2020 Labour Leadership Election

[Blair]

I know Luke Pollard personally, and I think that he might be running for leadership. He's very popular here (cross-party support, even tories love him.) but I'm not sure I could support him due to his very pro-remain stance. However, I support his views on electoral reform. What are your thoughts on him? He's definitely an underdog if he ever gets in.

He's not running for leader.

[Blair]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2019/12/how-does-labour-leadership-election-work

FWIW since people are asking re getting on the ballot.

You need 10% of MPs/MEPs to nominate you (so that's 21) and then you need 5% of Constituency Labour Parties (there's roughly 600 odd of these) or 5% of affiliated groups (of which two must be trade unions)

It then goes to OMOV which ranked preference.

These were the rules introduced by Corbyn in 2017 and were designed specifically for this- to get a left candidate on the ballot.

The big difference is that we'll need at least 4 weeks for the nomination process to run... and it will be organised chaos.

My thoughts  

1.) There's enough MPs to get one member of the 'left project' on the ballot- but not two.

2.) There's a big divide among the 'left' in terms of Brexit; there's the lexiteer strain represented by Burgon & Lavery & Trickett and then the more progressive strain represented by Clive Lewis, Lloyd Russell-Moyle.

3.) The race will come down to whether both Rebecca Long Bailey and Angela Rayner run; they're flat mates, and very close friends- and the deputy race means that one will have a reason to not run for Leader.

4.) Rayner would have much more support in the PLP & would be guaranteed the support of UNISON (she is an ex-union official) and GMB (the two big anti-Corbyn trade unions)

5.) There will be a lot of backlash against Starmer & Thornberry over their perceived 'London elite remainness etc' but I'm not sure how well this would go in a race where the membership are overwhelming remainers in leave seats.

6.) This is going to be a weird race. The membership is overwhelming pro-Corbyn, but we've just suffered a huge defeat, and no-one running has ever ran in an internal election before

[Blair]

Saw this elsewhere, the only 2 Labour leaders in the past 60 years to win a general election were Harold Wilson and Tony Blair.

One is dead, and the other the current party hates.

Good luck.

The sort of "killer stat" that simultaneously means everything and nothing.

For a start, would Labour have won in 1997 had John Smith lived? Of course they would, easily.

That alone makes the "only Blair can win elections for Labour in modern Britain" meme so beloved by some centrists meaningless - it is simply an accident of history, little more.

Though if you want to take things further - only four Labour people have become PM through elections *ever*. And guess what, one of those is even more reviled in party folk memory than Mr Tony is

I remember when some on the left claimed Blair only won 1997 because of the sh**t opposition- as both 2017 & 2019 shows you need a very very strong operation in place to win.

I don't believe Blairism is at all the future of Labour; but it's a mistake to ignore the organisational strength we had in the 1990s.

[Blair]

Hopefully Labour selects Diane Abbot as the next party leader. What’s her stance on Brexit anyway.

If you have to ask that the first part of your statement is rather redundant.

[Blair]

Nobody is realistically talking about Corbyn staying on for a few years anyway (FWIW I agree with Al about that being totally impractical) Just a couple of months; IMO letting him "own" both ECHR and our exit from the EU, allowing a new leader to start with a fresh slate, is a sensible idea.

Besides, the party doesn't have a deputy at the moment - if he *did* resign today who would take over?

Shadow Cabinet and NEC would pick an interim leader pending a leadership election.

As for ECHR, while I don't think it can levy fines directly unless Labour ignored its recommendations, wouldn't it leave Labour vulnerable to some very expensive lawsuits?

They're already allegedly facing these lawsuits after they tried to attack the Labour staffers on the Panorama program; along with the loss of short money (£1.2 million less due to seat loss), the cost of the various vanity projects implemented by Corbyns team (Labour Live cost £1 million & Karie's mysterious organisers cost £3 million) and the need to have a legal team to defend legal cases from it's own MPs it hasn't been the best 18 months for Labour HQ.

[Blair]

As I said earlier it all comes down to whether RLB or Rayner run for Leader; if Rayner runs for leader then there will be a desperate effort by the campaign group to get a 'true believer' on the ballot.

It's hilarious that the Deputy Leadership race looks like it's going to be a collection of Corbyn cheerleaders who know they're too incompetent for the top job (with the exception of Dawn Butler)

I still reckon there's a chance that one of the more senior corbynsceptics  (Thornberry, Starmer, Cooper, Lammy, etc) runs for Deputy and absolutely cleans up.

