2020 Labour Leadership Election

[brucejoel99]

He hasn't seemingly been mentioned all that much in this thread, but I definitely think that Keir Starmer would be the best option to serve as the next leader, as things stand, though I'm open to hearing what all potential contenders have to say.

Why no mention of London mayor Sadiq Khan?

Not an MP.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Yes because it makes great sense to maintain in a leadership position a discredited and widely loathed figure who has repeatedly demonstrated a near-total inability to function as an effective Leader of the Opposition.

Incidentally, the EHRC report is out in the new year and the general expectation in the legal world is that it will be devastating.

Yes, better to have the already-tainted figure be (further) tainted by Brexit happening (which, regardless of how "effective" a LOTO he was, he can no longer do anything about since the Tories have now formed a majority government) then have the new leader who still has future campaigns to run.

[brucejoel99]

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.

It can't be as bad as Al Gore denying the challenges to the 2000 election as the presiding officer of the joint congressional session counting of the electoral vote.

Also Nixon in 1960! (Though he obviously came back from it.)

[brucejoel99]

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.

It can't be as bad as Al Gore denying the challenges to the 2000 election as the presiding officer of the joint congressional session counting of the electoral vote.

Also Nixon in 1960! (Though he obviously came back from it.)

I don't think there were any challenges then. Hawaii had switched their electors to Kennedy after the recount showed he won on January 4th, and that was not contested, and would later show how absurd the Bush v. Gore ruling was.

There were no challenges, yeah, but it's still pretty humiliating in & of itself to declare yourself the loser.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Yes because it makes great sense to maintain in a leadership position a discredited and widely loathed figure who has repeatedly demonstrated a near-total inability to function as an effective Leader of the Opposition.

Incidentally, the EHRC report is out in the new year and the general expectation in the legal world is that it will be devastating.

Yes, better to have the already-tainted figure be (further) tainted by Brexit happening (which, regardless of how "effective" a LOTO he was, he can no longer do anything about since the Tories have now formed a majority government) then have the new leader who still has future campaigns to run.

I know Al knows what he's talking about more than anyone else on here when it comes to British politics, but this time I have to agree with Bruce. British politics might be different from American politics, but whether in America or Britain or anywhere else, timing matters. The next couple of years are going to bad for Labour no matter what, for purely structural reasons. There is no point in having an "effective" Leader of the Opposition in that context. Even if Labour chose someone with '97 Blair's charisma, '64 Wilson's acumen and '45 Attlee's stature, they won't be able to achieve anything in a context where the political debate is dominated by Brexit and BoJo is riding high from his triumph. Which means the novelty of that leader would also be lost. If Corbyn stays on, sure, it might make those few years even worse, but that gives the next leader a much better chance to mark a real break from the disaster of these years. If there's something I'm missing I'd love to know what, but it really seems strategically sounder to me.

How can one even think about keeping Corbyn on for a few YEARS?

If one is worried about the new leader getting burnt with Brexit, just pick an interim leader.

As CumbrianLeftie pointed out, with the deputy post vacant, the selection process for an interim leader would be less than ideal given the, shall we say, "stress" that would be involved in said selection. It's much easier, logistically & politically, to just let JC be the caretaker himself.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1206281825846464512

[brucejoel99]

The dirty deal between Angela and Long-Bailey has been done according to the infamously reliable twitter journos.

It's the wrong way round with Angela set to run for Deputy.

Wew that's awful

[brucejoel99]

The dirty deal between Angela and Long-Bailey has been done according to the infamously reliable twitter journos.

It's the wrong way round with Angela set to run for Deputy.

Wew that's awful

Yeah, it really should have been the other way around.

Yeah, I can't help but think that RLB will just be painted as Corbyn/McDonnell 2.0; not to mention, Rayner is definitely the more impressive public speaker.

[brucejoel99]

Long-Baily does not have the Baggage that the Inner Circle Corbynites have, people like Burgon, Abbott, McDonnell.

Her colleagues in her office reportedly call her "Rebecca Wrong Daily." Make of that what you will.

[brucejoel99]

I don't want to predict anything re thresholds other than saying RLB will be on the ballot; because she's guaranteed the support of CWU/UNITE & the block of corbynity MPs.

I expect that much like in 2015 some people will make noises about running, go around the tea room and go 'oh god the 40 people who said they liked me won't actually nominate me' and will then fail to get on the ballot.

I haven't gone through the new PLP with a fine tooth comb but I'd want to see a list of declared candidates before working out who doesn't get enough MPs. 

Did anybody actually do that then apart from Mary (RIP) Creagh?

(Jarvis ruled himself out from the start)

Chuka

[brucejoel99]

Nancy is my second choice.

I doubt the British public would take it well if the Speaker of the US House of Representatives headed one of their political parties. Maybe it would appeal to the segment of the Brexiteers that supports closer ties with the US, but those aren't exactly the voters Labour needs to win back.

Ok, but actually, what if maybe...

what if we... elect Nancy Pelosi... to lead the Labour Party .. aha ha, just kidding.. unless..?

[brucejoel99]

- Nandy is lightweight and "sounds dumb"

Which is sure to be a major handicap against the famously articulate Boris Johnson.

Lisa Nandy is brown, you see

huh?

She's of Indian origin.

[brucejoel99]

RLB today gave Corbyn's leadership "10 out of 10" on ITV...just when you thought it couldn't get worse.

