2020 Labour Leadership Election

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This promises to be a right laugh.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An important issue to remember is that the EHRC report is expected in the new year. It is unlikely to make the already discredited current leadership look particularly good.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Jarvis had a terrible result in his own seat, partly through local stick for now having "two jobs".

No worse than anyone else in that area, and the problems will have been the same as for everyone else. Namely that Corbyn is now viciously despised in the area.

[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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

There's a rather bitterly funny irony that, thirty years ago, Labour grossly underperformed in London and the rest of the industrial South because it was seen as too provincial, too uninterested in metropolitan concerns, contemptuous of them even. Of course even worse than the results in the North of England were the results in the Midlands. It takes a very special sort of anti-skill to manage to win not one seat in the Potteries, just one in North Derbyshire/West Notts, and just three in the Black Country.

Of course Labour's results in London on Thursday weren't actually very good either - it's just that they were fortunate that they Tories bombed there as well, unlike the rest of the country.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Whoever gets in (and while I think speculating about possible candidates is reasonable, speculating about outcomes... too early for that, the World is changed and the Emperor has no clothes) will need to clean the stables. Will be very unpleasant. But it is urgent.

They're already allegedly facing these lawsuits after they tried to attack the Labour staffers on the Panorama program; along with the loss of short money (£1.2 million less due to seat loss), the cost of the various vanity projects implemented by Corbyns team (Labour Live cost £1 million & Karie's mysterious organisers cost £3 million) and the need to have a legal team to defend legal cases from it's own MPs it hasn't been the best 18 months for Labour HQ.

There are certain other disturbing signs that suggests that it would be a good idea to get some accountants in to look at the books and, if necessary (because it might all just be the sort of corruption that is perfectly legal combined with gross incompetence), to then have a little chat to Inspector Knacker.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To have him wheeled out on the TV as a "comic turn" come election night verged on elder abuse.

Given the incredibly dark situation regarding Skinner's bizarre candidature, there's another grim theme for Politics These Days...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No more stitch ups, please.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think it would be a good idea to pick anyone close to the present (toxic) leadership, I don't think it would be a good idea to pick anyone who was responsible for that (disastrous) leadership taking control in the first place. I don't think you can trust anyone who demonstrated such poor judgment with leadership in a situation as serious as Labour now finds itself in.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If that is really true, then the party may as well disband in its present form. Seriously.

(amongst other things - that sort of "Year Zero" repudiation of *everything* that has happened since 2015 simply will not be accepted by most of the membership; rightly or wrongly they believe that the general political stance taken by the party since then has been broadly correct, even if some other things were not)

However, I'm not at all convinced that it is.

And there are always events.

Well, taking 'its present form' literally, then what we have is a tiny cadre mostly comprised of the sort of people whom one would not ordinarily trust with the funds of a bake sale or to look after a pet without torturing it to death, propped up by a poisonous wreck of a trade union and sufficient semi-delusional active members to win low-turnout internal polls easily enough, presiding over an ill-disciplined rabble of a PLP, a body of councillors that are increasingly associated with the local authorities they serve on themselves (this is very bad!), trade unions that do function but don't appear to be able to say boo to a goose at least with respect to the party, and a large membership that is a monument to passivity. It would be good if this state of affairs were to end, I think.

Though I should clarify something. By 'responsible in the first place', I mean those figures on the Party's Right and moderate Left whose monumental miscalculations allowed for the runaway train situation of 2015. I'll forgive people the errors made in 2016 because so soon after the murder of a colleague and a devastating referendum result people were not thinking rationally. And by 'close to the present leadership' I don't mean 'has served on the frontbench'. I mean actually close.

It isn't that I want Year Zero. What has happened has happened and to deny that would be insane. But there is a need to clean the stables, and there is an imperative to not put people whose judgement can be questioned into positions where judgement matters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Starmer is favored by the betting markets, do you know why? I would have thought it would be hard for a London remainer to win.

He's the bookies favourite (for now) because a survey over the Summer showed him with the strongest numbers in a hypothetical contest.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And I do think btw that Labour's local government record is an "elephant in the room" that isn't talked about as much as it might be - there are some very good councils out there but we all know they are not the majority. Bolsover, for instance (to pick just one example out of several possibles) where the local worthies infamously seemed more concerned at handing out generous allowance rises and baubles to themselves than administrating effectively - maybe that is not unconnected to the lurch to the right there not just in this election but since 2005?

