2020 Labour Leadership Election

[MABA 2020]

Whatever happens I want to see Labour stick up for the union, they shouldn't give the SNP a second referendum under any circumstances

Truly a lover of democracy, you are.

They did already have their once in a generation vote six years ago, I know these days people like to redo their referendums if they don't like the result of the first but I dunno I feel thats... undemocratic?

This isn't as witty as you think it is.

Can we keep this a place where we discuss the Labour Leadership rather than put downs that are stolen from twitter & the week in Westminster.

Change the subject then, do you think Starmer will win on the first round?

[CumbrianLefty]

Its possible, he may now even be more likely to do so than Rayner in the deputy contest (she is still going to win that, its almost beyond doubt, but it may be a result more similar to Watson's in 2015)

[Blair]

I reckon Starmer will get somewhere between 45-55% in the first round; but if I had to put money on it I reckon he'll win in the first round.

Its possible, he may now even be more likely to do so than Rayner in the deputy contest (she is still going to win that, its almost beyond doubt, but it may be a result more similar to Watson's in 2015)

I checked out some information for the 2015 race & found this hilarious quote.

One party source was anonymously quoted in the Financial Times as comparing a potential contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn

I don't know where to start with this. It really shows how many people that use to dominate the party are really sh**te at their history. I don't know if it's more hilarous that someone doesn't know that Tom Watson came exactly through the old right of the party & or that they think that Flint is somehow being on par with Denis Healey.

[DaWN]

Speaking of the Deputy contest, I must say from what I've seen Burgon has been running an excellent campaign emphasising his Socialist Purity and utter loyalty to St Jeremy, with periodic reminders about how it was the fault of everyone except The Most Beloved Messiah. It seems I underrated his intelligence as he's clearly smart enough to know what the Labour membership wants to hear. Against a less formidable opponent than Rayner I think he'd be in with a real shot, but he'll do no better than second (fortunately for everyone who wants the Labour Party to be a vaguely functioning opposition, unfortunately for everyone who loves the utter hilarity that someone like that can bring. I'm a bit torn as I fall into both categories)

[Blair]

Speaking of the Deputy contest, I must say from what I've seen Burgon has been running an excellent campaign emphasising his Socialist Purity and utter loyalty to St Jeremy, with periodic reminders about how it was the fault of everyone except The Most Beloved Messiah. It seems I underrated his intelligence as he's clearly smart enough to know what the Labour membership wants to hear. Against a less formidable opponent than Rayner I think he'd be in with a real shot, but he'll do no better than second (fortunately for everyone who wants the Labour Party to be a vaguely functioning opposition, unfortunately for everyone who loves the utter hilarity that someone like that can bring. I'm a bit torn as I fall into both categories)

Once you remember that Burgon is running to become the Chair of the Socialist Campaign Group on the backbenches, Rosena is running for a shadow cabinet position, Angela is running to be leader in 2024 & Butler is running to get herself sacked from Keir's shadow cabinet it all makes sense...

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't know where to start with this. It really shows how many people that use to dominate the party are really sh**te at their history. I don't know if it's more hilarous that someone doesn't know that Tom Watson came exactly through the old right of the party & or that they think that Flint is somehow being on par with Denis Healey.

It doesn't help that so many of these types see 1994 as a sort of "Year Zero" and have such little knowledge of, and even less interest in, Labour's rich and involved history before that point.

[pikachu]

Apologies if it's been discussed before, but who's the favorite to become shadow chancellor if/when Starmer wins?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Ed Miliband was rumoured, but no actual evidence was advanced for this, because it doesn't exist.

As a general rule, rumours at this stage about Shadow Cabinet picks are only ever right by coincidence.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know where to start with this. It really shows how many people that use to dominate the party are really sh**te at their history. I don't know if it's more hilarous that someone doesn't know that Tom Watson came exactly through the old right of the party & or that they think that Flint is somehow being on par with Denis Healey.

It doesn't help that so many of these types see 1994 as a sort of "Year Zero" and have such little knowledge of, and even less interest in, Labour's rich and involved history before that point.

Similar comments can be made of the Labour Left as presently constituted as well. There's an awareness of a few key figures and a couple of particularly strong myths, but otherwise a weird blankness. In both cases this is odd. Most of the big names in New Labour had (and have) a very strong interest in Labour Party history, and you could hardly claim that people like Benn were ignorant of it either.

[CumbrianLefty]

Ed Miliband was rumoured, but no actual evidence was advanced for this, because it doesn't exist.

As a general rule, rumours at this stage about Shadow Cabinet picks are only ever right by coincidence.

Anneliese Dodds is one of the more credible suggestions, she is well regarded and has few enemies.

Of course, the paranoid segment of Corbynism are convinced it will be Rachel Reeves

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

By this rate Joe Biden is going to win the Labour leadership election...

[CumbrianLefty]

Starmer's recent campaign funding was released by the relevant Commons watchdog yesterday.

Thin pickings for the conspiracy theorists who have become vocal in recent weeks, though the fact doing it this way means the accounts aren't *totally* up to date means the usual suspects are still alleging something DEEPLY SINISTER is going on ("Blair is secretly funding him" seems to be popular with some)

[brucejoel99]

Starmer's recent campaign funding was released by the relevant Commons watchdog yesterday.

Thin pickings for the conspiracy theorists who have become vocal in recent weeks, though the fact doing it this way means the accounts aren't *totally* up to date means the usual suspects are still alleging something DEEPLY SINISTER is going on ("Blair is secretly funding him" seems to be popular with some)

I FOUND THE LINK

Richard Hermer donated £5,000

He's a barrister at Matrix Chambers

Matrix Chambers was founded in 2000 by a group of barristers including Cherie Booth QC

Cherie Booth is married to...

DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN

[CumbrianLefty]

Utterly damning stuff, expel Starmer from the party now

In other leadership news, Nandy made a statement about AOC yesterday (in a totally softball "interview" by Paul Waugh, the contrast with the other two being grilled by Neil is surely obvious) that is so utterly bizarre its hard to even accept complete ignorance as a likely cause.

[EastAnglianLefty]

She does have a point that an AOC-like figure would have been much more likely to be triggered in 2019, because implicit bias and the Corbyn wing having a lot fewer supporters in its CLPs than it thought it did both seem to have been a factor in the trigger ballots.

Honestly, I'm surprised they're still going on about Open Selections, given that all the evidence suggests the left of the party is really bad at winning selections where they don't get to fix the shortlist or impose it via the NEC. If you can't even trigger Neil Coyle, it really suggests you're not going to be able to deselect very many of your opponents.

[CumbrianLefty]

Not convinced that was her "point" at all. And perhaps *the* one thing many people know about AOC is that she got where she was now by de facto "deselecting" a well known Democrat "moderate".

Yes, it appears the left aren't as good as getting their people selected/enemies ejected as they thought/hoped - but having said that it is worth pointing out both that Coyle was close to being triggered and (it is reliably reported) used a few rather dubious tactics to stop it happening.

Of course, if one wanted to be devil's advocate it could also be asked that if open selections *are* so little threat to sitting Labour MPs - then why do so many continue to have pearl clutching fits of the vapours at the very idea, even including (disgracefully and ridiculously) threatening to leave the party if they are ever passed?

[MaxQue]

Not convinced that was her "point" at all. And perhaps *the* one thing many people know about AOC is that she got where she was now by de facto "deselecting" a well known Democrat "moderate".

Yes, it appears the left aren't as good as getting their people selected/enemies ejected as they thought/hoped - but having said that it is worth pointing out both that Coyle was close to being triggered and (it is reliably reported) used a few rather dubious tactics to stop it happening.

Of course, if one wanted to be devil's advocate it could also be asked that if open selections *are* so little threat to sitting Labour MPs - then why do so many continue to have pearl clutching fits of the vapours at the very idea, even including (disgracefully and ridiculously) threatening to leave the party if they are ever passed?

Because the very thought of members having any power is making the likes of Nandy nauseous.

[CumbrianLefty]

And now more untruths/"alternative facts" from Nandy about the 2016 "events".

She makes both Starmer and RLB look better by the day.

[Blair]

As I've said before the current system is a classic labour fudge; it gives an outsized role to Trade Unions leaders (as they rather than local union members) decide whether to trigger a sitting MP & the inclusion of Branches means that 10 people voting to trigger in two branches has more power than 100 members voting not to trigger in one branch.

But I'll bite & say I oppose it; it distracted popular and hardworking MPs in the months before the general election by making them talk to labour members about Assange, Chris Williamson & the other nonsense that gripped the party. The problem was that whilst we became a mass membership party this mass membership was not attending CLP meetings.

I believe broadly that de-selection should only apply to lazy, incompetent, corrupt or bigoted MPs- or MPs imposed on seats who have absolutely no connection

[CumbrianLefty]

As I've said before the current system is a classic labour fudge; it gives an outsized role to Trade Unions leaders (as they rather than local union members) decide whether to trigger a sitting MP & the inclusion of Branches means that 10 people voting to trigger in two branches has more power than 100 members voting not to trigger in one branch.

But I'll bite & say I oppose it; it distracted popular and hardworking MPs in the months before the general election by making them talk to labour members about Assange, Chris Williamson & the other nonsense that gripped the party. The problem was that whilst we became a mass membership party this mass membership was not attending CLP meetings.

I believe broadly that de-selection should only apply to lazy, incompetent, corrupt or bigoted MPs- or MPs imposed on seats who have absolutely no connection

Well, being totally honest between us here - there are a few of those about aren't there?

[Blair]

As I've said before the current system is a classic labour fudge; it gives an outsized role to Trade Unions leaders (as they rather than local union members) decide whether to trigger a sitting MP & the inclusion of Branches means that 10 people voting to trigger in two branches has more power than 100 members voting not to trigger in one branch.

But I'll bite & say I oppose it; it distracted popular and hardworking MPs in the months before the general election by making them talk to labour members about Assange, Chris Williamson & the other nonsense that gripped the party. The problem was that whilst we became a mass membership party this mass membership was not attending CLP meetings.

I believe broadly that de-selection should only apply to lazy, incompetent, corrupt or bigoted MPs- or MPs imposed on seats who have absolutely no connection

Well, being totally honest between us here - there are a few of those about aren't there?

Some have even ended up in the Shadow Cabinet!

The problem was that this change was aggressively supported by people who had fantasies of removing 50-60 MPs from the PLP; yet the calamity of Brexit, antisemitism and the desires of the trade unions to have a quiet pre-election meant that the fantasies remained just that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course it's an issue that is now only of relevance to around 30% of CLPs.

[CumbrianLefty]

Which arguably strengthens the case for it rather than the opposite.

[EastAnglianLefty]

My view is that until there's any evidence that they'll actually succeed in sufficient numbers, it's a waste of energy. I have no problem with the principle of it, but if it isn't actually achieving anything then what's the point of starting yet another argument that doesn't change anything?

[CumbrianLefty]

Apart from the point of principle, the main attraction for me is that it might get the worst Labour MPs to behave somewhat better (and there's always the "pour encourager les autres" thing)

Yes, many if not most of our parliamentarians would sail through irrespective of ideology.