougSeal

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

linto

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

Taz

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

How many female leaders have Labour had ?

Zarah Sultana has said Your Party suffers from misogyny.

The left does have a woman problem

MelonB

If NATO countries cave to Trump’s bullying now they’ll be doing themselves major damage. We have known this administration long enough to understand that it sees agreement and compromise as weakness. It’ll encourage Trump to bully more. He needs to be told to take a running jump, ideally with some threats thrown in - to US continued use of basis, and to defence procurement. Maybe a little bit of Epstein too.

Big_G_NorthWales

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

A_View_From_Cumbria5

linto said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

Because you can't serve two masters at the same time.

RochdalePioneers

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

DougSeal

Taz said:

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

How many female leaders have Labour had ?

Zarah Sultana has said Your Party suffers from misogyny.

The left does have a woman problem

So Alanbrooke’s a leftist now? Although TBF his experience with women is obviously very limited, so it’s hard for him to know better. He gets a pass, poor guy.

Sandpit

linto said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

The main problem was that banks advancing a mortgage wouldn’t accept them, so the buyer would still need to have their own survey done by a qualified surveyor with professional indemnity insurance.

Cooper hadn’t engaged with them beforehand, and airily dismissed their complaints until it became clear the banks weren’t backing down, and the whole thing was just adding costs and process to selling a property for seemingly no gain, except of course to the people employed to prepare the HIPS themselves.

eek

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

linto said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

Because you can't serve two masters at the same time.

That’s what it does in Scotland - so we open up the question why does it work in Scotland and not England and what do we need to do to fix things so it does work on England

DougSeal

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I agree. If Alanbrooke had raised it no one could have objected. As it was he displayed his failure to grasp politics or, indeed, women.

theProle

Stuartinromford said:

Pretty dismal how that piece goes from talking about Cooper to talking about Miliband.

If Starmer's premiership suffers death by ballot box in May, that certainly stuffs Burnham, probably Rayner. Then we definitely come down to the classic "Great Office" shortlist, which we probably did anyway. I think we can strike Mahmood and Reeves from that shortlist, which leaves Cooper and Lammy.

Then again, coming third in Gorton was meant to trigger Starmer's resignation.

Fortunately for him, his mate Trump decided to start a major war to get Starmer's hapless position off the front pages. Who says the special relationship is dead!

Taz

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

Pity those poor sods who ploughed thousands into training/getting ready to be HIPS assessors and not getting a penny back.

eek

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

And that’s the all important question here - we are out of politicians (across all parties) who look competent enough to be Prime Minister as all of the options currently have seriously significant flaws

Taz

RochdalePioneers said:

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

I honestly don’t think, as useless as he is, there is anyone any better in Labour at the moment.

Rayner would be labours Truss.

The others would be no improvement.

Can’t see anyone better in politics either.

Depressing.

eek

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

Pity those poor sods who ploughed thousands into training/getting ready to be HIPS assessors and not getting a penny back.

That was half the problem - RICS certified surveyors take years to train and the interview is tough

Brixian59

The Right Wing continue to masterbate about women leaders.

Thatcher may have been a heroine to many, an absolute and utter disgrace to equal numbers. She had I will give her credit far more balls and backbone than any Tory male of that era.

May was a decent person, a failure as Home Secretary and handed the hospital pass of all hospital passes by her Party post Brexit trying to govern the ungovernable.

Truss was an extremely poor Minister promoted way beyond her ability even in junior roles and it remains a complete mystery how any woman or man could vote for her.

Badench similarly had a very poor record in Government in junior roles, awful at Trade, lauded by Australia for giving them the best Trade deal they had ever had, and her inability to find an ounce of contrition, middle ground or compromise on any issue with an ever aggressive vent bordering on behaivoural illness will be her undoing, probably before Starmer

What of Labour, the Party of Barbara Castle, Renee Short, Claire Short , Harriet Harman. No women Leaders.

The bottom line is who and when, which woman was better than John Smith when elected, which woman was better than Tony Blair or gordon Brown when elected, I would argue Harriet Harman was a better bet than Milliband, Yvette Cooper a better choice that Corbyn, but they wer enot chosen because the were women, they were not chosen because the factions then in charge of Labour had no suitable candidates.

There was NOTHING "token" about Thatcher, plenty "token" about May , Truss and Badenoch.

To finish, lets look back to 1997. The BLAIR BABES , more women MP's than EVER before, a trnd Labour contined , who were the loudest most disgusting , nasty , snide MYSOGINISTS then! The TORY men . The TORY Press, The Tory Party....so fuck off with your holier than though clap trap, some of us have longer memories than 5 years!

RochdalePioneers

Brixian59 said:

The Right Wing continue to masterbate about women leaders.