Yes, but I think it is best understood as a background factor, as something that increases the vulnerability to extremely poor performances rather than which directly causes them. A situation not unlike, and the parallels are interesting, Labour's massive underperformances in much of London in the 1980s. Labour didn't lose Walthamstow in 1987 because it had a bad Labour council, but it made it more likely. Labour didn't lose Bolsover in 2019 because it has a bad Labour council, but it doubtless increased the scale of the loss (along with a certain other issue, but let's not for now).

The flipside is that 'good' Labour councils did not result in 'better' performances, but that makes sense as well: if Labour were on the up and had a good image, then this pattern would doubtless invert! And, er, one district council with a Labour majority that does appear to be well regarded (Bassetlaw) saw one of the very worst Labour performances of all, but that's because the national Labour brand was beyond mud there this time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some claim most of these new members are moderates who left the party after 2016.

I would be careful about making assumptions about ideological direction, but, sure, anyone joining up after an election like this is likely to wish to vote for Change in some capacity.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

According to BBC candidates for leader need nominations from:  

either

- at least 10% of Labour MPs (203) and MEPs (10), so presumably 22 (to get above 21.3)
- at least 5% of Labour's constituency parties

or

- three affiliated bodies (two of which must be trades unions) adding up to 5% of affiliated members.

Are there any candidates that may be unable to meet these requirements?

This is not correct. All candidates need to hit the PLP requirement plus either the CLP or affiliate requirement.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Potential Candidates - Leadership

1. Declared

Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury) - Shadow Foreign Secretary. Lawyer; a distinguished Human Rights barrister. Labour's very own Vicar of Bray in factional and ideological terms. A good media performer, yet also gaffe prone. It is hard to assess her performance as Shadow Foreign Secretary as that was an area of policy that LOTO very much monopolised; mostly she was left defending (enthusiastically but not always convincingly) whatever line had obviously come from that direction. Has a reputation as something of a snob, which means she may struggle to get the requisite PLP nominations. Presently engaged in the early stages of defemation litigation against one of the MPs who lost their seat, which one cannot imagine is wonderful PR. Her social background is rather complicated and quite literally Dickensian: he father was a man who later became Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, but she actually grew up in poverty after he abandoned her mother, her and her siblings. The oddest of ducks.

2. As Good As Declared, But Things Can Happen

Rebecca Long-Bailey (Salford & Eccles) - Shadow Business Secretary. Another lawyer - a corporate law solicitor though, at at the property end of that as well (lmao). Left-winger. A protege of John McDonnell's but otherwise a bit of a cipher. A lightweight and a non-entity. Close to Angela Rayner and appears to have done a deal with her (Rayner to run for Deputy etc), which is odd because Rayner is the charismatic one, the one that doesn't come across as actively robotic on television. She has two points in her favour: she represents a constituency in the North of England, and she can point to a working class background, culturally at least (father was a dockside union official).

Lisa Nandy (Wigan) - a backbencher since 2016, formerly Shadow Energy Secretary. Currently runs a think tank called the Centre for Towns. This is a word you may hear rather a lot from her. Towns. Used to work as a policy adviser in the charity sector. Soft Left. Has been mooted as a potential leadership candidate for ages, but has never come so close to actually running as this time. A capable media performer and public speaker (which interesting as she didn't used to be). Has been arguing for years that Labour has been excessively focused on metropolitan areas (not just London but also e.g. Manchester, Birmingham etc) and metropolitan concerns to the exclusion of the rest of the country - this will almost certainly be her main pitch. She represents (of course!) a town in the North of England and is herself a Northerner; she grew up in Bury, which is a town. Her father is Dipak Nandy, a Marxist academic originally from Bengal. She is also the granddaughter of Frank Byers, a West Country Liberal MP in the 1940s and later the Liberals leader in the Lords. Towns.

Sir Keir Starmer (Holborn & St Pancras) - Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union. Lawyer, well, a bit more than that. The grandest of Labour barristers: Director of Public Prosecutions 2008-13, one-time join head of the Doughty Street Chambers, involved in the McLibel case and there's a long list of things that could be noted here. He doesn't like the 'Sir', but, well, he has it. His exact factional and ideological position is not certain. The general assumption is Soft Left (after all, he has served in the Shadow Cabinet post-2016), but this may not be accurate. Most likely is that he is just not much of a factionalist at all. He is, needless to say, an effective media performer and public speaker. He is a Londoner (Southwark born and bred) and represents a London constituency. This will be held against him (somewhat hypocritically, one suspects, but welcome to THIGMOO). Working class background; actually the most 'ordinary' working class background of any semi-certain contender. Very, very Labour background as well, as the name testifies. Curiously, if he were to grow a beard he would look strikingly like his namesake: similar face.

