Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean there have been (and maybe still are) Labour councillors who are members of Shiromani Akali Dal so, you know.

[Hifly]

I mean there have been (and maybe still are) Labour councillors who are members of Shiromani Akali Dal so, you know.

And Neeraj Patil (former Labour Mayor of Lambeth and unsuccessful Labour candidate for Mayor of London this year) is an active member of the BJP.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

And one of modi's long-time advisors is part of Imran Khan's Mayoral campaign.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I will just say that if we're going to draw a line ever...

[Silent Hunter]

Anyway, Unite have issued an official endorsement for whatever it's worth*: Corbyn for first preference, Burnham for second.

That might be key; no-one is likely to get a majority on first preferences and it'll come down to second or third preferences.

That probably hurts Corbyn; he's not likely to be second preference for many in other camps.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

And one of modi's long-time advisors is part of Imran Khan's Mayoral campaign.

Err, that was an odd mistake. Salman Khan is running for Mayor, not the Pakistani cricket player/politician.

[ChrisDR68]

I think on balance Yvette Cooper would be the best choice in this leadership election.

I don't for one minute think that she can become the next PM (none of the candidates can in my opinion), but Labour having it's first woman leader would be interesting and is long overdue.

In terms of their electoral appeal Andy Burnham and Cooper are probably about the same (ie. a bit more popular than Ed Miliband but not enough to win power). The dynamic of a woman at the top of the British traditional macho working class political movement would be fascinating to observe though.

Liz Kendall doesn't have the gravitas and credibility required to be leader although she would appeal to many floating voters in the midlands and southern England.

Jeremy Corbyn (judging by the content of comments sections under many Guardian articles) is the choice of many activists and members. He's would almost certainly be an electoral millstone around the neck of the party in a similar way to Michael Foot in 1983. Having said that I wouldn't be totally shocked if he won the leadership so Labour can again try and persuade a conservative (small "c") UK electorate to vote for the radical far left. The end result though would almost certainly be another three figure Conservative majority in the house of commons.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Jeremy Corbyn (judging by the content of comments sections under many Guardian articles) is the choice of many activists and members. He's would almost certainly be an electoral millstone around the neck of the party in a similar way to Michael Foot in 1983. Having said that I wouldn't be totally shocked if he won the leadership so Labour can again try and persuade a conservative (small "c") UK electorate to vote for the radical far left. The end result though would almost certainly be another three figure Conservative majority in the house of commons.

 

Foot wasn't exactly a full-on borderline Trotskyite. Corbyn is - and he's never held a ministerial brief in his life.

If we're stupid enough to elect Corbyn, I'd seriously consider resigning my membership.

[Leftbehind]

Anyway, Unite have issued an official endorsement for whatever it's worth*: Corbyn for first preference, Burnham for second.

That might be key; no-one is likely to get a majority on first preferences and it'll come down to second or third preferences.

That probably hurts Corbyn; he's not likely to be second preference for many in other camps.

Arguably yes, but AV isn't exactly a bad system for Corbyn - it allows those who want to vote Corbyn without risking hurting their ABK candidate.

Jeremy Corbyn (judging by the content of comments sections under many Guardian articles) is the choice of many activists and members. He's would almost certainly be an electoral millstone around the neck of the party in a similar way to Michael Foot in 1983. Having said that I wouldn't be totally shocked if he won the leadership so Labour can again try and persuade a conservative (small "c") UK electorate to vote for the radical far left. The end result though would almost certainly be another three figure Conservative majority in the house of commons.

Small C electorate routinely being spoonfed privatizations of essential services, cuts for the wealthy whilst preached austerity is the only way and declining services. You forget that Thatcher was once seen radical right, and the Attlee government radical left (it probably would be seen today as such, funnily enough). You also forget that Foot was leading handsomely in the polls before the SDP split. But if that's true, then we leftists can shut up knowing we were wrong, however many of us weren't born the last time we got an attempt to sell our message & I'd rather that than another stop on the "are these our bastards, or just bastards?" merrygoround.

Also quelle surprise to see the Guardian warning against him in their latest article. So that makes it the immediate post-war years, the mid 70 elections, 1983 and now Corbyn. True paper of the left!

[Phony Moderate]

The divisions were the main millstone in 1983 and Foot was unpopular because of them.

But, again, the most common prediction of the aftermath of (for example) 2005 was that Gordon Brown would defeat David Davis in the next general election. And what odds would you have got in July 2010 on Scottish Labour being reduced to one seat (and it being Edinburgh South at that)?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Chris, your first mistake is reading CiF comments.