Thatcher may have been a heroine to many, an absolute and utter disgrace to equal numbers. She had I will give her credit far more balls and backbone than any Tory male of that era.

May was a decent person, a failure as Home Secretary and handed the hospital pass of all hospital passes by her Party post Brexit trying to govern the ungovernable.

Truss was an extremely poor Minister promoted way beyond her ability even in junior roles and it remains a complete mystery how any woman or man could vote for her.

Badench similarly had a very poor record in Government in junior roles, awful at Trade, lauded by Australia for giving them the best Trade deal they had ever had, and her inability to find an ounce of contrition, middle ground or compromise on any issue with an ever aggressive vent bordering on behaivoural illness will be her undoing, probably before Starmer

What of Labour, the Party of Barbara Castle, Renee Short, Claire Short , Harriet Harman. No women Leaders.

The bottom line is who and when, which woman was better than John Smith when elected, which woman was better than Tony Blair or gordon Brown when elected, I would argue Harriet Harman was a better bet than Milliband, Yvette Cooper a better choice that Corbyn, but they wer enot chosen because the were women, they were not chosen because the factions then in charge of Labour had no suitable candidates.

There was NOTHING "token" about Thatcher, plenty "token" about May , Truss and Badenoch.

To finish, lets look back to 1997. The BLAIR BABES , more women MP's than EVER before, a trnd Labour contined , who were the loudest most disgusting , nasty , snide MYSOGINISTS then! The TORY men . The TORY Press, The Tory Party....so fuck off with your holier than though clap trap, some of us have longer memories than 5 years!

More mansplaining about the evil's of the other side's women...

nico67

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

I honestly don’t think, as useless as he is, there is anyone any better in Labour at the moment.

Rayner would be labours Truss.

The others would be no improvement.

Can’t see anyone better in politics either.

Depressing.

I’d rather Starmer stayed on ! The public rejected Miliband in 2015 .

Sunil_Prasannan

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

I had you down as a Baroness Foster fan!

Stereodog

Leadership 'dream tickets' are something which obsess the media but that in reality have had no impact on any leadership race whatsoever. Can the huge collective knowledge of PB come up with a single example of where an explicit joint ticket has won a UK party leadership race?

Luckyguy1983

Alanbrooke said:

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Like our current political class you have lots of words but no meaning.

That's because he used AI.

DougSeal

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

SandyRentool

Cooper for PM?

What a load of Balls.

IanB2

Even though she probably won't make a good leader, and didn't shine when she shot for it the last time, I've had money on YC for next PM for a while, simply on the basis that in the UK it's almost always the Chancellor or Foreign Sec that gets the PM job, colleagues and members wanting to see that someone has been tested and survived in one of the very top roles. With Reeves well tarnished in her current role, that has to make YC a strong possibility.

DougSeal

RochdalePioneers said:

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

If men explaining things to other men is now condemned as “mansplaining” then our hosts may as well close the site.

theProle

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

I honestly don’t think, as useless as he is, there is anyone any better in Labour at the moment.

Rayner would be labours Truss.

The others would be no improvement.

Can’t see anyone better in politics either.

Depressing.

The reality is that Starmer, wooden and useless as he is, isn't the main problem with this Labour government. The real problem is that their backbench MPs are idiots who thought they were just in politics to dole out sweeties to their chosen client groups. In a world with no money for sweeties, they are instead making it impossible for anyone to govern.

Sunil_Prasannan

DougSeal said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

If men explaining things to other men is now condemned as “mansplaining” then our hosts may as well close the site.

Transplaining is the new mansplaining.

IanB2

Brixian59 said:

The Right Wing continue to masterbate about women leaders.

Thatcher may have been a heroine to many, an absolute and utter disgrace to equal numbers. She had I will give her credit far more balls and backbone than any Tory male of that era.

May was a decent person, a failure as Home Secretary and handed the hospital pass of all hospital passes by her Party post Brexit trying to govern the ungovernable.

Truss was an extremely poor Minister promoted way beyond her ability even in junior roles and it remains a complete mystery how any woman or man could vote for her.

Badench similarly had a very poor record in Government in junior roles, awful at Trade, lauded by Australia for giving them the best Trade deal they had ever had, and her inability to find an ounce of contrition, middle ground or compromise on any issue with an ever aggressive vent bordering on behaivoural illness will be her undoing, probably before Starmer

What of Labour, the Party of Barbara Castle, Renee Short, Claire Short , Harriet Harman. No women Leaders.

The bottom line is who and when, which woman was better than John Smith when elected, which woman was better than Tony Blair or gordon Brown when elected, I would argue Harriet Harman was a better bet than Milliband, Yvette Cooper a better choice that Corbyn, but they wer enot chosen because the were women, they were not chosen because the factions then in charge of Labour had no suitable candidates.