3. Strongly Rumoured...

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford) - Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee and previously... well, you know the story here. By this point she qualifies as being on the Right. If she were to run it would be interesting to see if she goes for a Turn The Clock Back approach or something new; either way I'm not sure if a figure so embedded with all that has happened should run. Labour Aristocracy background (in the modern rather than historical sense; father was a Union General Secretary) and represents a seat in the North of England. As said seat is normally a very strong one but this time she was only narrowly returned - difficult to understand quite how violently hated Corbyn is in normally solid Labour milieus in the old Yorkshire coalfield unless you have personal links to them, as I do - I suppose she might have things to say. But it still strikes me as an error.

Clive Lewis (Norwich South) - Shadow Minister for some meaningless post. I've rarely come across more openly obvious wallet inspectors in the Labour Party and that's saying a lot. Used to be Soft Left, currently assumes the form of a harder kind. You just know that back in the day he'd have been firmly Blairite. I refuse to take a potential candidacy from this direction seriously unless forced to.

Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) - Self-crowned Queen of Mercia, Empress of the Banter Islands and Princess Bishop of the Motormouth Marches. Local government/charity background in terms of prior employment. One could try to place Phillips in to an ideological or factional bracket, but this would be an error. She is primarily a gadfly. Very hostile to the present leadership and with a famously bad relationship with just about everyone even vaguely associated with it. She does have a genuine popular following of sorts, though how many presently have a vote I'm not sure. Still, beware of the power of Mumsnet. If they put their collective Will to it I'm sure they could do entryism better than Trots or even the Canadian wing of the SAD. Phillips likes to imply that she comes from a working class background, but she doesn't. She is, however, most definitely a Brummie, and while the focus has been on Labour's poor performance in the North of England, results in the Midlands were even more disturbing.

4. Their Names Have Been Mentioned, But Is It Likely, Actually?

Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) - Shadow Secretary of State for Health. Apparatchik. Soft Left; always very close to Ed Miliband. Not the worst media performer but is very... well... he's an apparatchik, you know? His whole life. And that comes across. You know the style. Those leaked comments in the last week of the GE might hurt him were he to run (I guess?) even though a) it was more than a bit disgusting that they were leaked by a 'friend' and b) it isn't as if he said anything that wasn't true. Is he actually ambitious? Almost as much of a cipher as Long-Bailey, frankly.

Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) - Mayor of the Sheffield City Region. Army man: officer in the Parachute Regiment, rising to the rank of Major. Served in (amongst other places) Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Was, hilariously, a witness to the Pristina Airport Incident (you know, when Wesley Clark tried to start the Third World War). Has often been mooted as a possible leadership candidate (mostly because: ARMY MAN. HARD), but it has never been clear if he's actually ambitious in that way. Aligned with whatever passes for the Right these days, but this is complicated as well: his personal views on social policy and economics are known to be rather left-wing, which is why the Progress mob have always been wary of him.

David Lammy (Tottenham) - currently a backbencher. An interesting figure. A lot of people who don't know the Labour Party assume that Lammy must be a left-winger because he is black and is active on minority rights issues. And he also nominated Abbott in 2010 and Corbyn in 2015. But he isn't. He's solidly on the Right, in a rather communitarian kind of way. He nominated Abbott and Corbyn to 'broaden the debate' (a phrase we shall never hear again, one suspects). I don't know whether he really is actually ambitious in this way; he's never shown sign of it before. But we live in strange times. Working class, frankly poor and deprived, background. And his politics - including the communitarian stuff - is rooted in that.

A.N. Other (Grimtown East) - there's always space for another isn't there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Potential Candidates - Deputy Leadership

1. Declared

Dawn Butler (Brent Central) - Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities. Left-winger, though what you might think of as an independent left-winger. As someone who lost what had been a safe seat and then regained it, I suppose she could have a personal insight in certain recent events that might be of use. Not the worst media performer, but a bit gaffe prone. GMB official before going into politics. Background is second generation immigrant lower middle class.

