This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Blair]

I see Russell Lloyd Moyle has decided his election night rant needed a part two.

[cp]

Labour is embarassing-this conference looks like a mess without Starmer making a strong positive impression, just showing a divided and inward focused party. They are not showing the discipline that they should be in order to win. McDonald's sabotage is appalling behavior, but nobody has clean hands. Starmer better deliver a great speech and somehow set it right in those few minutes, but it's looking grim for him, Labour and the UK.

I do think you are being a bit over-dramatic.

And to the extent it *is* a bad conference, a lot of that is down to Starmer not being a good leader - though it does pain me to say it. The odds of him not being there come the next GE must be rather higher now than they were just a week or two ago.

Hate to say I told ya so

Bratty trolling aside, I actually thought this conference went about as well as Starmer could have hoped for. I'm still convinced he's too much of a cipher to effect any lasting change, not least the transformation of Labour from an opposition party to a governing one, but he's done a decent job of avoiding the worst possible scenario.

I also can't help but notice that the tradition of the triumphant faction changing the leadership rules has been maintained. If history serves as any guide, this will backfire spectacularly in a few years.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Rather pointed statment by Starmer: "He said he came into politics "to go into government to change millions of lives", not "lose and then tweet about it".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58718835.amp

[Blair]

Yes it’s been fun to see people rail against rule changes when it was iirc the thing that was done the moment the previous leader had a majority to do so; this does reaffirm my theory that Labour leaders with too much internal power actually tend to do a lot worse.

[Blair]

In news three rather significant developments.

1.) The Bakers union have lost their NEC seat to the Musicians Union. This was expected to happen as there’s often a merry go round with the smaller unions- they’re being billed as pro-Starmer. I know very little about their history in THIGMOO but their industry has had a rather horrid 18 months. From rough maths this makes the Starmer majority around 23-8.

2.) Andy Burnham is quite openly running for leader and has moved to the outright hostile stage- he complained about not having a speech and made a number of rather pointed attacks on Keir and the Shadow cabinet. He also called for a new ‘levelling up tax’- he is one of the most interesting politicians and has a rather love hate relationship with the party. I wouldn’t be shocked if we have a Manchester MP taking the hundreds soon…

3.) The campaign group are now getting ready to challenge Starmer. Much like the ERG they appear to struggle to count- they need 40 MPs to challenge Keir and their caucus is made up of 34 MPs, at lest three who are sitting on the frontbench. A challenger from their ranks (Burgon, Lavery, Gardiner, Macdonald) will struggle to 40 MPs and would likely lose even to a damaged Keir.  And they don’t have a great record at not squabbling over who the challenger will be- which is true for every Labour faction but is especially bad in the campaign group. They had at least 4 people wanting to run in 2020 and ended up with the worse one possible.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I suspect if Burnham had had a speech it would have been distinctly underwhelming - he talks a good game and the powers of the role are not huge (especially when you don't have a politically sympathetic government) but his actual record of achievement is pretty thin. Not bad, but nothing to write home about.

[CumbrianLefty]

Starmer needed a good speech today - and somewhat to my surprise, he mostly delivered. Of course he will never be the most inspiring speaker (the last few leaders haven't really been that either) but the real strength is that (despite his claim not to care about "unity" just for the sake of it) it was stuff pretty much the whole party could get behind. And his "Kinnock moment" (for those who really care about such things) came in his - surprisingly effective - rejoinders to some heckling.

Almost certainly some good clips for the evening news bulletins too.

Maybe (to revive a once totemic number) a very decent 7 out of 10

[Blair]

The lines coming out from Starmers internal foes suggest it went well, or at least not badly enough for it to be an easy target.

They seem to be arguing about the Mirror, the exact timings of the heckles and the 2019 manifesto sign off.

See the below for the strange direction

https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1443282262318010375?s=21

[afleitch]

R* D* who couldn't make the conference was this evening on an Irish comedy writers YouTube.

[CumbrianLefty]

Some of the dickheads around Starmer think it is a good idea to give Ed M the Dodds treatment, it would appear. Can't see that going wrong in any way at all......

[afleitch]

KEITH STALIN

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't think this one is actually him tbf.

