2020 Labour Leadership Election

[Paleobrazilian]

Please Labour, do what's best for the UK, #backburgon and assure a 150 MP majority for Boris in 2024.

Seriously, if the hard left decides Burgon is their man, he'll run and win. Easily.

[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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Yes, better to have the already-tainted figure be (further) tainted by Brexit happening (which, regardless of how "effective" a LOTO he was, he can no longer do anything about since the Tories have now formed a majority government) then have the new leader who still has future campaigns to run.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

I don't understand how a human could possibly put themself through that much humiliation.

It can't be as bad as Al Gore denying the challenges to the 2000 election as the presiding officer of the joint congressional session counting of the electoral vote.

[brucejoel99]

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

I don't understand how a human could possibly put themself through that much humiliation.

It can't be as bad as Al Gore denying the challenges to the 2000 election as the presiding officer of the joint congressional session counting of the electoral vote.

Also Nixon in 1960! (Though he obviously came back from it.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

I don't understand how a human could possibly put themself through that much humiliation.

It can't be as bad as Al Gore denying the challenges to the 2000 election as the presiding officer of the joint congressional session counting of the electoral vote.

Also Nixon in 1960! (Though he obviously came back from it.)

I don't think there were any challenges then. Hawaii had switched their electors to Kennedy after the recount showed he won on January 4th, and that was not contested, and would later show how absurd the Bush v. Gore ruling was.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

Yes, better to have the already-tainted figure be (further) tainted by Brexit happening (which, regardless of how "effective" a LOTO he was, he can no longer do anything about since the Tories have now formed a majority government) then have the new leader who still has future campaigns to run.

I know Al knows what he's talking about more than anyone else on here when it comes to British politics, but this time I have to agree with Bruce. British politics might be different from American politics, but whether in America or Britain or anywhere else, timing matters. The next couple of years are going to bad for Labour no matter what, for purely structural reasons. There is no point in having an "effective" Leader of the Opposition in that context. Even if Labour chose someone with '97 Blair's charisma, '64 Wilson's acumen and '45 Attlee's stature, they won't be able to achieve anything in a context where the political debate is dominated by Brexit and BoJo is riding high from his triumph. Which means the novelty of that leader would also be lost. If Corbyn stays on, sure, it might make those few years even worse, but that gives the next leader a much better chance to mark a real break from the disaster of these years. If there's something I'm missing I'd love to know what, but it really seems strategically sounder to me.

[brucejoel99]

Also, we have the weekly Prime Minster's Questions. It's going to be very strange on Wednesday if Corbyn is still there.

I don't understand how a human could possibly put themself through that much humiliation.

It can't be as bad as Al Gore denying the challenges to the 2000 election as the presiding officer of the joint congressional session counting of the electoral vote.

Also Nixon in 1960! (Though he obviously came back from it.)

I don't think there were any challenges then. Hawaii had switched their electors to Kennedy after the recount showed he won on January 4th, and that was not contested, and would later show how absurd the Bush v. Gore ruling was.

There were no challenges, yeah, but it's still pretty humiliating in & of itself to declare yourself the loser.

[Intell]

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1206138279264948224?s=19

Thornberry probably won't win.

[CumbrianLefty]

Nobody is realistically talking about Corbyn staying on for a few years anyway (FWIW I agree with Al about that being totally impractical) Just a couple of months; IMO letting him "own" both ECHR and our exit from the EU, allowing a new leader to start with a fresh slate, is a sensible idea.

Besides, the party doesn't have a deputy at the moment - if he *did* resign today who would take over?

[Lord Halifax]

I predict the new leader will be a female Mancunian... (but that still leaves three possibilities )

[Lord Halifax]

Burton rules out running for leader, but not deputy.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1206142371773194241?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

[Silent Hunter]

Nobody is realistically talking about Corbyn staying on for a few years anyway (FWIW I agree with Al about that being totally impractical) Just a couple of months; IMO letting him "own" both ECHR and our exit from the EU, allowing a new leader to start with a fresh slate, is a sensible idea.

Besides, the party doesn't have a deputy at the moment - if he *did* resign today who would take over?

Shadow Cabinet and NEC would pick an interim leader pending a leadership election.

As for ECHR, while I don't think it can levy fines directly unless Labour ignored its recommendations, wouldn't it leave Labour vulnerable to some very expensive lawsuits?

[CumbrianLefty]

Nobody is realistically talking about Corbyn staying on for a few years anyway (FWIW I agree with Al about that being totally impractical) Just a couple of months; IMO letting him "own" both ECHR and our exit from the EU, allowing a new leader to start with a fresh slate, is a sensible idea.