There was NOTHING "token" about Thatcher, plenty "token" about May , Truss and Badenoch.

To finish, lets look back to 1997. The BLAIR BABES , more women MP's than EVER before, a trnd Labour contined , who were the loudest most disgusting , nasty , snide MYSOGINISTS then! The TORY men . The TORY Press, The Tory Party....so fuck off with your holier than though clap trap, some of us have longer memories than 5 years!

Nevertheless it ought to be thought-provoking to the left - and within that I'd include the LDs and Greens - that, despite all their dversity quotas and single sex shortlists and obsessions with gender balance, the Conservatives have sailed through four female leaders, three of whom became PM, and several ethnic minority leaders, without appearing to need any positive discrimination fixing and fiddling whatsoever?

Stuartinromford

theProle said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

I honestly don’t think, as useless as he is, there is anyone any better in Labour at the moment.

Rayner would be labours Truss.

The others would be no improvement.

Can’t see anyone better in politics either.

Depressing.

The reality is that Starmer, wooden and useless as he is, isn't the main problem with this Labour government. The real problem is that their backbench MPs are idiots who thought they were just in politics to dole out sweeties to their chosen client groups. In a world with no money for sweeties, they are instead making it impossible for anyone to govern.

Just like all the others, then.

The only difference is which sweeties to which people.

AnneJGP

I still rather regret that Labour didn't give Harriet Harman a chance.

Nigelb

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

And on another hand, it's entirely fair game to discuss the presentational shortcomings of leaders, or potential leaders, since that's quite a large part of their job.
It's not as though Starmer, or before him Sunak, are/were immune from such stuff.

SandyRentool

I see that last night's Emirates flight from Manchester to Dubai landed safely...

...back in Manchester.

Is anyone actually actively seeking to travel to or via the UAE? Can you even book flights?

Brixian59

AnneJGP said:

I still rather regret that Labour didn't give Harriet Harman a chance.

One of the great Labour mistakes of the past, Possibly in 2010 , certainly in 2015.

Highly efefctive, highly competent and very personable.

Ratters

Oil prices back at their highest levels since, um, last Monday.

... Albeit that was a very short-term spike for less than half a day and was lower than this by around midday.

Stuartinromford

Nigelb said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

And on another hand, it's entirely fair game to discuss the presentational shortcomings of leaders, or potential leaders, since that's quite a large part of their job.
It's not as though Starmer, or before him Sunak, are/were immune from such stuff.

It's the difference between criticising what someone does (Kemi has said and done many foolish things in foolish ways) and what someone is (Cooper is dowdy).

The first is fair game, the second much much less so.

On the big picture, some strands on the left, especially the older left, have historically been pretty sexist.

DougSeal

Nigelb said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

And on another hand, it's entirely fair game to discuss the presentational shortcomings of leaders, or potential leaders, since that's quite a large part of their job.
It's not as though Starmer, or before him Sunak, are/were immune from such stuff.

Starmer’s presentational shortcomings are, and are discussed as, his inexplicable inability to present policy to the public. And, I concede, his voice on occasion. Not his dress sense or “nagging”. Actually if Starmer did “nag” it would be a vast improvement.

The worst I remember being directed at Sunak were references to his height.

Dopermean

DavidL said:

DougSeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

Go for it Labour.

A dowdy dreary nag is just what the nation needs.

You clearly have a massive problem with women. Let’s break this down. From your post I see nothing about what Cooper stands for you object to. I see instead three key words.

First, “Dowdy". This word polices a Cooper’s appearance, implying she is unfashionably dressed or unattractive. Women are subject to this kind of aesthetic judgment in a way men very rarely are. Calling a man "dowdy" barely registers as an insult, while for women, appearance is treated as a moral and social obligation.

Secondly, "Dreary": This frames a woman's personality or presence as a burden to others. It suggests she fails to be entertaining, lively, or pleasing, again, a standard women are held to far more than men

Finally “Nag". This is perhaps the most overtly mysoginistic term of the three. "Nag" (meaning someone who complains or criticises persistently) is almost exclusively applied to women, and specifically to women who assert themselves. When a man does the same thing, he is more likely to be described as "persistent," "principled," or "demanding.". At worst he’ll get “annoying” or maybe “monotonous”, possibly. The word "nag" trivialises and dismisses the substance of what a woman is saying by reframing it as an annoying personality trait rather than a legitimate comceej or political position.

Taken together, you have hatefully reduced a woman simultaneously to her appearance and her disposition, finding fault with both, used language that would not be applied to a man in the same way, and branded Cooper as a failure (aesthetically, socially, and interpersonally) by standards that are themselves gendered. Because she is a woman you dismiss rather than engage with anything she might actually be saying or doing.

