2020 Labour Leadership Election

[brucejoel99]

Very interesting article in the Sunday Times- there politics team is still one of the best sourced for Labour.

Nothing hugely surprising; Milne (the toxic director of communications) is leaving & reports Starmer is going to rid of Jennie Formby- the General Secretary & effective CEO of the Labour Party (who controls party staffing, budgets & has a seat on the NEC)

My favourite rumour about Formby was that she was demoted whilst at UNITE because her views on Palestinian/Israel were too extreme for UNITE. Quite an achievement.

Sacking her is harder to do- iirc the General Secretary can only be removed by the NEC (where starmer lacks a clear majority) and you'd need to wait for the EHCR report to find evidence to justify a sacking.

Of course there's a chance that Formby decides not to stay & just quits; the last GS Ian McNicol quit after 10 years when Corbyn and co were at the height of their power.

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1244182535241977856

Some excellent decisions & choices there.

[Blair]

The discussion online (aka labour twitter) is interesting; a lot of people seem convinced that if Starmer picks Reeves then it's proof he's a Blairite. Of course I wonder how many of these people actually voted for Keir...

It might just be the circles I'm in but the Labour Party really is remarkable in that it's the only party where the leader isn't allowed to pick the Shadow Cabinet they want. I still find it remarkable we use to have Shadow Cabinet elections & winched whenever people called for them to return.

There was none of this back and forth when May picked Hammond or when Cameron picked Osborne (both choices which certainly weren't safe or necessarily obvious picks)

I say this as someone who obsessed over the picks in 2015 & is aware this is extremely hypocritical- although my view was that Corbyn should have had his own Cabinet from the beginning.

Picking someone like Reeves who served quite well on the frontbench & served with relatively little controversy- whilst having no personal issues should be seen as relatively sane. Sure you can ideologically question it but then surely like 50% of the PLP fall into the same ideological category of her.

Besides the thing most people miss is that you actually get a fair few appointments; Shadow Chancellor, three junior ministers, Chief Secretary & Business; I'm old enough to remember when Reeves and Chuka where the left wingers pushing Ed to do more!

[brucejoel99]

The discussion online (aka labour twitter) is interesting; a lot of people seem convinced that if Starmer picks Reeves then it's proof he's a Blairite. Of course I wonder how many of these people actually voted for Keir...

It might just be the circles I'm in but the Labour Party really is remarkable in that it's the only party where the leader isn't allowed to pick the Shadow Cabinet they want. I still find it remarkable we use to have Shadow Cabinet elections & winched whenever people called for them to return.

There was none of this back and forth when May picked Hammond or when Cameron picked Osborne (both choices which certainly weren't safe or necessarily obvious picks)

I say this as someone who obsessed over the picks in 2015 & is aware this is extremely hypocritical- although my view was that Corbyn should have had his own Cabinet from the beginning.

Picking someone like Reeves who served quite well on the frontbench & served with relatively little controversy- whilst having no personal issues should be seen as relatively sane. Sure you can ideologically question it but then surely like 50% of the PLP fall into the same ideological category of her.

Besides the thing most people miss is that you actually get a fair few appointments; Shadow Chancellor, three junior ministers, Chief Secretary & Business; I'm old enough to remember when Reeves and Chuka where the left wingers pushing Ed to do more!

Yeah, & she's certainly qualified. Trained as an economist & worked at the Bank of England. Why shouldn't he pick somebody who's even vaguely competent?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first priority of the next leader must be to unite the party. Rightly or wrongly, there's a significant share of the Labour base that's going to start off suspicious of Starmer's left-wing credentials, and he must take that into consideration, including in his cabinet appointments, if he wants to be an effective leader.

[Pericles]

The first priority of the next leader must be to unite the party. Rightly or wrongly, there's a significant share of the Labour base that's going to start off suspicious of Starmer's left-wing credentials, and he must take that into consideration, including in his cabinet appointments, if he wants to be an effective leader.

Yes and no, unity is important but he should be careful with this. He can't afford to roll over to either the Corbynites or the right of the parliamentary party. And he has to present a credible team with a credible platform at the next general election, so maybe at times that motivation will conflict with party unity. He needs to also change the party significantly, he can't just appease the far-left and let issues like anti-Semitism continue to rot Labour's image. The 2015 election shows the perils of taking unity too far, where Labour didn't properly reckon with its weaknesses and so suffered another disastrous defeat.

[Blair]

The first priority of the next leader must be to unite the party. Rightly or wrongly, there's a significant share of the Labour base that's going to start off suspicious of Starmer's left-wing credentials, and he must take that into consideration, including in his cabinet appointments, if he wants to be an effective leader.

All depends on the margin of victory really; if he gets North or 55% in the first round then it’s fair to argue he can do what he wants whilst still giving people like Long-Bailey and Clive Lewis some sort of shadow cabinet based role.

[CumbrianLefty]

The first priority of the next leader must be to unite the party. Rightly or wrongly, there's a significant share of the Labour base that's going to start off suspicious of Starmer's left-wing credentials, and he must take that into consideration, including in his cabinet appointments, if he wants to be an effective leader.