More the superannuated NOLSie types *still* trying to relitigate the 2010 leadership election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This from Ipsos-MORI is useful for showing both the successes and limitations of Starmer's leadership in terms of Labour's image:



Essentially there's solid progress on problems that emerged under Corbyn (which is good), but basically none on the long-term issues, which rather suggests that a pivot from 'look we're normal again' to something else is required sooner rather than later. Starmer's Conference speech would potentially be an example of a shift in that direction, but this has to be maintained. It is very bad if half the population think you're lunatics but this not being the case is not a reason to vote for you, it's just a precondition.*

_{*Though the way FPTP works it's more like: while this may be a reason to cease to actively vote against you, this is not a reason to vote for you.}

[Blair]

Some thoughts now that conference is over.

1.) Rule Changes: It was a mistake to bring back the Electoral College & there wasn't the coalition in the party to bring it forward. Starmer is internally the most powerful Labour leader in the last decade, yet even his natural allies in the party (Sarwar in Slab, Sk in London, USDAW, GMB & UNISON) were against it.

It's been reported that it was sprung, yet equally reported that Rayner knew about it before- I wouldn't be shocked if approaches were made and the typical Labour thing happened where people were approached, shrugged and then when the actual story leaked it helped people to claim it was a surprise. But the point was that it wasn't popular & it had no real reason to be introduced. It caused a big fight & certainly caused damage among activists- yet there was rank hypocrisy from Corbyn who said that conference shouldn't be about rule changes, when his first conference with an NEC majority & deflated PLP saw... rules changes.  

The final package is something that the PLP will like; trigger ballot threshold increased so you have to be corrupt, toxic or under police investigation to get triggered, you need 20% of the PLP to be nominated for leader (a noted fact missed is that MEPs use to nominate so it will be harder)

James Meadway made the good point that this will force the left to look for someone popular in the PLP for the next run; whether this is Angela Rayner, or someone else who knws? (I keep banging on about it but the people on the Labour right *cough including me* who backed Keir were much more aware of how to win the membership than the headbangers who wanted Jess)

2.) The Speech: It was rather strange in that everyone (both those allied & opposed to Keir) for months had been hyping up the speech and really putting it on the line as the big event that would either save or kill Keir's leadership- and I think the broad assumption is that it was saved his leadership rather than killed it.

However it was rather bizarre as conference speeches are often the easier gigs that Labour Leaders have. While we remember Ed's from 2014 it's really the only one that has gone wrong in the short term. The fact that commentators from the Labour left spend its time talking about the timing of the heckles after shows that it wasn't bad enough for them to criticise it.

The heckling also didn't work- it never does and there's a reason that other methods (the slow clap, turning around or IMO storming out) have been used by organisations in conferences in the past. It's not really a heckle either if everyone knows it is going to happen.

3.) The Themes: What did reassure me more than the delivery was the themes; the focus on the victims of crime, tying to Keirs role as DPP, was extremely important and will be the weak point for the Government- both the courts & the police are in a mess and Labour have been good since 2016 at making this an issue that can be painful for the Government.

The focus on climate change was good & backed up by an impressive speech from Rachel Reeves (overshadowed by Mcdonald quitting) Labour need to be talking about climate change more & need to have a set of clear policies to point to.

The last theme of work & education was good; if not a bit bare in parts. I still think it was a mistake not to promote Wes Streeting to Shadow Education Sec- purely because he is a bigger media performer & would be better at getting the profile of the role across (who knows he might do a Burnham)

[CumbrianLefty]

Using red cards at a *Labour* conference was very liable to be misinterpreted, too. The sort of thing that seems clever until you actually try to carry it out.....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Using red cards at a *Labour* conference was very liable to be misinterpreted, too. The sort of thing that seems clever until you actually try to carry it out.....

Ultimate Meme Party tbh.

[Blair]

I suspect if Burnham had had a speech it would have been distinctly underwhelming - he talks a good game and the powers of the role are not huge (especially when you don't have a politically sympathetic government) but his actual record of achievement is pretty thin. Not bad, but nothing to write home about.

I realised that he's quite similar to Sadiq Khan in 2016-18. Khan was the only powerful elected politician with a platform to rival Corbyn & would get a clap from Labour moderates for simply saying 'in power I have...'. He was liked very much on the basis of who he isn't.