Someone on here yesterday suggested it was the left who had the women problem. I present the counterargument in your post.

Thatcher, May, Truss, Badenoch v.....nothing.

But if it makes you happy to believe that its the right that has problems voting for women carry on.

I'd suggest that you are looking at the issue too simply
The Conservatives party can more easily elect a female or ethnic minority leader because there will not be a concerted misogynistic or racist campaign against a Conservative leader by a large section of the media.

SandyRentool

Of the women in cabinet, I'd rank Phillipson and Mahmood ahead of Cooper if their names all appeared on a leadership ballot.

I'd rank them ahead of any of the men too.

MarqueeMark

My favourite Tommy Cooper gag (which may have some wider application for Labour)

"Doctor, doctor - it hurts when I do this..."

"Don't do it then."

Big_G_NorthWales

Brixian59 said:

The Right Wing continue to masterbate about women leaders.

Thatcher may have been a heroine to many, an absolute and utter disgrace to equal numbers. She had I will give her credit far more balls and backbone than any Tory male of that era.

May was a decent person, a failure as Home Secretary and handed the hospital pass of all hospital passes by her Party post Brexit trying to govern the ungovernable.

Truss was an extremely poor Minister promoted way beyond her ability even in junior roles and it remains a complete mystery how any woman or man could vote for her.

Badench similarly had a very poor record in Government in junior roles, awful at Trade, lauded by Australia for giving them the best Trade deal they had ever had, and her inability to find an ounce of contrition, middle ground or compromise on any issue with an ever aggressive vent bordering on behaivoural illness will be her undoing, probably before Starmer

What of Labour, the Party of Barbara Castle, Renee Short, Claire Short , Harriet Harman. No women Leaders.

The bottom line is who and when, which woman was better than John Smith when elected, which woman was better than Tony Blair or gordon Brown when elected, I would argue Harriet Harman was a better bet than Milliband, Yvette Cooper a better choice that Corbyn, but they wer enot chosen because the were women, they were not chosen because the factions then in charge of Labour had no suitable candidates.

There was NOTHING "token" about Thatcher, plenty "token" about May , Truss and Badenoch.

To finish, lets look back to 1997. The BLAIR BABES , more women MP's than EVER before, a trnd Labour contined , who were the loudest most disgusting , nasty , snide MYSOGINISTS then! The TORY men . The TORY Press, The Tory Party....so fuck off with your holier than though clap trap, some of us have longer memories than 5 years!

'The Right Wing continue to masterbate about women leaders'.

Sums you up in one sentence

Scott_xP

MarqueeMark said:

My favourite Tommy Cooper gag (which may have some wider application for Labour)

"Doctor, doctor - it hurts when I do this..."

"Don't do it then."

I went to my doctor and said "It hurts when I do this" and he said "Well, how often do you really need to do that?" and i totally missed it. I teed it up for him, he hit it sweetly and I watched it sail right over my head

Big_G_NorthWales

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

Scott_xP

Conan had a couple of decent gags at the Oscars

"Welcome back, we're coming to you live from the has a small penis theater... let's see him put his name in front of that"

“[There are no British actors nominated tonight]… a British spokesperson said, ‘well at least we arrest our pedophiles.’”

TheValiant

linto said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

At least one problem is that the seller was responsible for obtaining it. But buyers' solicitors advised that because they hadn't obtained it, it couldn't be relied upon (probably rightly) and therefore they would have to do their own checks.

It's basically the same situation when you buy a leasehold house on that nice new estate and are 'advised' you have to use the solicitor who also acts for the housebuilder (to save on costs you see). When you do, that solicitor has a massive conflict of interest and (in reality) acts in the best interest of the seller, not in your best interests and after you sign you find you've entered into a 20 year lease with a £1m ground rent.

They were useless as they couldn't be relied upon.

eek

Ratters said:

Oil prices back at their highest levels since, um, last Monday.

... Albeit that was a very short-term spike for less than half a day and was lower than this by around midday.

Last week the worry was the strait would be blocked

This week the worry is that the strait is blocked and it turns out there is no plan to unblock it - as the last week showed how easy and cheap it is to block it - and how much work it will be required to protect all vessels

SandyRentool

Any chance that the countries trying to export the oil and LNG will police the shipping lanes?

RochdalePioneers

DougSeal said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can we set aside the mansplaining about which side hates women? You do. No YOU do. No YOU DO. etc

A Cooper / Miliband dream ticket sounds great on paper! I get it as a trading bet, though as a real world scenario it has its difficulties.

I am resigned to Starmer staying on because the Labour Party are incapable of removing a leader who is literally inert.

