This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Blair]

Reports that local exec members might resign over the shortlist.not including anyone local.

I did laugh when I saw claims one of the candidates was local because she has a wessie accent

[JimJamUK]

We’re all the potential candidates problematic, or is this just a standard stitch-up giving Wakefield a choice of 2 leadership approved candidates?

[Blair]

Now reports all 16 exec members to quit.

What a stupid stupid party. The Labour group surely had one person they could put up on the shortlist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This reminds me a bit of the fuss over the Rotherham selection a decade ago: the thinking wasn't unreasonable, but the execution was, shall we say, a little crude. Anyway I suspect that if Hemingway very much wishes to be an MP then he should dust himself down, accept that he was never getting picked for a by-election, wait to see where the Outwood area* ends up after the boundary review and run hard for whatever seat results. Or try to convince Trickett to stand down at Hemsworth.

_{*Which is where he actually lives and is a councillor. That's not not local as far as these things go, but there's been some definite gilding-of-the-lily over quite how local it is...}

[CumbrianLefty]

One of my more "right wing" opinions is that I fully understand why the national party wants to "fix" selections for high profile byelections (and most on all wings of the party who recall the famous 1980s disasters from not doing this will agree, at least privately) but there is really no need to be so clumsy and transparent about it. And given that a byelection is very likely coming up (Leicester E) where the Labour candidate being locally acceptable could well be very important, this matters.

[Blair]

It’s also, to be blunt, not as if the favourites are exactly high profile names. But often these things are about blocking someone more so than favouring one candidate.

There’s not even the usual excuse of this being a rush…

The big row seems to be the rule change from conference being ignored- said change was snuck (well fumbled) through and gives local parties a bigger role and majority in panel that does shortlisting.

It was an amendment that was hard for ‘normal’ CLP delegates to oppose so it passed, but was badly worded* to the extent the NEC could ignore it and they have done since.


*I read it during conference and was surprised it wasn’t struck down on procedural grounds- it’s unworkable during a snap election, but no-one made that point or tried to reach a comprise. Perhaps as we all suggested last September the whole conference process should be changed…

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

One of my more "right wing" opinions is that I fully understand why the national party wants to "fix" selections for high profile byelections (and most on all wings of the party who recall the famous 1980s disasters from not doing this will agree, at least privately) but there is really no need to be so clumsy and transparent about it. And given that a byelection is very likely coming up (Leicester E) where the Labour candidate being locally acceptable could well be very important, this matters.

Are you referring to Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey or are there other examples ?

[YL]

One of my more "right wing" opinions is that I fully understand why the national party wants to "fix" selections for high profile byelections (and most on all wings of the party who recall the famous 1980s disasters from not doing this will agree, at least privately) but there is really no need to be so clumsy and transparent about it. And given that a byelection is very likely coming up (Leicester E) where the Labour candidate being locally acceptable could well be very important, this matters.

Are you referring to Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey or are there other examples ?

Greenwich 1987 maybe?

I understand why the leadership is always going to consider some candidates unsuitable in a by-election, but what I'm less impressed by is the shortlist ending up so short; for a vacancy like this there must surely have been more than two suitable candidates applying.  I also don't think the leadership necessarily gets its judgement right.

Of course the Corbynites were perfectly capable of their own shenanigans around selections.  And Labour isn't the only party to have issues with candidates in by-elections, as we saw twice last year.

[CumbrianLefty]

Glasgow Govan in 1988 as well - it was after then that the NEC took more powers over byelections, which they used in Vauxhall the following year.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Or try to convince Trickett to stand down at Hemsworth.

Wouldn't even be too surprised by this, he seems understandably a bit tired these days.

[Blair]

Lots of anti Wes Streeting briefing going on.

Hard to tell who I think would be doing it because well even I’d be doing it.

[CumbrianLefty]

To be brutally honest, he has asked for it.

[Blair]

I miss the late Miliband era where you could just assume every briefing war was from Yvette and Ed Balls, or a handful of bitter old blairites.

To be brutally honest, he has asked for it.

