2020 Labour Leadership Election

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Brexit related, innit - he was one of *the* most sceptical SCers about pivoting for another referendum and the wing of Corbynism who were never sold on that have adopted him as their champion.

Yeah, I was talking about this with someone shortly after I made that post and went 'oh f*** it' a LEXIT thing isn't it?'

oy oy oy

[Walmart_shopper]

If it does indeed turn out that Brexit is the disaster some have predicted, what we should do is everything we can to ensure that (just for once) the blame for that is placed where it belongs - the Tories.

It'll almost certainly be a disaster in the sense that the Trump presidency has been a disaster. No, the world will not literally auto-incinerate in a ball of MAGA-infused self-hating fire. Europhiles will at least have that wrong. But it will be a categorical nightmare that will turn the United Kingdom into a shabby parody of Little England where tweedy anti-social people team up with xenophobic septegenarians to keep the imams and the Poles and the bankers and the money and the good curry solidly confined to the 020. It'll make the country poorer in a plain economic and in a cultural and democratic sense.

Of course, Brexiteers will vigorously embrace all of that as a signpost of distinction and essence just as Trump supporters embrace his self-parodying journey of public and personal embarassment. So no matter how disastrous things turn out it won't matter to anyone. That's also why Labour should feel zero regret for opposing Brexit. It's a small-minded and delusional idea that will strip Britain of the broadness and tolerance that have been keys to British success and standing. While opposing it won't win or lose many future voters, and may not even change Britain's future relationship will Europe, it is worth opposing all the same because it's usually good to oppose those things that get in the way of building bridges and building a hopeful, collaborative future. Labour may have plenty of things to repent about, but choosing a future that aspires to more than atavistic tut-tutting will never be among them.

[brucejoel99]

Nancy is my second choice.

I doubt the British public would take it well if the Speaker of the US House of Representatives headed one of their political parties. Maybe it would appeal to the segment of the Brexiteers that supports closer ties with the US, but those aren't exactly the voters Labour needs to win back.

Ok, but actually, what if maybe...

what if we... elect Nancy Pelosi... to lead the Labour Party .. aha ha, just kidding.. unless..?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Nancy is my second choice.

I doubt the British public would take it well if the Speaker of the US House of Representatives headed one of their political parties. Maybe it would appeal to the segment of the Brexiteers that supports closer ties with the US, but those aren't exactly the voters Labour needs to win back.

Autocorrect :*(

[Blair]

Eh I didn't hate RLBs piece as much as I usually hate articles written for MPs to post in newspaper- I can't think of any serving politician who I've been impressed by as a result of a op-ed. (A diary entry in the NS is of course the on brand way to announce a leadership bid)

The progressive patriotism line being attacked at least shows a willingness to approach the issue; but of course there's the Miliband era problem of a new tagline not being enough. You need a robust set of populist policies & the ability to survive a huge amount of sh**t (I remember seeing a video of 1995 era Blair awkwardly talking to 'swing voters' who wanted to bring back the birch at school) in order to actually appeal to the people you want to.

The problem that she faces is the line I saw attached to her after her selection in eccles- 'we wanted a good local candidate, but instead we got a UNITE solicitor'.

Ignoring the last 3 years in Parliament there's a really a huge gap over just who she is; it worked like a charm in getting her this fair but she has the feeling of well a career politician (hence why Pidcock was a lot stronger imo)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Richard Burgon has confirmed that he will, indeed, be running for Deputy Leader. Galactic levels of entitled, arrogant unselfawareness.

[CumbrianLefty]

To state the obvious - but still likely needs to be said - there is almost no chance that everybody who "puts themselves forward" will actually get onto the ballot paper.

[DaWN]

Looks like we have our inevitable pair then. Who's ready for RLB-Burgon 2024?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Looks like we have our inevitable pair then. Who's ready for RLB-Burgon 2024?

RLB's apparent running mate is Rayner. You should be pleased at developments like this, btw: factional discipline is cracking. Of course to what extent or end we do not yet know.

[CumbrianLefty]

Looks like we have our inevitable pair then. Who's ready for RLB-Burgon 2024?

I know it is part of your political "identity" to regard the Labour membership as witless morons, but in all seriousness Burgon has about as much chance of winning the DL as I do.

(if he even gets the nominations, that is - but if he does I suppose we will find out how big the "I STAND WITH CHRIS WILLIAMSON" tendency actually is; not as big as you imagine I suspect)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There can be a confusion between the people who vote in e.g. NEC elections (which attract comedy turnouts and where a majority of votes are now directly tied to mailing lists: if a particular faction is dominant in these it mostly just means they are better organised at that particular level. Note that the Grassroots Alliance/CLPD slate usually 'won' these contests even during the Blair era) and the people who vote in contests that are perceived to matter, like leadership elections or parliamentary selections. Most of these people - and the exact electorate here always changes from contest to contest anyway - are not particularly factional; a lot of people voted for David Miliband in 2010 and Corbyn in 2015/6.

