2020 Labour Leadership Election

[CumbrianLefty]

Well it was originally reported that the Phillips campaign saw CLPs as their big chance of getting on the ballot. Not much sign of that thus far it is fair to say......

[Famous Mortimer]

Can someone give me a summary of the Deputy Leadership candidates or else link to the comment in this thread where someone already did it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can someone give me a summary of the Deputy Leadership candidates or else link to the comment in this thread where someone already did it?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=350797.msg7096337#msg7096337

I will have to do a little update for Murray and Allin Khan o/c.

[CumbrianLefty]

And this latest Phillips effort in the Graun is bizarre even by her standards.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Not many CLPs have nominated thusfar, but those that have have overwhelmingly gone for Starmer. This isn't fantastic for those candidates reliant on the CLP route for ballot access.

Things look even less fantastic for those running for deputy leader, who're not named Angela Rayner. So far it doesn't look unthinkable that she'll be the only one to qualify.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Not many CLPs have nominated thusfar, but those that have have overwhelmingly gone for Starmer. This isn't fantastic for those candidates reliant on the CLP route for ballot access.

The interesting thing is how most have gone Starmer/Rayner. Both of them seem to fall into that comfortable 'they don't look like they would invade Iraq and I can project a vague sense of Old Labour values onto them' zone. Perhaps the same thing that led people to hanker after Brown as the prince across the water, helped Ed M to narrowly beat his brother, and allowed Corbyn to win when all the other candidates vacated that space to play to the media even as the exact same selectorate was happy to vote for Tom Watson and Sadiq Khan.

[CumbrianLefty]

Not many CLPs have nominated thusfar, but those that have have overwhelmingly gone for Starmer. This isn't fantastic for those candidates reliant on the CLP route for ballot access.

The interesting thing is how most have gone Starmer/Rayner. Both of them seem to fall into that comfortable 'they don't look like they would invade Iraq and I can project a vague sense of Old Labour values onto them' zone. Perhaps the same thing that led people to hanker after Brown as the prince across the water, helped Ed M to narrowly beat his brother, and allowed Corbyn to win when all the other candidates vacated that space to play to the media even as the exact same selectorate was happy to vote for Tom Watson and Sadiq Khan.

Though some qualifiers are perhaps needed here:

1) back in 2015 Corbyn only won a minority of active CLP nominations despite his "surge" amongst members; it is *possible* they are running to the left of that this time too (though not likely I agree)

2) Khan very much ran a left-wing pitch for the mayoral nomination that year, it is true Abbott was also running but his relative lack of "baggage" and also ticking "diversity" boxes helped him greatly.

3) as did Watson for deputy - his "heroics" over phone hacking were pushed relentlessly and he also went big on a promise to support the elected leader "WHOEVER THAT MAY BE". Other might care to judge how well he performed that remit in the following four years - as indeed they might regarding his other main campaign pledge, to spread and deepen "digital democracy" throughout the party. Did he even mention it again once elected?

4) David Miliband lost the 2010 election rather than his brother winning it, approaching a decade on it is easy to forget just how dreadful and tin-eared his campaign was. And he still won the membership section of the party narrowly despite this.

5) strictly speaking Brown wasn't elected by anybody at all (and not having a contested leadership election in 2007 was arguably more significant than the fatuous, politically and constitutionally illiterate non-talking point so beloved of lobby "journalists" about him being an "unelected prime minister") and this was something he later regretted. There is no doubt he would easily have beaten a token left challenge (who would most likely have been McDonnell) but a non-negligible minority of members would have gone for the "challenger". Nonetheless such an experience would likely have strengthened Brown when things got tough for his premiership - and the same might have applied for a certain Tory PM a decade later.....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

USDAW have nominated: and another Starmer/Rayner double bill. And it makes Starmer the first candidate to reach the ballot.

[brucejoel99]

USDAW have nominated: and another Starmer/Rayner double bill. And it makes Starmer the first candidate to reach the ballot.

Hard to see how Phillips or Thornberry make the ballot now, then. This was the only one of the "Big 5" unions that was at all likely to back them, so this route is now closed for them, & they both have a grand total of 0 CLP nominations thus far, so that route is looking very unlikely for them as well.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Wouldn't be a massive shock. Thornberry doesn't bring anything to the table that Starmer doesn't aside from a large property portfolio and a tendency to put her foot in it and with electability playing so large a role this time that matters. And Phillips needs run a very good campaign to be more than a factional candidate (and of the faction with least institutional heft these days) and she hasn't done so thus far.