It’s an interesting one- he is very loyal to Keir and was one the few people willing to really go out to bat last conference when the show was falling apart, but there’s still the vibe he’s being loyal because well it makes him look good.

He’s also to be blunt being insufferable. The smacking t comments were so stupid and clearly a sign of how he would approach politics. Imagine him as Home Secretary… would be the David Blunkett punishment wheel all over again.

I would say I’m surprised by how quickly he became the candidate of the progress right but well this is progress. Not our best people…

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

The smacking t comments were so stupid and clearly a sign of how he would approach politics.

They're also why I'm not worried (and worried would be the term) about him winning a leadership contest - he'd try to make some clever quip and wind up sounding like he was endorsing one of his opponents.

[CumbrianLefty]

I would say I’m surprised by how quickly he became the candidate of the progress right but well this is progress. Not our best people…

Basically he became an icon for them after that risible McDonalds business.

[Blair]

What are Steve McCabes politics?

He’s chair of LFI and just did a pretty awful question in Parliament over the killing of the journalist…

[CumbrianLefty]

I know they are different police forces and all that, but Johnson not getting any more fines over the parties (despite attending five more of them than the one he was penalised for) surely increases the chances that Starmer's gamble will pay off?

[Blair]

I know they are different police forces and all that, but Johnson not getting any more fines over the parties (despite attending five more of them than the one he was penalised for) surely increases the chances that Starmer's gamble will pay off?

Yeah that was my first thought- especially considering that the Prime Minister appears to have used some creative arguments for avoiding the fine.

[JimJamUK]

It’s also good news for Labour generally. The lack of new fines will mean Johnson’s leadership is now secure, but the fact he has already been fined and it is confirmed he attended law breaking lockdown parties means that the public still hate him, don’t trust him, and think there’s one rule for them etc. While the Starmer investigation will damage Labour even if (by the looks of it, when) he is found not to have broken the law, the Johnson parties to any normal person will look worse, and it’s not like the day-to-day politics of the economy are about to rescue the Conservatives anytime soon.

[Torrain]

It’s also good news for Labour generally. The lack of new fines will mean Johnson’s leadership is now secure, but the fact he has already been fined and it is confirmed he attended law breaking lockdown parties means that the public still hate him, don’t trust him, and think there’s one rule for them etc. While the Starmer investigation will damage Labour even if (by the looks of it, when) he is found not to have broken the law, the Johnson parties to any normal person will look worse, and it’s not like the day-to-day politics of the economy are about to rescue the Conservatives anytime soon.

Aye - all they need to say is 121-nil.
And if even if he is fined, they can play the “LOTO resigned - why is Boris still around?” card.

[Pericles]

It's still a travesty that Boris didn't get more fines, he is guilty as sin. Hopefully Sue Gray eviscerates him as a consolation prize. In any case, he won't be fully secure in his position so it will be fun to see him suffer like Theresa May did.

[CumbrianLefty]

It's still a travesty that Boris didn't get more fines, he is guilty as sin

Which is what many if most people here think, so this is unlikely to help him much.

[Blair]

A very funny article below including the gem of advice from Douglas Alexander. I very much doubt that such a ‘killer’ line would make any remote difference.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/21/quash-talk-of-a-labour-deal-with-snp-now-veteran-election-team-urges-starmer

My own instinct is that Labour can deal with the issue early by saying clearly in Scotland and across Britain that the way to get a Labour government is straightforward … vote for a Labour MP.

“It is perfectly possible to say, ‘The only coalition we are seeking is one with the voters. Labour will seek to deliver its manifesto and other parties will need to make their choice about whether to support us.’ Getting that clarity on the record works both as a campaign message and as a strategy for governing.”

[Blair]

The article goes on to make a number of strange claims- it’s weird how 2015 has been retconned as ‘the SNP attacks lost it for Labour ‘ rather than the ‘the polling was wrong and both Ed’s were not trusted to be PM and Chancellor’.

[Silent Hunter]

Labour frankly needs to be honest about the possibility of a coalition, because it is very likely to need a supply and consent arrangement at best.