Conor McGinn (St Helens North) - Backbencher, though has had minor shadow roles in the past. Right-winger. A certain sort of machine politician who has always worked in or around politics, skipping from one organisation to another, many of which relate to the Irish diaspora here. McGinn is from Northern Ireland, from County Armagh, and his father was once a Sinn Fein councillor. A Fabian and also active in the strange and mysterious Labour Party Irish Society.

Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham Perry Barr) - Shadow Minster of State for Europe. Right-winger. Hilarious, sketchy Mirpur-born Birmingham machine politician. Friend and ally/crony of Tom Watson's. Never knowingly one of Labour's intellectuals, he is nevertheless, quite amazingly, not the potential candidate for this post with the lowest IQ (see, Burgon, Richard). Another trade unionist; the former AEEU, now (via Amicus) the engineering section of Unite.

Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) - Shadow Secretary of State for Education. Left-winger and seemingly part of a de-facto slate with Long-Bailey (see above) but her relationship to the Left cadre is a little murky, a little grey. She's not against it or even properly independent of it, but she's not exactly of it either. Another trade unionist! Unison this time; she was a care worker. Capable media performer, has a certain brash charisma of sorts. Working class background and, as everyone knows, left school with no qualifications due to pregnancy.

2. I'm Very, Very Sorry But These People Appear To Be Considering It As Well...

Richard Burgon (Leeds East) - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. Left-winger and a fully-paid up member of the Left cadre. Prize moron. Solicitor. A complete fucking idiot who was selected for his seat because of who his uncle is (Colin Burgon, well regarded MP on the Left with very good connections across Leeds Labour), so, yes, a product of an unusually literal case of nepotism. A media performer so bad that he's quite unintentionally entertaining. His candidacy is sponsored by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) - Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade. On the left-wing... of the BJP. He isn't Hindu and he isn't even Indian (he is a Scottish Anglican), but such things are mere trivialities to the King of the Cranks. Perhaps it began as pandering to his constituents (many of whom are of Indian extraction, and many of these Gujarati Patels) but by this point it is all quite sincere. He is actually one of Labour's best media performers, which is why, to the horrified amusement of many, he became a senior Party figure during the Corbyn years. He has a background in academic philosophy and shipping insurance. Oh, and he is very pro-China as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The whole Brexit issue is about to transform, yes. Of course, it should be no consolation because a landslide loss is a landslide loss is a landslide loss, but one consequence will be the removal of BREXIT as a wickedly effective wedge-issue and motivator for otherwise infrequent-not-very-political-voters to the benefit of the government. It may turn out they'd have done better to win by less. Not that they'll mind at this moment, not at this moment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One other thing you might have mentioned about Lammy is that he is very, *very*, VERY pro-remain. Could well be the "rejoin the EU literally the day after we have left" candidate - which actually might be a useful foil to Starmer/Thornberry if you are being cynical.......

Yes, that's correct. He would be the only potential candidate likely to go down that track; most of the others would clearly rather kill the issue stone dead (except as an issue of political management, which is different and almost certainly worse for the government). Actually that's one reason why I'm not sure if I entirely believe the rumours - it might just be people of the #FBPE tendency wishing out loud, but we shall see.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The silence from Long Bailey continues and is starting to get a little strange. We've actually heard more from people who are probably not going to run...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some vague speculation about a possible candidacy from Ian Lavery. This is strange for several reasons. The first is that he had earlier ruled out running (he has now shifted towards 'probably not, will think over Christmas, etc'), the second is that while he has a certain roguish charm this does come with the price tag of, well, him being a bit of a rogue with attached baggage, the third is that the people signal-boosting the idea with the most enthusiasm are the more extreme parts of the Left - this being peculiar because Lavery is actually one of the most moderate figures associated with the Left cadre and was in open heavy disagreement with its political and electoral strategy in the runup to the election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(on a more trivial level, his being a "Sir" might be weaponised as well)

That would almost certainly backfire quite hilariously.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Brexit related, innit - he was one of *the* most sceptical SCers about pivoting for another referendum and the wing of Corbynism who were never sold on that have adopted him as their champion.

Yeah, I was talking about this with someone shortly after I made that post and went 'oh f*** it' a LEXIT thing isn't it?'

oy oy oy

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Richard Burgon has confirmed that he will, indeed, be running for Deputy Leader. Galactic levels of entitled, arrogant unselfawareness.