Labour Party leadership election 2015

[ChrisDR68]

Labour has only ever won a majority in the house of commons with three leaders. All three were very different but they had the priceless ability to project reassurance to the electorate.

In other words it's going to take an exceptional personality who has the ability to neutralize the English people's natural mistrust of the Labour Party to enable the party to win next time.

I'm not seeing that person in the runners and riders being mentioned in the media right now.

[ChrisDR68]

Harold Wilson (as everyone here knows) once observed that "the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing" and isn't that just the truth. This isn't the 1980s and the issue isn't policy. It certainly isn't that current Labour policy is too radical and upset key sections of the electorate (people saying that are just going through the motions, frankly). There is a need to inspire people to actually turn out and to vote for the party. It really is a question of approach and presentation, I think.

Agreed.

To win a parliamentary majority in the house of commons I think Labour needs two things:
 
1. The right leader
2. The right circumstances
 
In 1979 it could be argued that they had the right leader in Jim Callaghan but the circumstances were wrong due to the fallout from the Winter Of Discontent.
 
In 1992 they had the right circumstances (a deep recession with the Tories having been in power for 13 years) but the wrong leader in Neil Kinnock. Had John Smith been Labour leader in that election I suspect he would have won a tiny majority similar to Harold Wilson's in 1964.
 
Everything fell into place in 1997 with the right circumstances and a leader that was perfectly placed to take full advantange in the shape of Tony Blair.
 
Since Blair left the scene Labour's support has been stuck at around the 30% mark. It will be a monumental task for the party to win next time particularly if it's facing a potentially popular (and somewhat eccentric) Conservative leader in the guise of Boris Johnson.
 
Manifestoes and policies are important but who the party's leader is and the general circumstances of the country at the time trumps these things comfortably in my view.
 
My gut feeling right now is that it will be the general election after next (2025 or thereabouts) before Labour has a really good chance to get back into power again.

[ChrisDR68]

Jarvis isn't running.

Heard someone say on the Daily Politics yesterday that it was Dan Jarvis that the Conservatives most feared.

That reminded me strongly of a discussion among several Tories on tv following their 1997 general election defeat. They all agreed that they feared a Denis Healey leadership in the early 80's and that Labour were sentimental and a little self indulgent to plump for Michael Foot.

The candidate that your enemy most fears is often quite instructive.     

[ChrisDR68]

My own prediction is that everyone besides Burnham and Umunna will be irrelevent. Umunna will be seen as the frontrunner until the last couple of weeks but Burnham will just pip him. Burnham will then be torn apart by the right-wing press on the basis of his accent and everyone will then blather on about how much better a leader Umunna would have been.

Where are most of Labour's target seats?

I think Burnham will be more popular with voters in Scotland, Wales, the north and the midlands while Umunna will be more popular in London and southern England.

[ChrisDR68]

If the Labour Party elects a guy called Tristram as leader they should disband immediately.


e: Suggesting we refer to withdrawals as "a reverse Farage".

You mean in the same way Anthony Wedgwood Benn the aristocrat became a firebrand of the far left?

[ChrisDR68]

If Labour is really that stupid to choose someone who voted for the Iraq War as leader, they deserve to be haunted by it till the end of their days.

Tony Blair won the general election in 2005 two years after the Iraq war was launched. The average British voter is much more ambivalent about that war than a lot of people seem to think.

[ChrisDR68]

So if it's just Cooper, Kendall and Burnham on the ballot paper due to others failing to get the 35 nominations from their fellow MP's (which seems likely) here's my analysis of them:

Yvette Cooper - quite telegenic but sounds angry and preachy a lot of the time. If she wins she'd need to sound more positive and optimistic in her tone. I think her ceiling for Labour in 2020 is around 260 seats.

Liz Kendall - a bold communicator but viewed very suspiciously within the Labour Party due to her "moderniser" tag. Her ceiling is likely to be about 270 seats in 2020.

Andy Burnham - likely to be popular with people who already vote Labour but with very limited appeal with people the party needs to win over. Can be quite negative and tetchy when talking about policy on tv. Like Cooper he needs to be more positive with his communication. I think the best he could do in 2020 is around 250 seats.

All in all none of them are PM material with Kendall likely to have the widest appeal among people who didn't vote Labour in either 2010 or 2015.

[ChrisDR68]

Just read this on Electoral Calculus:

New Boundary Estimates: Conservative Majority of 50

There has been recent interest in the likely effect of new boundaries which may be brought in under this parliament. Electoral Calculus prepared a full set of notional implied results under the 600-seat "Sixth Periodic review" of boundaries which was conducted around 2013.

Although these boundaries were not used in 2015, they can still give a good approximation of the likely effect of the boundary changes. If we use the actual election result (adjusted slightly to compensate for model deficiencies) and feed it into the user-defined predictor, then we can see the effect of the boundaries.

Using these figures and the old boundaries gives CON 331, LAB 232, LIB 9, UKIP 1, Green 1, SNP 55, and Plaid 3, which is almost exactly correct. Then when we switch to the proposed 2013 boundaries we get

CON   LAB LIB SNP Plaid N.Ire
325   202   5   49   3   16

This gives the Conservatives a majority of 50 seats, well ahead of their current majority of 12. This is equivalent of nearly another twenty seats for the Conservatives.

Without any change to legislation, the Sixth Review should restart this year for completion in 2018. It looks unlikely that the Conservative government would want to slow this process down.

How likely is this new 600 seat house of commons coming to fruition in time for the next general election?

[ChrisDR68]

But as a more serious point, I will reiterate that the main electoral impact of larger seats with tighter quotas would be to a) greatly increase the impact of national swing while also b) reducing the power of incumbency.