Besides, the party doesn't have a deputy at the moment - if he *did* resign today who would take over?

Shadow Cabinet and NEC would pick an interim leader pending a leadership election.

Ah right, I can see that being a totally smooth and stress-free process

[Blair]

Nobody is realistically talking about Corbyn staying on for a few years anyway (FWIW I agree with Al about that being totally impractical) Just a couple of months; IMO letting him "own" both ECHR and our exit from the EU, allowing a new leader to start with a fresh slate, is a sensible idea.

Besides, the party doesn't have a deputy at the moment - if he *did* resign today who would take over?

Shadow Cabinet and NEC would pick an interim leader pending a leadership election.

As for ECHR, while I don't think it can levy fines directly unless Labour ignored its recommendations, wouldn't it leave Labour vulnerable to some very expensive lawsuits?

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.

[CumbrianLefty]

Burton rules out running for leader, but not deputy.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1206142371773194241?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

Burgon isn't ever going to be elected to anything save his own seat.

And you can quote me on that.....I hope

[Blair]

As I said earlier it all comes down to whether RLB or Rayner run for Leader; if Rayner runs for leader then there will be a desperate effort by the campaign group to get a 'true believer' on the ballot.

It's hilarious that the Deputy Leadership race looks like it's going to be a collection of Corbyn cheerleaders who know they're too incompetent for the top job (with the exception of Dawn Butler)

I still reckon there's a chance that one of the more senior corbynsceptics  (Thornberry, Starmer, Cooper, Lammy, etc) runs for Deputy and absolutely cleans up.

[CumbrianLefty]

Cooper is totally and absolutely yesterday's politician - would not be surprised at all if this has turned out to be her last election. She had her big opportunity in 2015, and totally blew it in almost comically bad fashion.

[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.

[CumbrianLefty]

Thinking about the possible leader/deputy options, a Rayner/Lewis combo looks at least a bit appealing.

[Blair]

Thinking about the possible leader/deputy options, a Rayner/Lewis combo looks at least a bit appealing.

I'm aware I seem to forever be making snarky comments about the Leadership but the biggest mistake was not promoting Lewis as the heir to Corbyn; he was seen as the favourite throughout 15/16 but was kicked out by Seamus because he supported Trident & he then quit the frontbench over Article 50; he should have done what Dianne did and skipped the vote!

I get he's a rather loose canon but he's miles better than RLB/Pidock & Burgon because he's actually though for himself since 2017.

[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.

[Blair]

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.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-bankruptcy-antisemitism-investigation-corbyn-executive-a9153561.html

A real worry & danger (and perhaps a reason why JC enlarged the NEC!); although hopefully whoever comes in will ditch the cranks (even if they keep part of the movement) The thing that has always annoyed me the most is how so many unsuitable people used the Corbyn project (Livingstone, Lansman, Willsman, Lavery, Webbe and others) to either avoid scrutiny or climb up through the party. *

*something of course that happens in every era but this set of characters are worse than Charles Clarke, Clare Short or others

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Boris Johnson and the Tories are gonna be the governing coalition for awhile, since Teresa May was the corrupt Trump of the 2019 election. With Biden and Boris Johnson, it will be a balance, soon enough

[SPQR]

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.

Yes, better to have the already-tainted figure be (further) tainted by Brexit happening (which, regardless of how "effective" a LOTO he was, he can no longer do anything about since the Tories have now formed a majority government) then have the new leader who still has future campaigns to run.

I know Al knows what he's talking about more than anyone else on here when it comes to British politics, but this time I have to agree with Bruce. British politics might be different from American politics, but whether in America or Britain or anywhere else, timing matters. The next couple of years are going to bad for Labour no matter what, for purely structural reasons. There is no point in having an "effective" Leader of the Opposition in that context. Even if Labour chose someone with '97 Blair's charisma, '64 Wilson's acumen and '45 Attlee's stature, they won't be able to achieve anything in a context where the political debate is dominated by Brexit and BoJo is riding high from his triumph. Which means the novelty of that leader would also be lost. If Corbyn stays on, sure, it might make those few years even worse, but that gives the next leader a much better chance to mark a real break from the disaster of these years. If there's something I'm missing I'd love to know what, but it really seems strategically sounder to me.

How can one even think about keeping Corbyn on for a few YEARS?

If one is worried about the new leader getting burnt with Brexit, just pick an interim leader.