However when his own unpopularity in London rose, and when Corbyn lost Khan's power and unique appeal pretty much went away.

Some of the dickheads around Starmer think it is a good idea to give Ed M the Dodds treatment, it would appear. Can't see that going wrong in any way at all......

Honestly insane- especially seeing as Ed is one of the closest things that Keir has to a longstanding ally in the Shadow Cabinet. (Keir relied on Brown to get appointed as DPP & Ed helped him get his seat in 2105)

It would be a huge mistake; especially as he can't just be shuffled to another brief. 

[Cassius]

According to some of the tabloids three Labour MP’s are apparently considering crossing the floor to join the Tories. Assuming this isn’t just japes and banter (which is what I assume it is), any of our Labour people have any idea who it might be.

[Blair]

According to some of the tabloids three Labour MP’s are apparently considering crossing the floor to join the Tories. Assuming this isn’t just japes and banter (which is what I assume it is), any of our Labour people have any idea who it might be.

It was very thin gruel- the argument given for defecting is that Keir is doing badly against the Tories, so thus said MPs will defect to the Tories.

I don’t know who it would be but I’d draw a short list of A.) Someone in a marginal B.) someone at risk of losing their seat C.) someone who would expect a job in exchange D.) someone low profile

[CumbrianLefty]

Given the rather emphatic denials of the MP for Canterbury, that leaves maybe one credible name.

[Blair]

The fun thing about the Blair/Brown documentary is watching people crow about the lack of a ‘modern Mr Tony’ while being the exact same people who think that he arrived on earth in 1994.

There’s a very weird trend of forgetting that he spent the 1980s advocating politics he broadly disagreed with, or thinking that New Labour emerged over night.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, his most committed disciples almost all see 1994 as some sort of "Year Zero".

Whereas to many of us it was his similarities with previous Labour personalities and historical eras that was at least as fascinating. And they didn't cease to be so just because it suited him to be evasive about them.

[Conservatopia]

The Labour benches do seem to be somewhat lacking in character and "big names" - mostly as a result of being out of government for so long rather than through any fault of the party.

I wasn't alive in '94 but was the situation similar back then or were there some well-known, popular people on the benches?

[Blair]

The New Labour cabinet was IMO v weird and I don’t really have a clear theory why; the dominance of Brown in the Treasury, the control freaked and the various TBGBs meant it was a pretty toxic place. Hence why by the end in 2010 it was a pretty weak cabinet… which lead to the 2010 one being bad and so on and so forth.

The biggest drain has been the lost of Scotland and the North East; Blair, Brown, Cook, Mandelson, Reid, Robertson all held seats that are now with the Tories. It was already by 2010 a shrinking pool and this has made it even worse.

There’s equally been a very long running trend of claiming that the Labour frontbench is not what it use to be like (including in the 60s which is now seen as the most talented cabinet we ever had in THIGMOO) There were constant calls for Alistair Darling or Alan Johnson to be recalled in Ed Ms days due to the need for ‘big beasts’.

My rough take of 1994 is that much like Starmers FB it was a reshuffle that brought forward a new generation. In Blairs case it was largely people elected in ‘79 or ‘83 who’d never held office in Government and Starmer has broadly ended the likelihood of several old Brownites, and promoted people from the 2010/2015 intake.

If you look at the government proposed by Kinnock in 1992 it’s worlds apart from that of 1997; people like Kaufman, Bryan Gould, Roy Hattersley were set for high office and ended up with nawt in 1997.

The Labour benches do seem to be somewhat lacking in character and "big names" - mostly as a result of being out of government for so long rather than through any fault of the party.

I wasn't alive in '94 but was the situation similar back then or were there some well-known, popular people on the benches?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The thing is, it isn't as if the Conservative benches are exactly packed with talent either. I certainly can't remember a Cabinet as shallow as the present one, and it's an open secret that the Conservative Whips are of the view that an alarmingly high proportion of the 2019 intake should be kept away from ministerial posts at all costs. There is always a tendency to insist that politicians these days aren't half of what they used to be, but, for once, there is actually something to that criticism.