That said, it's still early days in terms of CLP nominations. Patterns might start to change as candidates guarantee their places on the ballot paper.

[brucejoel99]

Wouldn't be a massive shock. Thornberry doesn't bring anything to the table that Starmer doesn't aside from a large property portfolio and a tendency to put her foot in it and with electability playing so large a role this time that matters. And Phillips needs run a very good campaign to be more than a factional candidate (and of the faction with least institutional heft these days) and she hasn't done so thus far.

That said, it's still early days in terms of CLP nominations. Patterns might start to change as candidates guarantee their places on the ballot paper.

Yeah, if I was betting on it, then I'd give Phillips & Thornberry a 50/1 chance of getting on the ballot now.

Phillips' route is basically closed because most people have a pretty strong sense of who she is & I don't see that changing.

Thornberry does have potential as she had a good performance at hustings. However, given none are televised until after the nomination process closes, it's very difficult to see how she can change a significant number of people's minds now.

And yeah, there are still 600+ CLP nominations to go, so they might have a chance, but it's quite a small one. Certainly, both won't be making it onto the ballot, not least since they're effectively both fighting for the same CLP nominations (which are also the same ones that are more likely to back Starmer anyway).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If Phillips were to make a big push as a regional candidate, she could potentially pick up the requisite number of CLPs from the Midlands, so long as she put in the effort. Doesn't seem to be the angle she's trying so far though.

Anyway. Another endorsement of note for Starmer...

https://twitter.com/SteveAikenUUP/status/1219319038590976001

[EastAnglianLefty]

Thornberry picked up her first CLP nomination tonight - Newbury CLP. They also nominated Allin Khan for Deputy. Not significant in of itself, but may be an indication of people being less likely to nominate Starmer and Rayner now they're both on the ballot paper anyway.

Possibly the slightly more notable thing is that I don't think Nandy has picked up a nomination. The rumour is that she's in with a shot at getting the CWU nomination, but if she doesn't seem like a viable candidate in her own right then there isn't necessarily a good reason for them to waste political capital when they could nominate somebody who might win instead.

[CumbrianLefty]

Unless they want to widen the final choice that members get, which remains a perfectly laudable aim IMO even if some famously think it went a bit wrong in 2015

[urutzizu]

Thornberry picked up her first CLP nomination tonight - Newbury CLP. They also nominated Allin Khan for Deputy. Not significant in of itself, but may be an indication of people being less likely to nominate Starmer and Rayner now they're both on the ballot paper anyway.

Horsham has also nominated Thornberry (and Dawn Butler for Deputy).
I rather regarded Scotland and not the Midlands of being Jess Philips best chance of picking up CLP nominations - perhaps a reason for her strident opposition to Indyref2 - but does not seem to have happened. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Possibly the slightly more notable thing is that I don't think Nandy has picked up a nomination. The rumour is that she's in with a shot at getting the CWU nomination, but if she doesn't seem like a viable candidate in her own right then there isn't necessarily a good reason for them to waste political capital when they could nominate somebody who might win instead.

She is clearly trying the affiliate route; a bit of a gamble, of course, but rational enough given that a) her name recognition is very low but that b) she has impressed quite a few insiders with her performances so far.

[Blair]

I'm questioning the wisdom of my post about how CLPs- but Thornberry very much does seem like the person who could win over these small CLPs; she's well known among the membership, has had a prominent role at the dispatch box and is well liked enough to get a lot of 2nd preferences.

[DaWN]

A few rambling thoughts I've had


Labour tends to win when it has a leader that ticks three key boxes - a good speaker, a likeable personality and clearly able to do the job of PM. Other considerations exist of course but I feel these three are easily the most important factors when it comes to the party's ability to win a general election.

For instance, Corbyn was an awful speaker, about as likeable as a stump of rotting wood and clearly unable to organise a school fete, never mind run the country. Miliband was a decent speaker but he came off as a bit weird and there were questions about his competence. Brown was a good speaker and was mostly competent but had a likeability problem. Kinnock was an excellent speaker and again mostly competent, but definitely had a likeability problem. Hell, even late-era Blair had lost his early likeability (read: squandered on a stupid wa) and probably wouldn't have been electable a fourth time even if he hadn't thrown in the towel. The only two leaders in the era of modern media to comfortably attain all three were Smith and early-era Blair... and Blair has been the only leader in that era to win Labour an election and Smith would have done were it not for his tragic death.