[Phony Moderate]

A Corbyn-led Labour Party would make the EU referendum far more interesting of course.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Corbyn could poll very well - the Left might suck at getting their candidates selected but they have a lot of residual strength in the CLPs and Corbyn is, frankly, an infinitely more credible candidate than Abbott - but he's a bit too much himself to attract the necessary transfers. Now, a more moderate Left candidate might have had a really good shot at winning: which may be why all such names floated opted against running.

[ChrisDR68]

Also quelle surprise to see the Guardian warning against him in their latest article. So that makes it the immediate post-war years, the mid 70 elections, 1983 and now Corbyn. True paper of the left!

As I understand it the Guardian is a liberal left newspaper rather than a socialist one. If that's true then the editorial positions they took that you mention above are consistent with their general political philosophical outlook.

[Leftbehind]

Also quelle surprise to see the Guardian warning against him in their latest article. So that makes it the immediate post-war years, the mid 70 elections, 1983 and now Corbyn. True paper of the left!

As I understand it the Guardian is a liberal left newspaper rather than a socialist one. If that's true then the editorial positions they took that you mention above are consistent with their general political philosophical outlook.

Well that was partly my point: I was highlighting its liberalism for the next time I hear how the left "have the Guardian", ha.

[Phony Moderate]

And Polly Toynbee herself was an SDP candidate in 1983.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The Guardian, fwiw, do not want an interfactional civil war to break out in the Labour Party. That would be a certain consequence of two of the candidates in this race winning.

[ChrisDR68]

And Polly Toynbee herself was an SDP candidate in 1983.

This had me in stitches when I read it earlier today:

There are various things that can lose a party votes in elections. You might have a leader that doesn’t look like prime ministerial material, you might have a manifesto that alienates many of the electorate, you might have a hostile media, you might appear hopelessly divided as a political party, or your campaign might be poorly organised and unfocused. Or like Labour in 1983 you might manage all of the above.”

The Labour Party did at least have one ‘secret weapon’ – the battle bus;

“This was an open topped double-decker bus, which toured marginal constituencies helping make them into Conservative strongholds. Its route was carefully planned to take it as many tree-lined avenues as possible so that overhanging branches could whiplash across the top of the bus knocking members of the Shadow Cabinet to the deck. The evening news would feature Margaret Thatcher being presented with flowers by rosy-cheeked school children, all waving Union jacks and cheering. Then it would cut to Labour’s campaign and we’d see Jill Foot getting back to her feet and picking a bird’s nest out of her hair with the tannoy booming ‘Vote Labour – for an end to NHS queues’, as the injured headed down to the nearest casualty department to make them even longer.”

  Just how bad was the 1983 Election for Labour? | The Oliver Observations
https://oliverobservations.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/just-how-bad-was-the-1983-election-for-labour/ 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Guardian, fwiw, do not want an interfactional civil war to break out in the Labour Party. That would be a certain consequence of two of the candidates in this race winning.

Correct.

[ChrisDR68]

Impressive article from Daniel Sleat in the Independent.

I'm hard pressed to disagree with anything in it which is rare for me when reading a political article on the internet

The eight questions that Labour leadership candidates need to answer - Comment - Voices - The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-eight-questions-that-labour-leadership-candidates-need-to-answer-10338990.html?origin=internalSearch 

I particularly liked this bit:

This point cannot be repeated enough: until we come to terms with our last period in office we will never be elected again. If we are not comfortable with our record and achievements why should the public be? No one, not even Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, would say we got everything right. This question isn’t about wanting to photocopy and amend our 1997 manifesto. It is about understanding and accepting why we won such historic victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005. New Labour is based, in my view, on a constant desire to adapt Labour values to a fast-changing world.

Obviously having someone with the charisma and rare communication skills of Tony Blair helped a lot in achieving those victories but Labour does have a curious habit of disliking (often intensely) their previous periods in power.

The 1945-51 period being the sole exception.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

CLP map updated. The patterns are interesting, if not terribly surprising.

[Phony Moderate]

Lol Kendall

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lol Kendall

Indeed.

Of course inactive members are generally more moderate than active ones, but still...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I wonder if Kendall will win the endorsement in her own constituency party?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wonder if Kendall will win the endorsement in her own constituency party?

Unlike Leicester South, West is historically a very Right-leaning CLP (selecting in succession her, Patricia Hewitt and... er... Greville Janner) so she ought to given that she's the local MP. East will, of course, back whoever Keith Vaz tells it to.