[DaWN]

I'll be the first to admit I am excessively hyperbolic over this and that's certainly a by-product of the Labour Party spending the last five years pioneering the field of finding new ways to disappoint me. But when all I've seen online is Labour supporters blaming the electorate, the Blairites, the Lib Dems, Brexit, the media, that hedgehog they saw on the way home the other day, anything except admit that it might have been even the tiniest bit the responsibility of St Jeremy (hell, look at Twitter right now and see what I mean.) It's a stretch for me to see these people then go "but I think I might vote Keir Starmer for leader." Long-Bailey won't win by either of Corbyn's lopsided margins but she will win. I would love to be wrong and I'll happily eat sh!t if I am but I will believe it upon observance.

I'll admit Burgon probably isn't inevitable (to put it lightly) and the Deputy Leadership is more of a contest, but I still expect a hard-leftie to win (probably Rayner tbh).

(The nominations thing is interesting but one of the most long-lasting by products of this miserable half-decade is that the hard-left faction in the PLP is now much larger, I suspect there are now enough MPs to get two hard-left candidates on a leadership or DL ballot. Whether that happens or not, who's to say)

[CumbrianLefty]

The "fundamentalist" wing of Corbynism certainly don't see Rayner as "hard left" FWIW - those comparisons with Neil Kinnock aren't just because they are both redheads you know.

[Blair]

The "fundamentalist" wing of Corbynism certainly don't see Rayner as "hard left" FWIW - those comparisons with Neil Kinnock aren't just because they are both redheads you know.

I still think it's a huge mistake not pushing Angela for leader; of course it might be a case of her not wanting it but she would easily beat Keir, and would actually be quite good as Leader.

But picking RLB (a former corporate lawyer, who joined the party in 2010!) over Rayner (an ex-trade union official) really does reveal a lot about parts of the left.

Of course this is no different to boosting Pidcock for leader purely because she talked about despising tories & representing her class (despite being as middle class as I am!)

I mean the three priorities for their project should be 1.) Someone who will beat Keir 2.) Someone who is strong enough to face 4 years of crap from the PLP. 3.) Someone who won't ditch the 2017 manifesto.

I know I've ranted about it before; but I feel they've put so much energy into someone with no real charisma, no real strength in the party & no obvious political skills.

[CumbrianLefty]

The "fundamentalist" wing of Corbynism certainly don't see Rayner as "hard left" FWIW - those comparisons with Neil Kinnock aren't just because they are both redheads you know.

I thought Keir was Kinnock?

Ed Miliband redux seems to be the more popular Corbynista take.

[Blair]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ian-lavery-communities-represented-labour-21192144

Current debate on labour twitter; is he wanting to run, is he running to make RLB look less left or is he just enjoying his moment of fame?

Although a better article than Pidcock; but a puzzling conclusion that de-industrialisation hurt Labour in this election (it's obviously a reason in the long term decline of social democracy but Labour won these seats 2 & 4 years ago!)

It didn't help that Lavery went to every PLP meeting MPs 'we're more ready than ever' and was one of the loudest supporters of an early GE...

[Intell]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ian-lavery-communities-represented-labour-21192144

Current debate on labour twitter; is he wanting to run, is he running to make RLB look less left or is he just enjoying his moment of fame?

Although a better article than Pidcock; but a puzzling conclusion that de-industrialisation hurt Labour in this election (it's obviously a reason in the long term decline of social democracy but Labour won these seats 2 & 4 years ago!)

It didn't help that Lavery went to every PLP meeting MPs 'we're more ready than ever' and was one of the loudest supporters of an early GE...

North West Durham: Labour vote

1992: 26,734
2001: 24,526
2005: 21,312
2010: 18,539

-8225

Bolsover

1992: 33, 978
2001: 26, 249
2005: 25, 217
2010: 21, 994

-11, 984

Jarrow

1992: 28,956
2001: 22,777
2005: 20,554
2010: 20,910

-8046

Long term dislingering of working class politics to a party has a culmination, in the uk it was 2019.

Also there is no reason why Corbyn would be hated by the working classes, because he is a cooky leftist while the middle classes of Battersea and Putney are like nah he's fine. Any leader from the left would be disliked by the working classes as labor policies have not materially improved their lives since left parties embraced liberalism. In 1983, Foot was a radical that hated the UK and was supportive of unilateral disarmament, the industrial working class were fine with that, while the middle classes/lower-middle classes in London swung heavily against the Labour Party, for being too radical.

