2020 Labour Leadership Election

[DL]

Because she represents London-remainer tribe. The same can be said about Starmer. It would be a mistake for Labour to pander for this narrow segment of the electorate, but the media will certainly say they are the sane faction of the Labour party.

In the next election in 2023/24 one thing for sure is that it will not be another Brexit election. Unless you think that Brexit will be such a total catastrophe that the Brits are all clamouring for readmission to the EU!

[Pericles]

Because she represents London-remainer tribe. The same can be said about Starmer. It would be a mistake for Labour to pander for this narrow segment of the electorate, but the media will certainly say they are the sane faction of the Labour party.

In the next election in 2023/24 one thing for sure is that it will not be another Brexit election. Unless you think that Brexit will be such a total catastrophe that the Brits are all clamouring for readmission to the EU!

Labour may end up with a new dilemma there with much of its base demanding rejoining the EU but no public consensus yet for that, second referendum dilemma 2.0.

[LabourJersey]

No more stitch ups, please.

Well we still have the joy of seeing who UNISON & GMB support... in all fairness Rayner was the person most likely to get the nomination stitched up really quickly but yeah this could easily be filed under 'factional plot' gone awry part 100 in Labour History.

If Rayner was the most likely to have a clear path to an easy selection, why is she running for deputy? I understand she's friendly with RLB but it seems odd

[CumbrianLefty]

Because she represents London-remainer tribe. The same can be said about Starmer. It would be a mistake for Labour to pander for this narrow segment of the electorate, but the media will certainly say they are the sane faction of the Labour party.

In the next election in 2023/24 one thing for sure is that it will not be another Brexit election. Unless you think that Brexit will be such a total catastrophe that the Brits are all clamouring for readmission to the EU!

Labour may end up with a new dilemma there with much of its base demanding rejoining the EU but no public consensus yet for that, second referendum dilemma 2.0.

Don't see that happening much in the *immediate* future, though it may a bit more with LibDems.

[Pericles]

Because she represents London-remainer tribe. The same can be said about Starmer. It would be a mistake for Labour to pander for this narrow segment of the electorate, but the media will certainly say they are the sane faction of the Labour party.

In the next election in 2023/24 one thing for sure is that it will not be another Brexit election. Unless you think that Brexit will be such a total catastrophe that the Brits are all clamouring for readmission to the EU!

Labour may end up with a new dilemma there with much of its base demanding rejoining the EU but no public consensus yet for that, second referendum dilemma 2.0.

Don't see that happening much in the *immediate* future, though it may a bit more with LibDems.

5 years is a pretty long time in politics, the mood could easily build up in the parliamentary term. Especially as even now there is no consensus that Brexit is the right choice.

[CumbrianLefty]

No more stitch ups, please.

Well we still have the joy of seeing who UNISON & GMB support... in all fairness Rayner was the person most likely to get the nomination stitched up really quickly but yeah this could easily be filed under 'factional plot' gone awry part 100 in Labour History.

If Rayner was the most likely to have a clear path to an easy selection, why is she running for deputy? I understand she's friendly with RLB but it seems odd

Various things, but one is that she is not trusted by "hardcore" Corbynism.

[Lord Halifax]

Keir Starmer lays out case for 'radical Labour government'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/17/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-pitch-radical-government

[Paleobrazilian]

Because she represents London-remainer tribe. The same can be said about Starmer. It would be a mistake for Labour to pander for this narrow segment of the electorate, but the media will certainly say they are the sane faction of the Labour party.

In the next election in 2023/24 one thing for sure is that it will not be another Brexit election. Unless you think that Brexit will be such a total catastrophe that the Brits are all clamouring for readmission to the EU!

Labour may end up with a new dilemma there with much of its base demanding rejoining the EU but no public consensus yet for that, second referendum dilemma 2.0.

Plus, while the next GE will only be contested in 2023/24, the leadership election will start in just a few weeks, at a moment when Brexit is still *the* burning issue. This will probably lead to a curious phenomenon where some of the more globalist youngsters will join Labour to vote for someone they think that will stand up for a softer Brexit and perhaps an easier pathway for rejoining the EU (like Starmer).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If that is really true, then the party may as well disband in its present form. Seriously.

(amongst other things - that sort of "Year Zero" repudiation of *everything* that has happened since 2015 simply will not be accepted by most of the membership; rightly or wrongly they believe that the general political stance taken by the party since then has been broadly correct, even if some other things were not)

However, I'm not at all convinced that it is.

And there are always events.