If he's a 10/10 (indicating that she thinks he's literally perfect), then shouldn't she be encouraging him to carry on as leader?

There's also a 7/10 EU joke that I'm too lazy to make.

Pithy comments aside, this thinking is why the far-left will always lose: you were dealt the worst defeat since 1935 & you can't even say that your leader wasn't 100% perfect, let alone actively bad.

[brucejoel99]

Um, maybe she said that *because* of the (utterly ridiculous) way many reacted to Corbyn's 7/10 EU line?

(IMO it was actually one of the *very* few things said on the "remain" side during that wretched 2016 campaign that actually resonated with the voters that needed to be won over from leave - but never mind that, JEMERY CROBYN BAD and that's all that ever mattered with most of our "opinion formers")

I mean, if we're talking about bad Remain campaigns, Labour's Remain campaign itself was also pitiful, at best, & wretched, at worst, & is a large part as to why the vote was lost in my opinion. Like him or loathe him, a lot of people look up to Corbyn, & his "7/10" enthusiasm for remaining certainly did NOT help the cause.

[brucejoel99]

Clive Lewis calls for a referendum on the future of the Royal Family.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51062770

Gamechanger

I really hope this isn't how he thought he could gain momentum among MPs to get on the ballot, because this does not achieve that.

Actually, I'd argue that he's found the most Clive Lewis way to kill off his campaign: an incredibly-popular-among-leftists constitutional position combined with his love of all things democratic that absolutely nobody outside of politics thinks is worth prioritizing.

[brucejoel99]

NUM has announced it is supporting Nandy for leader.

There was a time, and well within living memory, when such a pronouncement would have sent almost literal tremors throughout the Labour movement. These days........not so much.

Honestly didn't expect that. She's bang on the ballot now, with it sounding like she's expected to also get the GMB endorsement.

The real question is what this implies re: RLB's situation with leftist power brokers?

[brucejoel99]

EXCLUSIVE: Long-Bailey backs stricter abortion laws

Asked if the overall time-limit for abortion should be reduced, Long-Bailey pledged that the Labour Party would consult on any changes to abortion regulations, and that she would "play her part" in "ensuring that [the Catholic Church's] views are heard."

If this is true, then wtf. She'll go down as Tim Farron 2.0

[brucejoel99]

I seriously would not trust Red Roar to tell me what colour the sky above my head was.

RLB has already rebutted this convincingly.

To the church? Because I mean, yeah, I'm aware of the RR's bias & spin, but if this was aimed at a Catholic audience, then the "rebutting" doesn't make things better, hence why I prefaced it with "If this is true."

[brucejoel99]

Lisa Nandy demonstrating she knows nothing about Scotland.

She obviously wasn't suggesting that the police go & beat up Scottish nationalists & imprison Nicola Sturgeon. She said Labour needs to look to the few examples in history wherein socialism has beaten nationalism. The socialists weren't even in power when the big post-referendum crackdown took place.

[brucejoel99]

Awfully tempted to support RLB if she's getting anti-Catholic attacks for not being Maximum Woke on abortion...but no, I still think she'd probably be a disaster overall.

I am warming to the idea of her being Shadow Chancellor if Starmer wins. A good move both on a practical level (she has a very good head for detail) and symbolic (it would hugely encourage those on the left worried that he would simply "roll back" what many see as the positive aspects of Corbynism)

Yeah, they might not be close allies but I don't think they have big differences policy-wise or even dislike each other personally. Keir has strongly praised McDonnell in the past, & RLB is obviously very much his protege.

I think it's the logical choice: make RLB shadow chancellor & you ensure support from all wings of the party. Almost total unity. Whereas if he goes for somebody like Yvette Cooper or Hilary Benn, then the left will turn on him instantly.

And who else is there? I think it has to be somebody female (which makes up for him beating 4 women for the top job) & from the left or, at least, the soft-left, & probably a non-Londoner with some knowledge of economics or business. There aren't many candidates.

Or maybe I'm wrong & if he wins big, he'll go for somebody like Jess Phillips. I doubt it, though.

[brucejoel99]

USDAW have nominated: and another Starmer/Rayner double bill. And it makes Starmer the first candidate to reach the ballot.

Hard to see how Phillips or Thornberry make the ballot now, then. This was the only one of the "Big 5" unions that was at all likely to back them, so this route is now closed for them, & they both have a grand total of 0 CLP nominations thus far, so that route is looking very unlikely for them as well.

[brucejoel99]

Wouldn't be a massive shock. Thornberry doesn't bring anything to the table that Starmer doesn't aside from a large property portfolio and a tendency to put her foot in it and with electability playing so large a role this time that matters. And Phillips needs run a very good campaign to be more than a factional candidate (and of the faction with least institutional heft these days) and she hasn't done so thus far.

That said, it's still early days in terms of CLP nominations. Patterns might start to change as candidates guarantee their places on the ballot paper.

Yeah, if I was betting on it, then I'd give Phillips & Thornberry a 50/1 chance of getting on the ballot now.

Phillips' route is basically closed because most people have a pretty strong sense of who she is & I don't see that changing.

Thornberry does have potential as she had a good performance at hustings. However, given none are televised until after the nomination process closes, it's very difficult to see how she can change a significant number of people's minds now.

And yeah, there are still 600+ CLP nominations to go, so they might have a chance, but it's quite a small one. Certainly, both won't be making it onto the ballot, not least since they're effectively both fighting for the same CLP nominations (which are also the same ones that are more likely to back Starmer anyway).