Clinton was a centrist, she was hated most in white working class industrial areas and saw the greatest swings agains her in those areas.

Shorten was basically a soft-left technocrat (Owen smith) and he saw the largest swings against him in working class areas especially in rural areas but also in outer-surbuban lower middle class areas, both of which were labor heartlands, and this lost him the unlosable election.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though in 1983 the Tories were closer to winning many of the "red wall" seats than they ever again would be before last month, so Foot's appeal there shouldn't be overstated.

[Intell]

Though in 1983 the Tories were closer to winning many of the "red wall" seats than they ever again would be before last month, so Foot's appeal there shouldn't be overstated.

Foot won those 'red wall' seats in a complete landslide, where the conservative-labour difference was 14.8%, meanwhile in 2019, the conservative-labour difference was 11.4% yet labour lost a lot of these seats.

[Blair]

I certainly agree that class & the decline of industry is a major problem; but again this is nothing new (Hobsbawn Marx Memorial Lecture in '78 actually traces it back to 50-60 years before then- http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/78_09_hobsbawm.pdf)

North West Durham: Labour vote

1992: 26,734
2001: 24,526
2005: 21,312
2010: 18,539

-8225

Bolsover

1992: 33, 978
2001: 26, 249
2005: 25, 217
2010: 21, 994

-11, 984

Jarrow

1992: 28,956
2001: 22,777
2005: 20,554
2010: 20,910

-8046

Well yes; but these numbers are deceptive (not including 1997) and equally they still had huge Labour majorities in 2010 despite Labours share of the vote being the lowest since 1983. There's a reason we went from slowly dipping in these seats ( a pattern seen in 2017) to massively haemorrhaging support in seats we've held since '45.

A lot of this was turnout, some of it was switching to the Tories and another bit of it was losing votes to the Lib Dems/Greens.

Also there is no reason why Corbyn would be hated by the working classes, because he is a cooky leftist while the middle classes of Battersea and Putney are like nah he's fine.

Actually there is a lot of reasons.

Mainly middle class people in Battersea/Putney (insert urban remain voting seat) have a different set of values to people in traditionally working class seats like Sedgefield & Wakefield. I worked in a seat where we saw the Labour vote hold up & expand in the middle class ex-tory ward, whilst falling massively in the neighbouring white working class wards.

Add in age as a factor (seats like Putney tend to be younger & have more transplants), Corbyns social liberalism (on issues like immigration) and the weakness on national security (as Al has said his handling of the Skripal poisoning did a huge amount of damage) and you get a cocktail that creates a huge problem in traditional working class areas.

And finally Brexit; an issue that much like Scottish Nationalism has made people do two things; abandon traditional voting intentions & become more likely to vote tactically for their outcome.

I dismissed it as overblown trivialised stuff during the election but this focus group of 2017 Labour Leavers sums it up

https://www.channel4.com/news/focus-group-can-tories-win-over-people-who-voted-labour-and-leave

Any leader from the left would be disliked by the working classes as labor policies have not materially improved their lives since left parties embraced liberalism.

Again I'm not sure about this; or the definition of Liberalism (as Corbyn in some respects was much more liberal than Blair ever was on issues like policing, surveillance, immigration detention etc)

Equally there was a generation who saw huge material differences under New Labour (minimum wage, tax credits, sure start centres, record NHS & education investment). This core group of voters (often women with kids) voted Labour between 1997-2005 because of the economic offer (low inflation, growing economy, record state investment etc) that was put on the table.

Of course this blew up in 2008 but again I don't buy the argument that the Labour brand is dead forever in these seats.

In 1983, Foot was a radical that hated the UK and was supportive of unilateral disarmament, the industrial working class were fine with that, while the middle classes/lower-middle classes in London swung heavily against the Labour Party, for being too radical.

I mean the 1983 election was during an extremely different sociological period in British Politics; I don't think the argument was ever made that Foot hated Britain.

It was just that the party was divided, he wasn't seen as a fit PM & the SDP/Alliance took a lot of air out of Labour.

Clinton was a centrist, she was hated most in white working class industrial areas and saw the greatest swings agains her in those areas.

Clintons problem was that she was Hillary Clinton; someone who had been around in Politics for far too long, who was associated with scandal and was seen as out of touch, aloof & baggage ridden from the 90s.

I don't think the issue for these voters was that she was seen as Centrist; it's that she was seen as  a typical politician who offered nothing new.

Shorten was basically a soft-left technocrat (Owen smith) and he saw the largest swings against him in working class areas especially in rural areas but also in outer-surbuban lower middle class areas, both of which were labor heartlands, and this lost him the unlosable election.