Yes and no, unity is important but he should be careful with this. He can't afford to roll over to either the Corbynites or the right of the parliamentary party. And he has to present a credible team with a credible platform at the next general election, so maybe at times that motivation will conflict with party unity. He needs to also change the party significantly, he can't just appease the far-left and let issues like anti-Semitism continue to rot Labour's image. The 2015 election shows the perils of taking unity too far, where Labour didn't properly reckon with its weaknesses and so suffered another disastrous defeat.

Yes, but nobody - literally nobody - thinks Starmer will just "roll over to the Corbynites".

There *will* be changes, and many will be popular with much of the membership.

(Milne and Murphy getting their marching orders, for example)

But the supposed "plan" in the ST wasn't that. The gloating portrayal - a "massacre" of the left - wasn't in this case far removed from the truth. It would be disastrous for a party that genuinely wants some sort of peace after the turmoil of the past 5 years (indeed decade, in several respects)

[morgieb]

The first priority of the next leader must be to unite the party. Rightly or wrongly, there's a significant share of the Labour base that's going to start off suspicious of Starmer's left-wing credentials, and he must take that into consideration, including in his cabinet appointments, if he wants to be an effective leader.

Yes and no, unity is important but he should be careful with this. He can't afford to roll over to either the Corbynites or the right of the parliamentary party. And he has to present a credible team with a credible platform at the next general election, so maybe at times that motivation will conflict with party unity. He needs to also change the party significantly, he can't just appease the far-left and let issues like anti-Semitism continue to rot Labour's image. The 2015 election shows the perils of taking unity too far, where Labour didn't properly reckon with its weaknesses and so suffered another disastrous defeat.

Yes, but nobody - literally nobody - thinks Starmer will just "roll over to the Corbynites".

There *will* be changes, and many will be popular with much of the membership.

(Milne and Murphy getting their marching orders, for example)

But the supposed "plan" in the ST wasn't that. The gloating portrayal - a "massacre" of the left - wasn't in this case far removed from the truth. It would be disastrous for a party that genuinely wants some sort of peace after the turmoil of the past 5 years (indeed decade, in several respects)

Yeah if the leaks are true...that is not a great sign. Sure Corbyn was a problem for Labour overall but there was good to come out of his leadership, jettionsing it altogther is not a good move. As well as a big slap in the face for a lot of Labour members.

Hypothetically that would be enough to change my vote.

[CumbrianLefty]

And as for Rachel Reeves, whether she is "competent" or not really isn't the issue (though having said that, it arguably relies on a very narrow and "bubble/beltway-ish" definition of "competence" - just how "competent" would it be to be arguably outflanked on the left by Sunak at this time?)

Firstly, there are some issues about her time as a SC member in 2010-15. Having replaced the hapless Byrne at the shadow pensions/benefits brief to general relief, she immediately waded into controversy by appearing to say that Labour would be "tougher than the Tories" on welfare claimants and not long afterwards was reported as saying "Labour is not the party for people on benefits". Now, she probably didn't quite mean it to come out like that in either instance (and with the first remark she was pretty much stitched up the Observer - a useful reminder that it was a terrible paper long before September 2015) But it at the least betrayed a lack of agility and empathy in a sensitive area, one that of course returned to haunt the party post 2015 GE with well known consequences.

But her real fall from grace came later - having been one of those who retired en masse to the back benches following Corbyn's election, she next hit the headlines during the 2016 party conference - with a bizarre, almost unhinged neo-Powellite rant on immigration during a fringe meeting, to which an audience of mostly Labour "moderates" who should have been naturally sympathetic listened to with increasing disbelief and horror. Had party management not basically totally disintegrated by this point, she would surely have been disciplined for it at the very least. Some think it merited a withdrawal from front line politics entirely.

So appointing her as SC now would be a gigantic red rag to a swathe of the party going well beyond hardcore leftists, awakening the very real fear that post-Corbyn the party would simply be going back to the status quo ante - an approach which was, never let it be forgotten, an ELECTORAL FAILURE.

It is really, really important for Starmer to get his leadership off to a good start. This would not aid that.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I think it's even simpler than that. The most important relationship in the Shadow Cabinet is that between the leader and the Shadow Chancellor. If you're going to be able to come across as united party, they have to have absolute trust in each other. Reeves cannot be trusted not to cause Starmer problems, so she's a bad pick.

Miliband still strikes me as the best option for Shadow Chancellor by far, though Dodds would be good if Starmer wants to make a virtue of having a clean slate.

I will note that the tweet thread this conversation stems from is primarily about potential appointments to party HQ and Starmer's own team. Shadow Chancellor doesn't obviously fit into such a discussion, so whether all the story deserves to be treated as own piece with equal authority is a bit of an open question.

[CumbrianLefty]

A reminder given that context, that Ed Miliband did not originally choose Balls as his SC.

And his instincts on this, as much else, were quite correct.

[EastAnglianLefty]

True, although I believe he originally wanted to pick his brother, who would have been much, much worse. Johnson was a pretty woeful pick too, which largely serves to demonstrate how few options Miliband really had for a Shadow Chancellor he could work well with.