Well, taking 'its present form' literally, then what we have is a tiny cadre mostly comprised of the sort of people whom one would not ordinarily trust with the funds of a bake sale or to look after a pet without torturing it to death, propped up by a poisonous wreck of a trade union and sufficient semi-delusional active members to win low-turnout internal polls easily enough, presiding over an ill-disciplined rabble of a PLP, a body of councillors that are increasingly associated with the local authorities they serve on themselves (this is very bad!), trade unions that do function but don't appear to be able to say boo to a goose at least with respect to the party, and a large membership that is a monument to passivity. It would be good if this state of affairs were to end, I think.

Though I should clarify something. By 'responsible in the first place', I mean those figures on the Party's Right and moderate Left whose monumental miscalculations allowed for the runaway train situation of 2015. I'll forgive people the errors made in 2016 because so soon after the murder of a colleague and a devastating referendum result people were not thinking rationally. And by 'close to the present leadership' I don't mean 'has served on the frontbench'. I mean actually close.

It isn't that I want Year Zero. What has happened has happened and to deny that would be insane. But there is a need to clean the stables, and there is an imperative to not put people whose judgement can be questioned into positions where judgement matters.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, that makes a bit more sense.

And I do think btw that Labour's local government record is an "elephant in the room" that isn't talked about as much as it might be - there are some very good councils out there but we all know they are not the majority. Bolsover, for instance (to pick just one example out of several possibles) where the local worthies infamously seemed more concerned at handing out generous allowance rises and baubles to themselves than administrating effectively - maybe that is not unconnected to the lurch to the right there not just in this election but since 2005?

The government has of course made sure that councils have to take responsibility for all sorts of crap with decreasing resources - but that is not an excuse on its own for some of what we have seen.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Plus, it's not like the next leader will have a deep bench of MPs to build his/her shadow cabinet.

Let's not exaggerate. Sure, a lot of heavyweights are gone now and a lot of the PLP does comprise toxic nitwits, but there are still plenty of wonderful Labour MPs among the 202 remaining in the Commons. It's not like the Lib Dems who have to pad their "frontbench team" with MSPs/AMs/MEPs/peers.

[MaxQue]

A full lenght Parliament will also allow Labour to nurture newcomers to their briefs and rebuild a front bench, which wasn't possible in the last years (which was a permanent state of panic).

[CumbrianLefty]

Plus, it's not like the next leader will have a deep bench of MPs to build his/her shadow cabinet.

Let's not exaggerate. Sure, a lot of heavyweights are gone now and a lot of the PLP does comprise toxic nitwits, but there are still plenty of wonderful Labour MPs among the 202 remaining in the Commons. It's not like the Lib Dems who have to pad their "frontbench team" with MSPs/AMs/MEPs/peers.

Labour will have to do that with their Scottish spokespeople, of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think it's reasonable to blame anyone's actions in 2015 for how the Corbyn leadership turned out to be. Yes, the warning signs were there all along and weren't that hard to see (again, I distinctly remember not trusting Corbyn when he first ran and being a Burnham supporter, so feel free to dig up my posts from back then). But nobody could seriously have had an idea how things would turn out. Really, the extent of Corbyn's awfulness only became apparent sometime into 2018 (and yes, I would agree that someone who remained close to him after that should probably not run for leadership). The last thing Labour needs to do is take this as an opportunity to settle old scores.


For whatever it's worth, here are my own personal criteria in choosing the next leader:
1. Not a hard-Remainer (ie, nobody who had a more pro-Remain stance than the leadership)
2. Not a New Labour throwback (including Brownites)
3. Not a Londoner
3. Not too close to the Corbyn leadership in the past year or so
4. A woman
5. Actually from the Labour left
6. Actually a Northerner

And of course general competence matters as well, but I'm not really in a position to evaluate that, so I'll defer to others' judgment on that front.

Anyway, based on these points, I think I'm with Nandy at the moment.

[Lord Halifax]

I don't think it's reasonable to blame anyone's actions in 2015 for how the Corbyn leadership turned out to be. Yes, the warning signs were there all along and weren't that hard to see (again, I distinctly remember not trusting Corbyn when he first ran and being a Burnham supporter, so feel free to dig up my posts from back then). But nobody could seriously have had an idea how things would turn out. Really, the extent of Corbyn's awfulness only became apparent sometime into 2018 (and yes, I would agree that someone who remained close to him after that should probably not run for leadership). The last thing Labour needs to do is take this as an opportunity to settle old scores.