If men explaining things to other men is now condemned as “mansplaining” then our hosts may as well close the site.

Big G has set out why he found Cooper to be ineffective. That is fair! Saying x politician is crap because reason y is fair.

The various posts from people saying x politician is crap because they're "dowdy" / a woman / a Tory woman is unfair.

Mexicanpete

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

Thank you.

SandyRentool

FTSE 100 opens up this morning.

Presumably on the back of the Cooper rumour.

Sandpit

SandyRentool said:

I see that last night's Emirates flight from Manchester to Dubai landed safely...

...back in Manchester.

Is anyone actually actively seeking to travel to or via the UAE? Can you even book flights?

Emirates were trying to get back to a full schedule this week.

Sadly the Iranians had other ideas and there was an attack on Dubai airport at 3:30am today, which caused a fire in a fuel storage area. Airport reopened at 10am, but not before many flights had returned to their destinations.

The attacks have been reducing significantly in number over the past few days, but are not being deliberately targeted at civilian infrastructure. There’s no military activity at DXB whatsoever.

RochdalePioneers

So, Cooper. Back in my Labour days I chose not to vote for Cooper because I thought she was a bit crap, not because she was a woman. And the reasons I thought she was a bit crap weren't because she was a woman either.

Its the same as the "Rachel in Accounts" jibe. She's a terrible Chancellor but not because she's a woman. We've had really really terrible chancellors before her with no clue what he was doing without them being given a derogatory accounts girl label.

StillWaters

ydoethur said:

A reminder that last time she stood she came third. I don’t see either her or Ed Miliband winning unless they are unopposed. Which I also don’t see happening.

The risk is that one of them is the only serious candidate and loses to whatever clown the left put up.

Didn’t she actually go on holiday for part of the campaign?

Omnium

SandyRentool said:

FTSE 100 opens up this morning.

Presumably on the back of the Cooper rumour.

A nasty shock in store when they get down to the Milliband as Chancellor bit!

Big_G_NorthWales

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

Thank you.

I am very pleased to pay you the compliment and wish you well, as our taxi awaits to take us to the station for our 2 day train trip to Edinburgh and sitting on the bench in Princess Street Gardens where we got engaged 63 years ago

Romance, love, humour and being together are our ingredients for a long and happy marriage

StillWaters

linto said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

Because a lot of it was bureaucratic nonsense layered on top of the useful stuff. Plus buyers didn’t trust survey work conducted by the seller (why would you). And they said that only licensed people could prepare the packs (rather than, for example, all chartered surveyors) and then didn’t train enough.

So it was the archetypical New Labour policy:

- at its core a good idea
- overwhelmed with unnecessary dross
- Expensive and slow
- Poorly executed
- Ultimately didn’t achieve the objective anyway

MarqueeMark

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

Thank you.

I am very pleased to pay you the compliment and wish you well, as our taxi awaits to take us to the station for our 2 day train trip to Edinburgh and sitting on the bench in Princess Street Gardens where we got engaged 63 years ago

Romance, love, humour and being together are our ingredients for a long and happy marriage

Have a great trip Good Lady Big_G and Big_G. I hope the weather is kind.

Malmesbury

TheValiant said:

linto said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

At least one problem is that the seller was responsible for obtaining it. But buyers' solicitors advised that because they hadn't obtained it, it couldn't be relied upon (probably rightly) and therefore they would have to do their own checks.

It's basically the same situation when you buy a leasehold house on that nice new estate and are 'advised' you have to use the solicitor who also acts for the housebuilder (to save on costs you see). When you do, that solicitor has a massive conflict of interest and (in reality) acts in the best interest of the seller, not in your best interests and after you sign you find you've entered into a 20 year lease with a £1m ground rent.

They were useless as they couldn't be relied upon.

A classic modern policy - “we will improve things through paperwork”. Except that the “improvements”turns out to not solve the problem. Or any other problem.

I know, perhaps if we create a new form to fill out…

StillWaters

MelonB said:

If NATO countries cave to Trump’s bullying now they’ll be doing themselves major damage. We have known this administration long enough to understand that it sees agreement and compromise as weakness. It’ll encourage Trump to bully more. He needs to be told to take a running jump, ideally with some threats thrown in - to US continued use of basis, and to defence procurement. Maybe a little bit of Epstein too.

To be honest it’s this threat that makes me think - more than oil prices or sanctions - that Puton is behind this.

If he can reframe NATO as an aggressor rather than a purely defensive alliance (that it is) that is hugely valuable from a geopolitical perspective

Malmesbury

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

I’ve not seen such. Just repetitive “what about x” with desperation when various subjects come up.

