2020 Labour Leadership Election

[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?

[adma]

Well its actually RLB and Nandy, but thanks for your input

Starmer does have definite positives, the two main concerns people have (ideology aside, anyway) are his supposed lack of charisma and his previous strong anti-Brexitism being used against him by Tories and their media supporters (on a more trivial level, his being a "Sir" might be weaponised as well)

And the fact that he is a human rights lawyer and that's a Very Bad Thing these days...

And he's a middle-aged white male at a moment when it's supposedly time for somebody other-than.

[adma]

- 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

And Boris is of Turkish background, if there's any message there.

[adma]

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.

Actually there is no one in the contest who could be described as “Blairite” the whole centre of gravity in the Labour is so much further to the left now that if Jess Phillips is now seen to be more moderate compared to Corbyn, she is still several quantum leaps to the left of Tony Blair

True and that has its pros and cons.  With younger voters being more left wing than older party risks split if as centrist as it was under Blair.  On other hand, it makes winning a majority much harder.  If you look at constituency breakdowns, Blair won in many areas, particularly in Midlands where Tories are now getting over 50% and in some cases even 60% so that suggests voters there are fairly centrists.  Other benefit of moving to centre is helps Liberal Democrats as I hate to say it, but if Liberal Democrats remain low, Tories will have a floor of close to 40% making them hard to beat, whereas if Liberal Democrats could win in Southwest like they did under Blair or perhaps gain in Home counties (as similar profile areas in Canada are going Liberal and Democrat in US) that could help.

Reality is Labour probably will need SNP to form government as in past their strength has always involved doing well in Scotland and SNP being centre-left has more or less cornered the progressive vote.  They used to be strongest in Northeastern part which is fairly conservative and now an SNP-Conservative battleground while middle belt where most live used to be a Labour stronghold but now SNP.

That is, if it's as simple as "leftism".  Remember how Bernie overperformed in the 2016 primaries in Obama/Trump country.

There's probably a UK version of that sort of "left-populism", even if nobody's put a finger on it yet (and as with Berniemania, they may not do so until it actually materializes)