2020 Labour Leadership Election

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lisa Nandy.

but whoever is the nominee the press will destroy on day 1.

The press is less powerful than ever. What destroyed Corbyn, battered his reputation beyond redemption and turned dislike into loathing, was his response to the Skripal Affair. I should like to think that whoever ends up leading Labour next is at least not the sort of person whose response to the Kremlin accidentally murdering a British citizen whilst failing to assassinate one of its own former agents is to make excuses for the Kremlin.

[Blair]

Saw this elsewhere, the only 2 Labour leaders in the past 60 years to win a general election were Harold Wilson and Tony Blair.

One is dead, and the other the current party hates.

Good luck.

The sort of "killer stat" that simultaneously means everything and nothing.

For a start, would Labour have won in 1997 had John Smith lived? Of course they would, easily.

That alone makes the "only Blair can win elections for Labour in modern Britain" meme so beloved by some centrists meaningless - it is simply an accident of history, little more.

Though if you want to take things further - only four Labour people have become PM through elections *ever*. And guess what, one of those is even more reviled in party folk memory than Mr Tony is

I remember when some on the left claimed Blair only won 1997 because of the sh**t opposition- as both 2017 & 2019 shows you need a very very strong operation in place to win.

I don't believe Blairism is at all the future of Labour; but it's a mistake to ignore the organisational strength we had in the 1990s.

[Blair]

Hopefully Labour selects Diane Abbot as the next party leader. What’s her stance on Brexit anyway.

If you have to ask that the first part of your statement is rather redundant.

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

Why is no one saying Ian Lavery?

[politicallefty]

Are there no women between Blair and Corbyn ideologically? I don't really like to bring up US politics in UK topics, but who is your Amy Klobuchar? That seems to be the way to go, with just a hint more leftism.

[DL]

Given that Brexit is about to become a fait accompli - whoever Labour picks as leader - their status as a "Remainer" or a soft pro-Brexiter etc... is 100% irrelevant - unless you seriously think that anyone is going to run for the leadership on a platform of wanting the UK to rejoin Europe if they win the 2024 election. That is clearly not going to happen.  

[politicallefty]

Given that Brexit is about to become a fait accompli - whoever Labour picks as leader - their status as a "Remainer" or a soft pro-Brexiter etc... is 100% irrelevant - unless you seriously think that anyone is going to run for the leadership on a platform of wanting the UK to rejoin Europe if they win the 2024 election. That is clearly not going to happen.  

I think Labour's probably better off pushing the leadership election until after Brexit, maybe 2021. The political landscape is going to be massively transformed by the next election, which most of us are assuming won't be until late 2024. There's plenty of time for Labour to absorb the loss and figure out what comes next. As for Brexit, Boris Johnson's Conservative Majority will own it. If it turns out to be a disaster, Labour should become the full-throated Remain party. If it's not, the party needs to move on to other issues, especially where Labour is strong.

As I said before, I think the British electorate is just sick and tired of the Brexit debate. If Labour had been full-throated Remain, the Conservatives still would've almost certainly won a majority.

[CumbrianLefty]

Saw this elsewhere, the only 2 Labour leaders in the past 60 years to win a general election were Harold Wilson and Tony Blair.

One is dead, and the other the current party hates.

Good luck.

The sort of "killer stat" that simultaneously means everything and nothing.

For a start, would Labour have won in 1997 had John Smith lived? Of course they would, easily.

That alone makes the "only Blair can win elections for Labour in modern Britain" meme so beloved by some centrists meaningless - it is simply an accident of history, little more.

Though if you want to take things further - only four Labour people have become PM through elections *ever*. And guess what, one of those is even more reviled in party folk memory than Mr Tony is

I remember when some on the left claimed Blair only won 1997 because of the sh**t opposition- as both 2017 & 2019 shows you need a very very strong operation in place to win.

I don't believe Blairism is at all the future of Labour; but it's a mistake to ignore the organisational strength we had in the 1990s.

Well that at least is a claim that I have never made, he was beyond doubt an outstandingly skilled politician who grasped the "zeitgeist" of that time extremely well (after all, I voted for him as leader myself - was it really a quarter century ago?! - and barely had to even think about it) What I *may* have pointed out, however, was that the state of the Tories by the mid-1990s (*much* worse than recent years in many respects, however much some like to claim otherwise) made a Labour win all but inevitable under any even half-credible figurehead. Labour emphatically did not *need* Blair to win then, even though he did an outstanding job of it.

[Donerail]

Why is no one saying Ian Lavery?