For whatever it's worth, here are my own personal criteria in choosing the next leader:
1. Not a hard-Remainer Starmer, Thornbery, Lewis
2. Not a New Labour throwback (including Brownites) Cooper
3. Not a Londoner Starmer, Thornberry
3. Not too close to the Corbyn leadership in the past year or so RLB, arguably also Rayner
4. A woman Starmer, Lewis
5. Actually from the Labour left Phillips, Cooper
6. Actually a Northerner Starmer, Thornberry (Lewis is London born, but grew up in the Midlands)

And of course general competence matters as well, but I'm not really in a position to evaluate that, so I'll defer to others' judgment on that front.

Anyway, based on these points, I think I'm with Nandy at the moment.

You've basically eliminated everyone else, unless you can give Rayner a pass for being "too close" to Corbyn and McDonnell.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I thought Rayner wasn't really close to the leadership? I don't think I've ever heard her mentioned in the same context as it.

But yes, Rayner and Nandy were my favorite options.

[CumbrianLefty]

I do think that RLB may have to do a bit of judicious distancing from the negative aspects of Corbyn(ism) if she not only wants to win, but be a success afterwards. That will of course be a quite tricky thing to pull off successfully, but if she manages that it will show that she does have political skills.

[Lord Halifax]

I do think that RLB may have to do a bit of judicious distancing from the negative aspects of Corbyn(ism) if she not only wants to win, but be a success afterwards. That will of course be a quite tricky thing to pull off successfully, but if she manages that it will show that she does have political skills.

Starmer is favored by the betting markets, do you know why? I would have thought it would be hard for a London remainer to win.

[Intell]

I do think that RLB may have to do a bit of judicious distancing from the negative aspects of Corbyn(ism) if she not only wants to win, but be a success afterwards. That will of course be a quite tricky thing to pull off successfully, but if she manages that it will show that she does have political skills.

Starmer is favored by the betting markets, do you know why? I would have thought it would be hard for a London remainer to win.

The party membership is overwhelmingly pro-remain (even more than they're pro-corbyn).

[CumbrianLefty]

Betting markets are far from reliable in these things, mind.....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Starmer is favored by the betting markets, do you know why? I would have thought it would be hard for a London remainer to win.

He's the bookies favourite (for now) because a survey over the Summer showed him with the strongest numbers in a hypothetical contest.

[Paleobrazilian]

Thornberry is officially in.

Meanwhile:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1207256154952343552

Some claim most of these new members are moderates who left the party after 2016.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And I do think btw that Labour's local government record is an "elephant in the room" that isn't talked about as much as it might be - there are some very good councils out there but we all know they are not the majority. Bolsover, for instance (to pick just one example out of several possibles) where the local worthies infamously seemed more concerned at handing out generous allowance rises and baubles to themselves than administrating effectively - maybe that is not unconnected to the lurch to the right there not just in this election but since 2005?

Yes, but I think it is best understood as a background factor, as something that increases the vulnerability to extremely poor performances rather than which directly causes them. A situation not unlike, and the parallels are interesting, Labour's massive underperformances in much of London in the 1980s. Labour didn't lose Walthamstow in 1987 because it had a bad Labour council, but it made it more likely. Labour didn't lose Bolsover in 2019 because it has a bad Labour council, but it doubtless increased the scale of the loss (along with a certain other issue, but let's not for now).

The flipside is that 'good' Labour councils did not result in 'better' performances, but that makes sense as well: if Labour were on the up and had a good image, then this pattern would doubtless invert! And, er, one district council with a Labour majority that does appear to be well regarded (Bassetlaw) saw one of the very worst Labour performances of all, but that's because the national Labour brand was beyond mud there this time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some claim most of these new members are moderates who left the party after 2016.

I would be careful about making assumptions about ideological direction, but, sure, anyone joining up after an election like this is likely to wish to vote for Change in some capacity.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's not RLB's closeness to Corbyn or Momentum that worries me, it's the Unite link (and the fact that she's quite a boring speaker). Quite annoyed that Rayner, clearly the best of the Corbynites, has subordinated herself before such a hack.

Anyway, I'm fine with either Nandy or Starmer, although I have concerns with both. With Keir, I'm not hugely concerned with the North London rich dude label - it's not like he's a Emily Thornberry or has ostentatious tastes like Roy Jenkins - but I do wonder if his career in human rights makes him vulnerable to Richard Littlejohn style populist takedowns. Nandy seems good as well, but it's all very well saying WE NEED MORE FOCUS ON TOWNS, quite another actually putting it in practice. One of the issues with funding towns in a country as centralized as this is you lead to all sorts of regional resentments between different areas ("Why do the bastards in market town X get priority in the infrastructure roll-out, we're way worse off than them!").