Quality WhatAboutery used to be a major product of the Northern Ireland service sector. It’s really fallen off though. Another British industry shuttered.

FeersumEnjineeya

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

The phrase "to be honest" implies that you are referring to your fellow conservatives. Is that your intention?

Malmesbury

StillWaters said:

linto said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

Her HIPS are not forgotten.

HIPS don’t lie.

Possibly one of the worst policies announced by a British government in the first 24 years of this century.

I wasn't old enough to really understand the whole HIPs thing, from my limited understanding they seem pretty sensible. One survey, all the info needed already assembled etc. It should have improved the house buying process, why the pretty universal hate for it?

Because a lot of it was bureaucratic nonsense layered on top of the useful stuff. Plus buyers didn’t trust survey work conducted by the seller (why would you). And they said that only licensed people could prepare the packs (rather than, for example, all chartered surveyors) and then didn’t train enough.

So it was the archetypical New Labour policy:

- at its core a good idea
- overwhelmed with unnecessary dross
- Expensive and slow
- Poorly executed
- Ultimately didn’t achieve the objective anyway

The lightbulb didn’t go on, when large numbers of people started training to create & process the packs. If you start an industry, who is going to pay them? Either existing money will be taken away from lawyers, surveyors etc. Or, as proved to be the case, the result was increased costs to buyers/sellers.

Introducing more regulation is never free. Changing regulation usually ends up with the old+new.

DougSeal

Malmesbury said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

I’ve not seen such. Just repetitive “what about x” with desperation when various subjects come up.

Quality WhatAboutery used to be a major product of the Northern Ireland service sector. It’s really fallen off though. Another British industry shuttered.

Sad lack of Irish Republicans on this site to pick you up on the "British" descriptor there. Shame. This morning was too good natured - we needed a row.

LostPassword

Stuartinromford said:

Pretty dismal how that piece goes from talking about Cooper to talking about Miliband.

If Starmer's premiership suffers death by ballot box in May, that certainly stuffs Burnham, probably Rayner. Then we definitely come down to the classic "Great Office" shortlist, which we probably did anyway. I think we can strike Mahmood and Reeves from that shortlist, which leaves Cooper and Lammy.

Then again, coming third in Gorton was meant to trigger Starmer's resignation.

Burnham's supporters have an interest in leaving Starmer in place until Burnham can become an MP. Rayner's supporters have an interest in leaving Starmer in place until the HMRC investigation into her tax affairs is concluded (why is that taking so long?) Streeting's supporters have an interest in leaving Starmer in place until everyone's forgotten about Mandelson and Epstein.

So I think the assumption has to be that Starmer remains for the foreseeable, because there are too many interested parties not yet ready to give him the heave. The Cooper-Milliband axis is cast in the role of the proverbial safe pair of hands that will step in if Starmer walks away early.

LDLF

Starmer has lost many of his reputed advantages over other politicians over the course of his premiership so far: sensible competence, high moral rectitude, attention to detail, ability to 'scout out liars', etc.

One trait he has probably retained is of somewhat difficult to describe 'reassuring vibes' in comparison to the other party leaders. As long as he is Labour leader I think there will be a significant number of potential Conservative voters who will hold their nose and vote Labour or, more likely, Liberal Democrat, to keep any Reform-friendly MPs out, because they are very relaxed about Starmer being Prime Minister, even if they may disagree with him on all sorts of policies.

This trait is crucial for any Labour leader who wants to win a general election. The experience of less successful Labour leaders, most notably Corbyn, has demonstrated that, no matter how much the left and far left can be enthused by a leader who plays to their own prejudices, the rest of the electorate will act accordingly to shut them out of power.

I think Cooper, Healey and Streeting share this 'reassuring vibes' trait with Starmer, while Miliband and Rayner do not.

Cooper equally could work as Chancellor, and in fact had more experience in government and the treasury when Reeves took on the role. But any new chancellor will presumably still be constrained by the 2024 electoral pledges that are preventing Reeves from raising much more revenue, alongside a parliamentary party unwilling to countenance spending cuts, so problems may well remain.

On the other hand, Miliband as Chancellor would only, in my view, reinforce the polling advantage currently held by the Conservatives on the economy.

MelonB

StillWaters said:

MelonB said:

If NATO countries cave to Trump’s bullying now they’ll be doing themselves major damage. We have known this administration long enough to understand that it sees agreement and compromise as weakness. It’ll encourage Trump to bully more. He needs to be told to take a running jump, ideally with some threats thrown in - to US continued use of basis, and to defence procurement. Maybe a little bit of Epstein too.

To be honest it’s this threat that makes me think - more than oil prices or sanctions - that Puton is behind this.