Why on earth would anyone be saying Ian Lavery

[brucejoel99]

Are there no women between Blair and Corbyn ideologically? I don't really like to bring up US politics in UK topics, but who is your Amy Klobuchar? That seems to be the way to go, with just a hint more leftism.

From the soft left ("between Blair and Corbyn," though obviously closer to the latter), Emily Thornberry. I'd argue she's vastly improved since her White Van Man gaffe, & is probably one of Labour's best media performers, though I'm not sure how she'd go down in Labour's traditional Northern seats.

[Silent Hunter]

Why no mention of London mayor Sadiq Khan?

You need to be an MP to run for leadership. But if he seriously wants the position, I'm sure he has an ally or two in a safe labour seat willing to start an immediate by-election for him. If Corbyn allows the party time to reflect, than Khan has more time to make the moves to rejoin parliament. He probably easily passes all the other requirements since a serious chunk of London would be behind his candidacy, and there's more than enough Unions and party machinery there. Him joining would be a case of doing all the secondary steps first, and then running for a Westminster seat with the understanding that he's an immediate candidate from day one.

Khan however has two downsides behind the  obvious 'not being a MP.' Number one, hes a man. Number two though is more  important. Selecting Khan would send a clear signal that the north would remain on Labour's backburner. Khan can have a 'forwards' (not looking back ideologically but finding something new) style vision that reinvents Labour for the 2020s, but his vision is all about the Global Cities and their commuters. Ideally, rebuilt Labour's vision has a place for their northern communities alongside the expanding internationalists who want to get away from SNP/Tory nationalism.

Downside 3 for Khan is he's a practising Muslim. Islamophobia is pretty prevalent in some form in the white working class and some of his pre-MP actions as a solicitor are the sort of thing that would be misrepresented - they're not exactly Corbyn stuff, but the right-wing media will take what they can get.

Downside 4 is that I doubt Momentum would like him for his dislike of Corbyn,

Downside 5 is that his mayoralty has seen some fairly big issues at Transport for London and a spate of knife crime.

[Silent Hunter]

Are there no women between Blair and Corbyn ideologically? I don't really like to bring up US politics in UK topics, but who is your Amy Klobuchar? That seems to be the way to go, with just a hint more leftism.

From the soft left ("between Blair and Corbyn," though obviously closer to the latter), Emily Thornberry. I'd argue she's vastly improved since her White Van Man gaffe, & is probably one of Labour's best media performers, though I'm not sure how she'd go down in Labour's traditional Northern seats.

Arguably too associated with Corbyn now.

[Lord Halifax]

Why no mention of London mayor Sadiq Khan?

He is not an MP. He has the wrong gender (and to some the wrong religion). He is - fairly or unfairly - associated with rising knife crime and saying that terrorism is "part and parcel of living in a great city".

Why would electing the mayor of London be a good idea if you're trying to distance yourself from being viewed as the party of the metropolitan elites?

[brucejoel99]

Are there no women between Blair and Corbyn ideologically? I don't really like to bring up US politics in UK topics, but who is your Amy Klobuchar? That seems to be the way to go, with just a hint more leftism.

From the soft left ("between Blair and Corbyn," though obviously closer to the latter), Emily Thornberry. I'd argue she's vastly improved since her White Van Man gaffe, & is probably one of Labour's best media performers, though I'm not sure how she'd go down in Labour's traditional Northern seats.

Arguably too associated with Corbyn now.

True, but if it's the likes of Long-Bailey & Rayner that she's up against, then that probably wouldn't be as much of an issue for her as it is for them.

[Frodo]

Why no mention of London mayor Sadiq Khan?

You need to be an MP to run for leadership. But if he seriously wants the position, I'm sure he has an ally or two in a safe labour seat willing to start an immediate by-election for him. If Corbyn allows the party time to reflect, than Khan has more time to make the moves to rejoin parliament. He probably easily passes all the other requirements since a serious chunk of London would be behind his candidacy, and there's more than enough Unions and party machinery there. Him joining would be a case of doing all the secondary steps first, and then running for a Westminster seat with the understanding that he's an immediate candidate from day one.

Khan however has two downsides behind the  obvious 'not being a MP.' Number one, hes a man. Number two though is more  important. Selecting Khan would send a clear signal that the north would remain on Labour's backburner. Khan can have a 'forwards' (not looking back ideologically but finding something new) style vision that reinvents Labour for the 2020s, but his vision is all about the Global Cities and their commuters. Ideally, rebuilt Labour's vision has a place for their northern communities alongside the expanding internationalists who want to get away from SNP/Tory nationalism.