[Blair]

And as for Rachel Reeves, whether she is "competent" or not really isn't the issue (though having said that, it arguably relies on a very narrow and "bubble/beltway-ish" definition of "competence" - just how "competent" would it be to be arguably outflanked on the left by Sunak at this time?)

I mean to give an example one of the weakest parts of the last manifesto (and in 2017) was welfare & UC- the reason it was crap was because we had a crap shadow secretary of state.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Balls was actually an effective Shadow Education Secretary, the last one there's been, really. No use crying over spilt milk and all that, but it's hard not to look at those initial opposition years and wonder...

[EastAnglianLefty]

Balls had a good combination of a forensic approach and a frankly vicious personality, which made him quite well suited for Education, where his major task was just to keep hammering all of Gove's many mistakes. Not as good at the more strategic approach a Shadow Chancellor tends to take. So that#s part of the story.

But I think he may also have suckered himself. It's fairly well-accepted that we were hindered in 2015 because the Tories were going to hammer us for profligacy whatever we said, but Balls wouldn't let us spend enough to offer anything people were actually excited about. But during the 2010 leadership election, that was very definitely not his line. I remember asking him a question when he did a speaker meeting in Cambridge during the campaign. His initial speech was all about how austerity was going to ruin the economy and we had to argue this really strongly. So I asked what we could do if despite the Tories' best efforts, the economy coped well enough to avoid a serious recession. And he essentially shrugged and said, "If that happens, we're going to lose". Very different from the risk averse strategy he was taking by the end of the Parliament.

[LabourJersey]

To ask about the actual election: will we not know the results until saturday, or is there a chance that results may be leaked/hinted after the voting period ends on Thursday?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean to give an example one of the weakest parts of the last manifesto (and in 2017) was welfare & UC- the reason it was crap was because we had a crap shadow secretary of state.

I had to look up who that even is, which tells you everything.

[brucejoel99]

To ask about the actual election: will we not know the results until saturday, or is there a chance that results may be leaked/hinted after the voting period ends on Thursday?

It might be hinted at on Saturday before the announcement (in that your Laura Kuenssberg-types will tweet about "what they're hearing," which may be right or wrong; based on the 2015/16 tweets, the general result (i.e. who wins) will be right but the numbers won't be) but the formal result won't be known until it's announced.

[Blair]

I mean to give an example one of the weakest parts of the last manifesto (and in 2017) was welfare & UC- the reason it was crap was because we had a crap shadow secretary of state.

I had to look up who that even is, which tells you everything.

I actually think she was given the DWP brief purely because she beat Mcvey in 2015.

The complete sh**tshow of universal credit is also pretty relevant now...

[Blair]

What does everyone think the final result is going to be?

I'm going to take a punt and go

Starmer: 53%

Long-Bailey: 29%

Nandy: 19%

[Coldstream]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

Corbyn certainly has limitations, but a truly "dense" or "thick" person would surely not have done as well in the election debates (both 2017 and 2019) as he did.

IMO its more an almost total lack of interest in anything outside his "comfort zone", exacerbated by having been on the Labour backbenches for so long.

You must have watched different debates to me, because I don’t think he did well at all - nor do I recall anyone giving him plaudits in the style, say, Clegg got in 2010. The only thing I can remember anyone even noting about his performance was when he said “Epsh-tyne”.

We may have been watching different debates, but the polling evidence (even in 2019 he was only just behind Johnson, if at all, in the head to head debates - when of course the Tories actually smashed it by 12 points come polling day) suggests more watched my debates rather than yours.

And obsessing about how he pronounced Epstein is one of the most obvious signs of unhinged anti-JC crankery. Just saying

Actually thinking Corbyn is a good debater is one of the most obvious signs of unhinged pro-Corbyn crankery. Just sayin ☺️

[CumbrianLefty]

Well I have never voted for him as leader, not the usual sign of a pro-Jezza "crank".

[Coldstream]

Sure. In that case I did vote for Corbyn and then became a convert to the opposition. 😉

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sure Corbyn was a problem for Labour overall but there was good to come out of his leadership, jettionsing it altogther is not a good move.

Oh, if Starmer wins then most of the past five years and all of the past three will go straight in the bin. His worldview and political priorities are just not compatible with the direction that Labour ended up taking under Corbyn, not in the slightest.

But it wouldn't be a simple matter of moving 'to the centre' or 'to the right' or whatever. Labour Party politics is much more complex than that. The thing about Starmer is that though his factional positioning is murky (he pretty clearly dislikes factionalism), his politics are anything but.

[Blair]

Sure Corbyn was a problem for Labour overall but there was good to come out of his leadership, jettionsing it altogther is not a good move.

Oh, if Starmer wins then most of the past five years and all of the past three will go straight in the bin. His worldview and political priorities are just not compatible with the direction that Labour ended up taking under Corbyn, not in the slightest.

But it wouldn't be a simple matter of moving 'to the centre' or 'to the right' or whatever. Labour Party politics is much more complex than that. The thing about Starmer is that though his factional positioning is murky (he pretty clearly dislikes factionalism), his politics are anything but.

If anybody wants the 5,000 word version of this...

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/03/sensible-radical