If he can reframe NATO as an aggressor rather than a purely defensive alliance (that it is) that is hugely valuable from a geopolitical perspective

There’s clearly a need for someone to “do something” about the straits, and it’s a global economic challenge. And apparently the US don't have the capability.

It’s somewhat disappointing that the big spending Saudi, Qatari and UAE governments with all their FDI and oil money haven’t been able to muster something. They are after all on the doorstep and it’s their economies that are most dramatically affected.

Cyclefree

Actual woman here.

Both left and right and even the soggy Lib Dems and Greens have a woman problem.

Not to mention this forum, which needs a considerable dose of self-awareness on this issue as well.

Have a good day.

Dura_Ace

SandyRentool said:

Any chance that the countries trying to export the oil and LNG will police the shipping lanes?

HIghly doubtful, that's proper Navy stuff. I doubt the UAE Navy can find the Dubai Creek using Waze.

I think SKS will find it hard to resist DJT's order. Chance of getting back in the good books and reflected glory if, by some miracle, it goes well vs. HMS Dragon on the bottom of the Iranian Gulf. At least there wouldn't be endless C-17 rotations of coffins coming into BZZ. The sea keeps those whom she takes.

LostPassword

MelonB said:

If NATO countries cave to Trump’s bullying now they’ll be doing themselves major damage. We have known this administration long enough to understand that it sees agreement and compromise as weakness. It’ll encourage Trump to bully more. He needs to be told to take a running jump, ideally with some threats thrown in - to US continued use of basis, and to defence procurement. Maybe a little bit of Epstein too.

I kinda feel Europeans should grasp the reality that NATO is dead, take the initiative in dissolving it themselves (and replacing it with New-NATO (all the current NATO members, minus the US, and minus Hungary/Slovakia unless they pick the right side on Ukraine v Russia), and ask the Yanks to go home.

It's probably more sensible to maintain the fiction of its existence until Europe has filled the critical gaps in its defence capability (such as missile defence), but it feels like Europe is only reacting at the moment.

Malmesbury

DougSeal said:

Malmesbury said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

To be honest there are some on here whose use of whataboutery is legend

I’ve not seen such. Just repetitive “what about x” with desperation when various subjects come up.

Quality WhatAboutery used to be a major product of the Northern Ireland service sector. It’s really fallen off though. Another British industry shuttered.

Sad lack of Irish Republicans on this site to pick you up on the "British" descriptor there. Shame. This morning was too good natured - we needed a row.

Them’uns - always asleep on the job.

Back in the day, Gerry would be firing up the Black&Decker, if they’d slacked off like this.

Malmesbury

Cyclefree said:

Actual woman here.

Both left and right and even the soggy Lib Dems and Greens have a woman problem.

Not to mention this forum, which needs a considerable dose of self-awareness on this issue as well.

Have a good day.

Good morning.

Have you made the tea yet? {ducks in nuclear bunker at undisclosed location}

LostPassword

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

I hope you have good weather for your travelling!

bondegezou

DougSeal said:

Nigelb said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Battlebus said:

Lots of grumpy farts about this Monday morning.

We’re largely a bunch of middle aged to old white men on a form of message board that had its heyday 15-20 years ago. And it’s Monday morning. What do you expect?

Good morning

I agree that @Alanbrooke description of Cooper was unkind but then some of the comments on here about Kemi are at times even worse and it is simply unnecessary

I was involved with Cooper and her department over hips with many trips to London to discuss the pros and cons and frankly she just dld not listen

I do not think she or Miliband are labour's answer to the Starmer question but then who is ?

My wife and I are to set off shortly on our 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh so will not be posting much as we want to enjoy the journeys and ever changing scenery

Yes “whatabout” the unkind things that people say about Kemi. Someone should invent a neologism to describe the rhetorical tactic and logical fallacy used to deflect criticism by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation, shifting focus away from the original issue. Perhaps it’s already been done?

And on another hand, it's entirely fair game to discuss the presentational shortcomings of leaders, or potential leaders, since that's quite a large part of their job.
It's not as though Starmer, or before him Sunak, are/were immune from such stuff.

Starmer’s presentational shortcomings are, and are discussed as, his inexplicable inability to present policy to the public. And, I concede, his voice on occasion. Not his dress sense or “nagging”. Actually if Starmer did “nag” it would be a vast improvement.

The worst I remember being directed at Sunak were references to his height.

Although there were a lot of references to his height...

Malmesbury

Dura_Ace said:

SandyRentool said:

Any chance that the countries trying to export the oil and LNG will police the shipping lanes?

HIghly doubtful, that's proper Navy stuff. I doubt the UAE Navy can find the Dubai Creek using Waze.