So in effect each seat will have around 75,000 electors compared to 70,000 at present.

What's the main reason for reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600?

[ChrisDR68]

Would it be wrong of me to want Ed Miliband back?

If you want the Conservatives to win a bigger majority at the 2020 general election than they already have then yes it would be the correct thing for Labour to do.

[ChrisDR68]

Where would they go? I mean, maybe it'll inspire some movement to Plaid in Wales (which I doubt); but what party would Labour activists go in Emgland?

Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party would seem to be the obvious choice I would think.

[ChrisDR68]

Many will recall that Blair took over the party by arguing that it needed to get with the times. Now his creatures want to take the party back a least a decade.

A decade would take us back to 2005... when Labour won a 66 seat majority instead of now with the party 100 seats adrift of the Conservatives.

[ChrisDR68]

I've always thought it was strange that Labour won a majority in 2005 and then Blair somehow caused them to lose elections years after he'd left office.

His tenure alienated many traditional Labour voters in marginal (and largely working-class) seats, many of whom voted UKIP last month or abstained, and also abstained in 10/05/01.

Surely Ed Miliband was the "left" leadership candidate in 2010 so his leadership of the Labour Party should in theory have won those alienated working class voters back to the fold.

Or am I missing something?

[ChrisDR68]

Anyway, this is one of those arguments in which everyone involved is partly right and mostly wrong: elements of the legacy of the Blair government turned pretty toxic over time (because of the approach that government took towards the political process as much as anything else) and are still hurting, but turning sharply leftwards in all respects is most unlikely to be the answer.

Can you elaborate on the highlighted bit?

[ChrisDR68]

I know this is probably complicated, but could someone summarize what the different factions of the Labour Party are, and what policies each tends to support?  Like what places someone on the Labour Right, for instance?

For non-Labour voters the factions of the Labour Party are mind boggling and pretty bizarre (especially historically).

Ultimately it's a spread from the hard left (where Corbyn probably resides) to the Blairite right (where we have Kendall and Bradshaw).

The hard left:

Believe in a wealth tax, heavy redistribution of income and wealth from the rich to the poor, the return of the legal immunities to the trade unions that they lost in the 1980's, much higher taxation, spending and borrowing than at present and mass nationalisation of much of the economy.

The Blairite right:

Believe in modest wealth redistribution, more state control of some of the key elements of the economy short of nationalisation, higher public spending and a larger state sector than the Tories. Other than that they largely accept the economic status quo. In other words Tory Lite (to use the oft quoted left wing condemnation).

There are numerous factions inbetween these two that are too numerous to mention

[ChrisDR68]

Read this exchange in the comments section of this Dan Hodges article which I thought was quite telling (and which I agree with to a large extent):

amac
Labour is in a pickle. The membership broadly believe in Corbyn's world view. The nation at large don't. To win the leadership contest you have to win over the membership and then defecate on them to win a general election and be hated for evermore by them for selling them out.

Marc68 
Tragic isn't it? The activists want to maintain the purity of the faith which will lead to perennial opposition once the Tories decimate their welfare dependent constituency. In truth the activists are probably happier in opposition where the compromises of government do not apply.

All this is no good for ambitious politicos who want some power of course. Oh well, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11682718/Who-won-the-Labour-leadership-debate-Nobody.html 

I've always thought large elements of the Labour Party are essentially much happier in opposition. A culture that Tony Blair tried to change when he was leader but was only temporarily successful in this during the period he was prime minister. Once he stood down the party's default instinct of being the party of opposition and protest reasserted itself.   

[ChrisDR68]

I partly agree, partly disagree to play moderate hero.

TB was very successful in the early years with House of Lords, minimum wage etc but he drifted so far off after 2005. I'm not even one of the Iraq opponents but I still think the stuff Labour did post 2003 like Tuition Fees, ID cards, 44 days detention and Cannabis laws was crap. It simply wasn't what a centre left party should do

My point is that when the Conservatives are in power in many ways "normal" service has been resumed.

The Tories see themselves (rightly or wrongly) as the natural party of government. Labour see themselves as the natural party of opposition and protest.

A pretty crap political set-up if you ask me.

Everyone should want competitive politics with both major parties seeing themselves as equally competent and worthy of governing the country.

Going back many decades and for complex historical reasons that simply isn't the case in UK politics.

[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.

 

[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.

[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/ 

[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.

[ChrisDR68]

Corbyn well ahead according to this article in the New Statesman:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/jeremy-corbyn-course-come-top-labour-leadership-election 

If he won the Labour leadership it would certainly shake things up politically in the UK.

What level of support in terms of the popular vote would the party achieve at the next general election if he were leader?

My guess would be somewhere in the 25-28% range.

[ChrisDR68]

And by 2018 the damage will have been done as much of the Labour Right would have left the party.

I actually doubt a repeat of 1980/81 would happen in this scenario. Right wing Labour MP's are probably as pessimistic as I am about the party's chances in 2020 no matter who wins this leadership election so they're likely to simply sit tight, wait for the expected defeat and then hopefully help vote in a more credible candidate (one who actually looks like a realistic potential prime minister) in the leadership election that followed.

[ChrisDR68]

Yeah, that's what I thought. I would figure by this point even the right would be abandoning her and backing Lady Balls as a more realistic candidate to stop the left.

I'd be happy if that happened.

Labour has an outside chance (a very outside chance) of forcing a hung parliament with Yvette as leader. She comes across as a less tribal politician than Andy Burnham which could play well with floating voters.

[ChrisDR68]

So who does everyone on here favour?

I've already stated that I think Yvette Cooper is the best candidate of this mediocre and uninspiring bunch.