So looking at the current contenders, what can we see? Wrong-Failey is a crap speaker, not particularly likeable and very clearly not able to do the job. Phillips is a good speaker but is very polarising on the likeability front, and again, very clearly not able to do the job. Nandy is a good speaker, seems likeable enough, but once again questions surround her ability to do it. Thornberry is a good speaker but nobody likes her and her judgement has been proven to not be all that. Starmer comes the closest, being a decent speaker, clearly able to do the job, but is he likeable enough to connect with the electorate? It's not clear.

Labour's talent problem can therefore be put into perspective - they need someone who ticks all three boxes which is not an easy ask. The Tories don't need to bother with such complexities - Boris sounds like a dying elephant and obviously can't do the job and he just won a landslide. Cameron was seen as competent ('seen as' being the key bit as he obviously wasn't) and a good speaker but I'm not sure its scientifically possible to listen to him for more than five minutes without wanting to punch him in the throat. Major was grey, dull, doddery and out of his depth and yet he won. More is asked of a Labour leader and that is where the problem stems from. Not say there isn't a serious lack of talent in the party of course, but that's neither here nor there.

It's not the be-all-and-end-all either: Starmer could become the most likeable man in the country and still lose if the party makes him peddle out the same 70s claptrap they put out in December, but it is a necessary ingredient for a Labour win in a general election - which despite the party's present troubles, will happen sooner or later, the Tories can't be in power for eternity. Unless, of course, the Tories f!ck up so badly that a postbox with a red rosette on it could win the election, in which case they'll still want a leader who can be a convincing PM and get them re-elected.

If Labour can't find a leader who's going to be able to both prove a potential PM and connect with the electorate, then 2024 is going to be unwinnable. And like in 2015, when the leadership candidates had big question marks over all of their heads, the same is true here, albeit with one clear contender who might have what it takes. But that's only a might.

I still think Long-Bailey will win easily because the Labour membership clearly don't care about such trivialities as winning elections - from what one can see online they care about socialist purity and loyalty to St Jeremy. But should they ever decide that eternal Tory rule doesn't sit with them, the test for prospective leadership candidates should be to fill those three categories - this time, they may well not have such a candidate but it stands to reason that eventually there will be one. What Labour needs to do is get if out of its head that rejecting a candidate who may fill those boxes with one who obviously doesn't for ideological reasons is suicide. I'm not holding my breath.


Anyway, are any of the other three at all likely to get on the ballot? I'll confess I don't know much about the nomination process but it doesn't look like it.

[CumbrianLefty]

Phillips, alone of the leadership hopefuls, did not turn up to the GMB's hustings today.

Flounce imminent?

[brucejoel99]

Phillips, alone of the leadership hopefuls, did not turn up to the GMB's hustings today.

Flounce imminent?

Yeah, it seems pretty likely that she's decided to pull out of the race.

No union support & no CLP support. The only other reason to stay in is if she felt that she was saying something that none of the other candidates could say. However, I think Thornberry's performance was the one Phillips will wish she could've given on Saturday.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well lets see how she reacts if she is indeed withdrawing.

Will it be with graciousness and a long overdue degree of self awareness, or will it be a familiar tantrum of the "it was SEXISM, bab" (even though 3 of the other 4 leadership hopefuls are female) variety?

Got to say, I have my suspicions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Rumours of an announcement from Phillips at three o clock this afternoon. Anyway, it's fairly clear that she didn't understand the new ballot-access rules when she entered the race (probably she wasn't alone there), and now that reality is dawning is having, at the very least, second thoughts.

[afleitch]

She went up in my estimation when she braved the Mumsnet shower and refused to back down.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Phillips has indeed dropped out - my very firm suspicion is that she did not fully understand the new nomination rules when she entered the contest.

Meanwhile, the GMB have endorsed Nandy. This means that she needs just one more affiliate to get on to the ballot, and there's no need for it to be a large one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, scratch that. It's clear that the real reason for the failure of Phillips's candidacy was that she was banking on having a monopoly of #banter and has been thoroughly outmanoeuvred in that critical department:

https://twitter.com/GMB_union/status/1219653661393068032