I think SKS will find it hard to resist DJT's order. Chance of getting back in the good books and reflected glory if, by some miracle, it goes well vs. HMS Dragon on the bottom of the Iranian Gulf. At least there wouldn't be endless C-17 rotations of coffins coming into BZZ. The sea keeps those whom she takes.

Drone mine hunting might be the choice for Mr Britas - the RN has been banging on about their capability in that regard for years,

MarqueeMark

MelonB said:

StillWaters said:

MelonB said:

If NATO countries cave to Trump’s bullying now they’ll be doing themselves major damage. We have known this administration long enough to understand that it sees agreement and compromise as weakness. It’ll encourage Trump to bully more. He needs to be told to take a running jump, ideally with some threats thrown in - to US continued use of basis, and to defence procurement. Maybe a little bit of Epstein too.

To be honest it’s this threat that makes me think - more than oil prices or sanctions - that Puton is behind this.

If he can reframe NATO as an aggressor rather than a purely defensive alliance (that it is) that is hugely valuable from a geopolitical perspective

There’s clearly a need for someone to “do something” about the straits, and it’s a global economic challenge. And apparently the US don't have the capability.

It’s somewhat disappointing that the big spending Saudi, Qatari and UAE governments with all their FDI and oil money haven’t been able to muster something. They are after all on the doorstep and it’s their economies that are most dramatically affected.

A deeply buried pipeline that cuts through the UAE to Oman, with another to Saudi.

The ultimate loading terminals protected with defensive means to shoot down all that is fired at them from some way out. That needs to be 100% guaranteed. The ultimate in layered defense.

And the destruction of any vessel that leaves Iranian harbours on the Gulf. 100% Reaper-type drone coverage of the coast along its entire length, 24/7.

Yes, it will be expensive. But cheaper than the weaponry the US has fired off in the past 15 days.

LostPassword

Stereodog said:

Leadership 'dream tickets' are something which obsess the media but that in reality have had no impact on any leadership race whatsoever. Can the huge collective knowledge of PB come up with a single example of where an explicit joint ticket has won a UK party leadership race?

Blair-Brown?

Malmesbury

LostPassword said:

MelonB said:

If NATO countries cave to Trump’s bullying now they’ll be doing themselves major damage. We have known this administration long enough to understand that it sees agreement and compromise as weakness. It’ll encourage Trump to bully more. He needs to be told to take a running jump, ideally with some threats thrown in - to US continued use of basis, and to defence procurement. Maybe a little bit of Epstein too.

I kinda feel Europeans should grasp the reality that NATO is dead, take the initiative in dissolving it themselves (and replacing it with New-NATO (all the current NATO members, minus the US, and minus Hungary/Slovakia unless they pick the right side on Ukraine v Russia), and ask the Yanks to go home.

It's probably more sensible to maintain the fiction of its existence until Europe has filled the critical gaps in its defence capability (such as missile defence), but it feels like Europe is only reacting at the moment.

The various exercises/military agreements - see the UK participation in exercises in Northern Europe - suggest that what will happen is flexible, ad hoc arrangements, probably using NATO for standards and methodology.

Malmesbury

LostPassword said:

Stereodog said:

Leadership 'dream tickets' are something which obsess the media but that in reality have had no impact on any leadership race whatsoever. Can the huge collective knowledge of PB come up with a single example of where an explicit joint ticket has won a UK party leadership race?

Blair-Brown?

Perhaps the Labour Party will eventually arrive at the one ticket I said I couldn't vote for (In the context of the Democrats vs Trump).

Brixian59

Dura_Ace said:

SandyRentool said:

Any chance that the countries trying to export the oil and LNG will police the shipping lanes?

HIghly doubtful, that's proper Navy stuff. I doubt the UAE Navy can find the Dubai Creek using Waze.

I think SKS will find it hard to resist DJT's order. Chance of getting back in the good books and reflected glory if, by some miracle, it goes well vs. HMS Dragon on the bottom of the Iranian Gulf. At least there wouldn't be endless C-17 rotations of coffins coming into BZZ. The sea keeps those whom she takes.

The thought of sending US forces who occupy large teaches of UK land back home to Donald is very appealing.

Even more appealing is what the extensive land, with existing infrastructure and high security could be quite quickly be turned in to more so.

Prisons
Immigration Centres
New Towns

New Airports dual commercial and public use
Wind or Solar farms or both
Data Centres

Crack on I say

To coin a phrase

Fuck en off
Get into em

ajb

Somewhat concerned as to what clanger Starmer will drop in his "address to the nation" this morning. Crossed fingers that Trump hasn't bounced him into committing our forces to this debacle.

As for Cooper, while the comments earlier were indeed crass, I would hope that Labour would not follow one tin-eared mediocrity with another. Wouldn't bet against it though.