2020 Labour Leadership Election

[CumbrianLefty]

Thornberry has her plus points - but Christ, I have known few senior politicians more gaffe-prone.

(*that* by-election tweet from Rochester is just the start of it)

[Blair]

Well she's another person who owes her rehabilitation to Corbyn; there's an alternative world where Rayner is a junior Shadow Minister, Long-Bailey is on the backbenches and Burgon went around on Chris Williamson's Tony Benn Cosplaying deselection adventure.

It's funny as Thornberry's route back into relevance was as a pretty awful Shadow Defence Secretary who did a weird tandem with Red Ken (before he went mad) and then spent the summer baffling her colleagues by defending Corbyn on TV when people like Long-Bailey where too afraid to go on TV.

And of course she was the choice of LOTO/UNITE in the event 2017 ended up like 2019; this is all a long about way of saying it's a surprise I still like her after that.

[CumbrianLefty]

I think most people like her, just think she is far too big a risk to ever be leader.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A chain smoking, mouthy ex-barrister who threatens to sue ex-colleagues for Libel doesn't match that description as much as other MPs do.

Legend.

I mean, not leadership material, God no. And the experiment of having a leader who is not conventional leadership material, well, it did not work out, so let us not repeat the error. But all the same. Legend.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thornberry has her plus points - but Christ, I have known few senior politicians more gaffe-prone.

(*that* by-election tweet from Rochester is just the start of it)

The funniest part about that tweet was that it turned out that she just takes photos of random houses all the time. Incredibly odd duck, a fact presumably not unrelated to her bizarre Dickensian upbringing.

[DistingFlyer]

Admittedly it's from some time ago now, and I think the poll was briefly referenced earlier, but here's how the candidates score in the Ipsos-Mori survey at the beginning of the month on 'having what it takes to be a good Prime Minister' (with the general public, not Labour members):

Sir Keir Starmer: 32% Yes, 25% No
Lisa Nandy: 23% Yes, 26% No
Emily Thornberry: 19% Yes, 40% No
Rebecca Long-Bailey: 14% Yes, 42% No

Supposedly Starmer's figures are higher than those of any of the 2015 candidates, while Thornberry's & Long-Bailey's are lower, though the report doesn't state by how much. When it comes to the question of 'would you be more likely to vote Labour if [insert name here] was leading the Party?,' the order of candidates remains the same.


When it comes to the choices of Labour voters, things change a bit:

Sir Keir Starmer: 45% Yes, 13% No
Lisa Nandy: 33% Yes, 16% No
Emily Thornberry: 28% Yes, 28% No
Rebecca Long-Bailey: 27% Yes, 27% No


With so many people - even Labour voters - still not having made their minds up, there could still be a surprise, but frankly I think the order of the (now three) candidates is likely to be the same as it's expected to be right now.

A lot of it comes down to the old like/respect question: I remember reading a piece many years ago that talked about how, while Margaret Thatcher wasn't considered very likable by many, people respected her resolve and trusted her to do what she said. John Major, on the other hand, was thought of in opposite terms: a likable person who didn't seem up to it ("They liked him but didn't respect him," I think the article said). Tony Blair did very well on both (in his first few years, that is). The order of the candidates here seems to reflect that a little bit, I think: Starmer & Nandy perhaps doing fine on both questions (Starmer probably better on the latter, Nandy on the former), with Thornberry & Long-Bailey doing poorly (Thornberry definitely worse on the former, Long-Bailey probably badly on both). Policies seem to be secondary, though admittedly that's often the case, in spite of how much many people like to say that that's what drives their vote.

[As for my own preference? Not that anybody should, or does, give a damn what I think, given that my own political persuasion (center-right, with libertarian & socially liberal tendencies) is heavily out of fashion right now in much of the Western world, but I'd probably put Nandy first and Starmer second (he seems more identity-politics oriented than she is, which perhaps isn't surprising given their respective constituencies). Nobody has really lit the place on fire as of yet, but that's not really a problem. Tories who want Long-Bailey to get it should be a little more wary, given Jeremy Corbyn's near-win in 2017 and of course Donald Trump's close win in 2016: don't simply assume that your side will walk it. For that matter, an Opposition Leader that they fear could win might make the government a little less complacent, as opposed to the very unhealthy 'we're definitely in power for the next decade' attitude that many Tories seem to have adopted since the election.]

[CumbrianLefty]

Nandy not impressing me with her constantly shifting positioning/messaging, tbph.

[DaWN]

A headline that does a fantastic job of summing up why there is absolutely no hope.

[Pericles]

A headline that does a fantastic job of summing up why there is absolutely no hope.

I doubt Keir Starmer would offer him a shadow cabinet position.

[brucejoel99]

A headline that does a fantastic job of summing up why there is absolutely no hope.

A very clickbaity headline there. They asked him a leading question & he gave a vague answer: "happy to serve the party in any capacity;" oh no, how evil of him.

[Blair]

The one thing those numbers suggest, along with the lukewarm (at best) campaign RLB is running is that the toxicity of the 2019 defeat & Corbynism is actually a lot higher than I thought.

The mistake was that Long-Bailey was running this as if it was a leadership election this time last year; indeed it baffles me why (and god I would be fascinated if it wasn't mooted) there weren't moves to get rid of JC and replace him with RLB, Rayner, Pidock, Carden or whoever this time last summer when he had dominance.