I assume knowing little about Australian politics that it's like the UK in that an average centre-left candidate will still lose to a below average right wing candidate 

[Blair]

Of course I'm banging my own drum but I really think that a lot of people would benefit from spending 6 weeks with a CLP and looking through the campaign data & comments from voters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Pinning the blame for the loss of so much of what is normally Labour's base vote and thus many ordinarily 'safe' constituencies on long-term factors* and on Labour governments and leaders long since gone is rather difficult when those voters were on board - and those seats won with comfortable majorities - as recently as two and a half years ago.

And Labour's problems are hardly restricted to those areas. Labour were blown out of the water in most of the historically swingy areas in the Midlands and the south of England. Once again, this is not a situation where one group of voters has been lost and is being replaced by another. No. Labour dropped like a rock in some places and like a stone in others: and the ease with which the Conservatives - an unpopular party themselves these days! - were able to consolidate votes behind them is part of the picture as well, because that's how FPTP works. With a handful of exceptions, the only places where this was not the case were those in which this dire pattern did not hold were those in which Labour was the option plumped for by reluctant Remainers - and this political energy, and those votes, do not really 'belong' to Labour and cannot be guaranteed in any future election.

I would also note that these loyal Labour supporters who did not vote Labour in December were not, contrary to some of the cheaper analysis around, exclusively white. Far from it. The most reliable data that we have suggests that Labour lost minority support at a similar rate to white support, and this is confirmed by a quick scan of results, particularly in areas with large British Indian populations.

Fundamentally, if a political party loses (even if only temporarily as is probably the case) the support of a large number of previously loyal voters, then the critical question is not 'what is wrong with the electorate?' but 'what is wrong with the party?' Any other attitude is one of suicidal arrogance.

_{*Not that there are not long-term problems, of course, but it isn't as if their existence functions as an excuse. If things change, you adjust accordingly.}

[urutzizu]

On the "Foot hated Britain" thing, take the massive contrast between the excellent Speech of his in reaction to the Invasion of the Falklands and Corbyns response to the Skripal Issue, for instance. Out of touch Foot was, yes, but there was never a question to which country his loyalty lied.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now, something that Labour does need to address (one that hurts it with so many different parts of the electorate and in so many different regions and localities) is the financial crisis and the way in which the shock of that has tainted memories of the last time Labour was in government. Miliband tried to awkwardly side-step the issue while muttering vague apologies for things that did not need apologising for; this did not work. Had it been David rather than Ed we would be discussing something quite similar. The approach taken by Corbyn and the Left - to attack that government and its legacy as viciously as the Conservatives - has been catastrophic: not only has it not created the desired distance, but it has reinforced the efficacy of that Conservative criticism.

The good news for Labour is that a majority of the electorate has no loyalty at all to any party. This means that electoral volatility is off the scale; they've just been hit by the bad end of that, but there is no reason why they might not profit from it as well. The bad news is that the party's brand is at a very low ebb at present. This issue is a huge part of that. If Labour want to be taken seriously by the electorate, then it must address it.

[CumbrianLefty]

Now, something that Labour does need to address (one that hurts it with so many different parts of the electorate and in so many different regions and localities) is the financial crisis and the way in which the shock of that has tainted memories of the last time Labour was in government. Miliband tried to awkwardly side-step the issue while muttering vague apologies for things that did not need apologising for; this did not work. Had it been David rather than Ed we would be discussing something quite similar. The approach taken by Corbyn and the Left - to attack that government and its legacy as viciously as the Conservatives - has been catastrophic: not only has it not created the desired distance, but it has reinforced the efficacy of that Conservative criticism.

The good news for Labour is that a majority of the electorate has no loyalty at all to any party. This means that electoral volatility is off the scale; they've just been hit by the bad end of that, but there is no reason why they might not profit from it as well. The bad news is that the party's brand is at a very low ebb at present. This issue is a huge part of that. If Labour want to be taken seriously by the electorate, then it must address it.

Actually if DM had won I suspect we would have heard the dread words "spent too much" quite a bit - Blairites ceaselessly whined about Ed not saying so throughout the 2010-15 period and then decided within hours of the latter GE that said omission had been a major reason for the defeat. And of course this conventional wisdom drove the fateful decision to abstain on the benefit cuts that summer.....

Which brings us to another thing - despite the oft-made claim (repeated above) that Corbyn simply repudiated the New Labour years, come that moment he was the only leadership candidate willing to actually defend a key part of its programme which won over the voters you describe back in the day. Labour's decade since losing power is full of ironies, but that was surely one of the biggest.