2020 Labour Leadership Election

[Oryxslayer]

Can thread title be changed to "2020 Labour Party Civil War"?

I'm not sure it's needed. If Labour actually approaches this smartly we will see something like the 2012 GOP autopsy report come out before Corbyn resigns in the nest few months. Admittedly, the GOP autopsy was slanted to promote the Jeb/Rubio vision of the party, and Trump ended up proving that the GOP didn't need to follow that vision. However, a statistical analysis of which parts of the Corbyn era worked and what didn't.  All sides of this issue need to be analyzed: why Labour was unable to keep or build upon her surge in the Southeast from 2017, why voters in the North thought Labour was the establishment that needed to be kicked out on a incumbent govts "time for change," what issues are party issues and what problems are leadership issues, and most importantly find what all potential voters want in a 21st century party.  It will reduce infighting if done right and the party will have a clear path to power, not ideological bickering.

[Oryxslayer]

I really, really, really hope that what Labour members and supporters take away from this debacle isn't that the party needs to go back to neoliberal fiscal policies and embrace hard-Remainer identity politics. We'll see.

This is what could happen you you don't actually sponser a in depth report into the 2019 election and Corbyn era in general. If 2019 was an action, then some will conclude  you should go to the opposite position (the reaction) to have a shot. However, the truth is actually in between and likely off to the side. You can't keep going back to an old eras policies, be they the workers movements of the 70s or New Labour of the 90s. The best parties are able to find something new and then use it to build up something different than what came before. Obama's Democratic coalition fully unleashed the power of minorities, Harper recognized the power in the western alienation and their revolt style message, Berlusconi recognized the anger at traditional parties and used that to remold Italian democracy, and tbh, the Tories now have Brexit. Labour needs something like that.

[Oryxslayer]

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.

[Oryxslayer]

The clear thing that Nandy has going for her is that she has a explanation for why Labour is losing that isn't based on ideology. It's the kind of thing that I think a lot of people was to see, an argument that is not backwards to factional fights but forwards towards a different Labour priority-wise (but still with factions) than what came before. I guess we will see if the others have such an approach in the coming weeks, but it's her advantage for now.

[Oryxslayer]

Jeremy Hunt isn't even in cabinet, let alone a top ministry, and that didn't hurt Boris at all. So possibly the unity argument is overrated and Starmer should just focus on appealing to the wider public-that will end up bringing unity presumably. However, I'm not sure how the Labour dynamics work exactly and maybe Labour is too different from the Tories for a Boris kind of approach to work.

Though I think Hunt was offered a cabinet post but declined?

And I agree the dynamics of this one are possibly different anyway - if Starmer wins a desire for greater party unity will have been a big part of it, and he will be expected to act appropriately. And bringing back a load of right wingers to the front bench - at the expense of the left presumably - might not be the best way to "appeal to the public" in any case? Especially since Labour's *policies* were by all polling evidence a poor third behind Corbyn and Brexit as an explanation for last month's calamity.

But they were a factor and denialism on that front will do your party no favours.

I agree with your overall point though and Starmer is doubtless smart enough to realise that. As long as some of the more objectionable Corbynites (see Burgon, Richard) are kept miles away from senior posts I don't see how it would contradict the overall message of a Starmer leadership ("We aren't sh!t this time")

Well, perhaps. But there was a poll by BMG out earlier this month which showed both the expected (that with both Labour and the LibDems effectively leaderless, Tories might hope to actually increase their majority in any new GE) and the somewhat less so - that despite this, almost *all* the key policies proposed by Labour last month were still popular with voters. Despite the media narrative, for example (backed up by Lisa Nandy in this instance) that the "free broadband" proposal was a massive turn-off for the wider electorate - this poll showed a big majority in favour.

The real question is why despite this, the actual manifesto did not convince (and 2017's did a much better job in that respect) But the idea that Labour now needs to massively lurch to the right looks at least as wrong headed as it was in the immediate aftermath of the 2015 GE.

Well, this begs a question why didn't a massive chunk of the country back Labour if a majority of voters approve of the policies in the Labour manifesto. The likely answer is that Labour failed to provide a serious answer to the hot-button issues that actually moved voters. Labour put forward 80s style welfare advances and the voters response was something like: "That great, I like your ideas, but what are you going to do about Brexit/Scotland/Antisemitism?" This is the same reason why there are voters out there in Iowa who strongly support universal healthcare but voted for Trump. The issues that said voters care about motivate their votes far more than issues perceived as backburner issues. The sad truth of the matter is that those three issues mentioned are all driven by culture or identity, and those type of issues are likely to keep getting more common in elections, not less so. Labour therefore either needs strong responses to blunt these issues, active leaders who are willing to throw out identity issues into the electorate rather than keep responding to what comes their way, or be willing to embrace the polarizing divide brought forward by these issues.

[Oryxslayer]

Possibly the slightly more notable thing is that I don't think Nandy has picked up a nomination. The rumour is that she's in with a shot at getting the CWU nomination, but if she doesn't seem like a viable candidate in her own right then there isn't necessarily a good reason for them to waste political capital when they could nominate somebody who might win instead.

This post didn't age well.

[Oryxslayer]

I suspect a large chunk of both Starmer's and RLB's voters would choose Nandy as their second option rather than the alternative. So Nandy's job right now then is to get into second, or or at least crack the duopoly at the top, something that isn't too hard if people get fed up with their options. But, it does require a contingent to be turned off by both a la Braun in Indiana, and it's not clear yet if there is one or how big it is.

[Oryxslayer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1222639774885982208

Could the Tories realistically financially cripple the Labour party by having more frequent elections? There were rumours that the two main Spanish parties were comfortable with so many elections because they knew that Ciudadanos and Podemos couldn't keep up. Wondering what are the rules in terms of finances in the UK.

If such a situation comes to pass, parties tend to merge to deal with their spending. Israel is going on their third election, and the number of participating parties has decreased each time as they form 'joint tickets' to save cash. Such a tactic from the Tories may just end up backfiring, since the smaller Lib-Dems may just form such a pact with Labour too mitigate cash outflow.

[Oryxslayer]

I think Nandy's comments are best understood when we consider the goal of her campaign and her targeted demographic if she wins. The unspoken question right now about Scottish Independence is what will the SNP or their voters do when BoJo tells them that Westminster will never approve IndyRef2 while he is in office. If one of the major Scottish players does something rash out of emotions that threatens the integrity of the Union, the Tories would love launch a Catalan style crackdown on the region. This whole strategy would further polarize Scottish voters (locking in Unonist support) but it would also reactivate that sense of English/British nationalism which powered Boris's majority. Boris would love to make Unity at any cost, like in Spain, a core tenant of both his platform and the nationalist ideal imagined by his voters.

Nandy in this regard seems well in touch with her northern 'towns' and the voters she would try to attract back. Nationalism, Nostalgia, and Identity are powerful motivators with these communities, which is why BoJo punched deep into Labour territory.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1227022190614323201

This is quite literally an autopsy report, so ignoring it is ones own personal risk...