When you add in all the new members, the broad ideological support behind (which will pick off enough '16 JC voters) Keir, the backing of the unions and expected shift of the Nandy 2nd preferences it's very hard to see at this stage what is going to change.

[CumbrianLefty]

A headline that does a fantastic job of summing up why there is absolutely no hope.

No hope for our media?

Yes, I agree and have done for some time

[DaWN]

A headline that does a fantastic job of summing up why there is absolutely no hope.

No hope for our media?

Yes, I agree and have done for some time

You know perfectly bloody well what I mean. The very fact this idea is being taken even remotely seriously shows Labour has no.hope. Even if Starmer pulls off a miracle and wins he'll be entirely at the mercy of people who think that is a good Idea.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its not being taken seriously, Corbyn gave a perfectly innocuous answer to a typically stupid "gotcha" question. Our media needs burning to the ground (metaphorically if not literally) and the ground to be salted under it.

Still think that RLB is going to win, btw?

[Hnv1]

Ed Miliband as shadow chancellor would be more than decent

[CumbrianLefty]

Rachel "rivers of blood redux" Reeves saying people accused (please note - accused, not convicted) of racism should not be allowed to vote in the leadership contest. I leave the punchline to others......

[DaWN]

Still think that RLB is going to win, btw?

Yes. I find the media/Twitters' pronouncement of Starmer as leader-elect frankly hilarious. They're acting like the Labour membership care about qualities like 'competence' 'electability' or 'ability to lead'. They don't, they care about Socialist Purity and loyalty to St Jeremy. RLB has that, Starmer doesn't, ergo she wins, and some low turnout CLP nomination meetings attended by cranks won't change my mind on that. She won't win by either of Corbyn's blowout margins but she will win.

I'll also take a page out of your book and criticise the Labour right, a lot of whom I've seen turning their nose up at Starmer for daring to suggest that St Tony's Holy War of Iraqi Liberation was maybe not the best idea - so you can add 'People he needs to win acting like self-destructive idiots' to the list of reasons why RLB is inevitable.

[CumbrianLefty]

I will merely say, charitably, that Justice Blair's assessment of things seems a lot more grounded in reality than yours. Of course, like me he is actually a party member and knows others who are - no doubt you see this as disqualifying

Just one more thing - wouldn't "low attendance nomination meetings full of cranks" actually favour the more left wing candidates, if anything? Though in actual fact turnouts for them have often been quite healthy.......

[Blair]

I mean the noises we're hearing internally from all three camps are sounding very very similar to the ones we were hearing in August and September 2015...

[CumbrianLefty]

More incoherence from Nandy, chuntering on about appeasing "legitimate concerns" over immigration even while continuing to argue that freedom of movement should be pretty much universal

I mean, its true *some* people who complain about immigration aren't racists per se - but there are still quite a lot who simply want LESS IMMIGRUNTZ (or, per that hideous woman on QT the other night, none at all) I don't suppose they will take kindly to being lectured they are *really* bothered about wage differentials.......

[Blair]

I saw a good joke that Nandy's position is basically saying 'we need to listen to voters concerns about immigration' whilst then proceeding to repeat the exact same policy put forward by Keir.

I just can't see what position on immigration Labour can take that will win over the hypothetical 'mondeo man' in (insert non-urban white target seat) whilst not repelling social liberals who've powered our recent wins in Putney, Canterbury and other seats.

Besides the new immigration system gives Labour a free hand & a new way of making a pro-business argument in favour of migration.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Labour doesn't know what to say about immigration because it doesn't honestly know what to think about it (and never really has) and so really ought to say as little as possible.* Though I'll point out Nandy's article isn't particularly contradictory for a Labour politician on the issue; it's just that The Independent have chosen to run a rather misleading headline that contradicts the text.

^{*Interestingly, the issue has now come up rather more during this leadership campaign than it did in the General Election. Labour really is a very masochistic party at times.}

[Blair]

Labour doesn't know what to say about immigration because it doesn't honestly know what to think about it (and never really has) and so really ought to say as little as possible.* Though I'll point out Nandy's article isn't particularly contradictory for a Labour politician on the issue; it's just that The Independent have chosen to run a rather misleading headline that contradicts the text.

^{*Interestingly, the issue has now come up rather more during this leadership campaign than it did in the General Election. Labour really is a very masochistic party at times.}

I was just about to post a response saying this; it wasn't on a single one of the freepost or leaflet drops we did, and I think only the Brexit Party mentioned it- of course this is related to the fact that since Brexit polls have shown that immigration has fallen as a priority for voters because they assume its 'fixed'

[CumbrianLefty]

Labour doesn't know what to say about immigration because it doesn't honestly know what to think about it (and never really has) and so really ought to say as little as possible.* Though I'll point out Nandy's article isn't particularly contradictory for a Labour politician on the issue; it's just that The Independent have chosen to run a rather misleading headline that contradicts the text.

^{*Interestingly, the issue has now come up rather more during this leadership campaign than it did in the General Election. Labour really is a very masochistic party at times.}

Well, I am totally and utterly shocked at that totally and utterly shocking news - make no mistake

(the wider criticisms of her campaign remain valid, though)

[DL]

Labour Leadership Voting Intention:

Keir Starmer: 53% (+7)
Rebecca Long-Bailey: 31% (-1)
Lisa Nandy: 16% (+9)

Via
@YouGov
, 20-25 Feb.
Changes w/ 13-15 Jan.

Looks like Starmer is running away with it!