Downside 3 for Khan is he's a practising Muslim. Islamophobia is pretty prevalent in some form in the white working class and some of his pre-MP actions as a solicitor are the sort of thing that would be misrepresented - they're not exactly Corbyn stuff, but the right-wing media will take what they can get.

Downside 4 is that I doubt Momentum would like him for his dislike of Corbyn,

Downside 5 is that his mayoralty has seen some fairly big issues at Transport for London and a spate of knife crime.

He has his drawbacks, but at least anti-Semitism isn't one of them (admittedly surprising for practicing Muslims these days):

Sadiq Khan joins Zionist Jewish Labour Movement

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why no mention of London mayor Sadiq Khan?

He is not an MP.

Why would electing the mayor of London be a good idea if you're trying to distance yourself from being viewed as the party of the metropolitan elites?

The incumbent #populist Prime Minister was Mayor of London for eight years.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think Labour's probably better off pushing the leadership election until after Brexit, maybe 2021.

This is not the United States! It is not a question of picking a nominee for Prime Minister but in selecting a man (or woman) to be the Leader of the Opposition. And it was Corbyn's failure in that role that set Labour up for Thursday's cataclysm as much as anything else.

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

Why is no one saying Ian Lavery?

Why on earth would anyone be saying Ian Lavery

He is a newish face, chair of the labour party, trade unions bona fides, won in a leave constituency and is from the north, supporter of corbyn. He definitely should be a candidate for the hard left.

[Silent Hunter]

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

[politicallefty]

I think Labour's probably better off pushing the leadership election until after Brexit, maybe 2021.

This is not the United States! It is not a question of picking a nominee for Prime Minister but in selecting a man (or woman) to be the Leader of the Opposition. And it was Corbyn's failure in that role that set Labour up for Thursday's cataclysm as much as anything else.

I know that and I already said it. My point was that there is a lot of time now. This is now likely to be a government that lasts until at least early 2024. It's a pretty substantial Conservative Majority. There is no need for a quick leadership election. The Labour Party really needs some time to figure itself out.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

I don't understand how a human could possibly put themself through that much humiliation.

[Simfan34]

I think Labour's probably better off pushing the leadership election until after Brexit, maybe 2021.

This is not the United States! It is not a question of picking a nominee for Prime Minister but in selecting a man (or woman) to be the Leader of the Opposition. And it was Corbyn's failure in that role that set Labour up for Thursday's cataclysm as much as anything else.

Couldn't they do what they do in Canada, and appoint an interim leader now (Cooper?) and select a permanent leader 18 months from now?

[brucejoel99]

I think Labour's probably better off pushing the leadership election until after Brexit, maybe 2021.

This is not the United States! It is not a question of picking a nominee for Prime Minister but in selecting a man (or woman) to be the Leader of the Opposition. And it was Corbyn's failure in that role that set Labour up for Thursday's cataclysm as much as anything else.

To be fair, it's quite possible that presiding over the next year or so of Brexit & the immediate aftermath thereof would do a lot to damage the reputation of the new leader. From that perspective, it makes sense for Labour to want to delay the election of its next leader until after Brexit has happened, so that they're not fatally tainted come 2024. And I suspect that Corbyn, already unpopular as he so evidently is, is happy to stay on as the de-facto caretaker so long as is necessary, especially since (unlike previous leadership resignations & subsequent contests) there isn't currently a deputy leader to serve as caretaker were he to resign right now.

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

I don't understand how a human could possibly put themself through that much humiliation.

Yeah, PMQs on Wednesday will be utterly hilarious.

[thumb21]

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

I don't understand how a human could possibly put themself through that much humiliation.

John Major had to do the same for a few weeks in 1997. Then again, he had 3 or 4 years to come to terms with what was gonna happen.

[adma]

I know inappropriate Yankee comparisons are frowned upon; but I'm wondering if, when it comes to aging hard-left political icons, Corbyn would have had more of a chance of holding the North were he more like a UK Bernie Sanders--and I have in mind Sanders' 2016 primary strength in the Obama/Trump rust belt, and how he struck a "LaFollette Progressive" note across a lot of the heartland.

That is, in the present climate, it's less about simple left vs right, than about transcending the "metropolitan" divide.  And I state that in this thread as a guideline for future leadership.  (Keeping in mind, of course, how Blair bridged the divide through the simple fact of representing Sedgefield.  Which I guess, is sort of like Bernie representing Vermont.)

*Is* there anyone around now with the ambidexterity to bridge that divide, regardless of where they hold their seat?