[Blair]

Thinking about the possible leader/deputy options, a Rayner/Lewis combo looks at least a bit appealing.

I'm aware I seem to forever be making snarky comments about the Leadership but the biggest mistake was not promoting Lewis as the heir to Corbyn; he was seen as the favourite throughout 15/16 but was kicked out by Seamus because he supported Trident & he then quit the frontbench over Article 50; he should have done what Dianne did and skipped the vote!

I get he's a rather loose canon but he's miles better than RLB/Pidock & Burgon because he's actually though for himself since 2017.

[Blair]

Whoever gets in (and while I think speculating about possible candidates is reasonable, speculating about outcomes... too early for that, the World is changed and the Emperor has no clothes) will need to clean the stables. Will be very unpleasant. But it is urgent.

They're already allegedly facing these lawsuits after they tried to attack the Labour staffers on the Panorama program; along with the loss of short money (£1.2 million less due to seat loss), the cost of the various vanity projects implemented by Corbyns team (Labour Live cost £1 million & Karie's mysterious organisers cost £3 million) and the need to have a legal team to defend legal cases from it's own MPs it hasn't been the best 18 months for Labour HQ.

There are certain other disturbing signs that suggests that it would be a good idea to get some accountants in to look at the books and, if necessary (because it might all just be the sort of corruption that is perfectly legal combined with gross incompetence), to then have a little chat to Inspector Knacker.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-bankruptcy-antisemitism-investigation-corbyn-executive-a9153561.html

A real worry & danger (and perhaps a reason why JC enlarged the NEC!); although hopefully whoever comes in will ditch the cranks (even if they keep part of the movement) The thing that has always annoyed me the most is how so many unsuitable people used the Corbyn project (Livingstone, Lansman, Willsman, Lavery, Webbe and others) to either avoid scrutiny or climb up through the party. *

*something of course that happens in every era but this set of characters are worse than Charles Clarke, Clare Short or others

[Blair]

FWIW we have local elections in 2020; and Mayoral elections in both 2020 & 2021- I really don't want to roadtest just how low we can go without Corbyn. Keeping Corbyn for that long means saying goodbye to a lot of good councillors & any chance of winning in the Midlands or Tees Valley.

There's two reasons why we need an effective Leader of the Opposition. Firstly we're facing a Tory Party with a huge majority; we need someone who is a good performer in Parliament to actually hold the Government to account. For all his perks JC was never good at the dispatch box.

Secondly we need someone who can begin the long process of sorting the party out; see my above posts about the problems facing Labour internally & the need for a clear out.

I'm happy keeping JC in place for the absolute embarrassment of the EHCR report so he can once again answer for the appalling response to antisemitism; but yes John McDonnnell could easily run the ship for the next few months.

[Blair]

It was probably unfair to Lansman to include him in that group; but he put ridiculously inept people on the NEC slate for momentum, and while he has bouts of sanity (on AS & on opposing Formby as GS) he equally realised 12 months ago that the Corbyn project was doomed but doesn't appear to have done much.

I of course don't travel in these circles so it's all speculative guesswork but I feel Lansman had the chance to make momentum into something so much better than it is

[Blair]

Not to make the dumb American comparison again, but it’s amazing that the Democratic primary will still be contested by the time this wrapped up.

Also, is it normal for leadership contenders to be this inexperienced? It seems like most of the talked-about candidates were elected in 2015 and there’s barely anyone from Labour’s last round in government. I know it was a decade ago now, but damn.

There's a weirdness in British Politics about the intakes (the year they were elected)- the 2015 intake saw UNITE and the Left actually do quite well so there was a stock to promote in the patty- and Corbyns team to their credit have made a successor in Rebecca Long Bailey.

RLB as leader should be seen as as stupid idea but it's been said so often, and she's been given so much help by LOTO, and Labour HQ that it appears perfectly normal

Besides the figures from the last Labour Government have actively planned their careers around avoiding the leadership; Hillary Benn & Yvette Cooper became committee chairs, Margaret Beckett took the lead on the People's Vote Campaign & Sadiq/Andy have became Mayors. You also have a lot of the junior rungs of the New Labour years who have (Tom Watson, Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, James Purnell) cleared off to do jobs outside of Westminster.

Of course this is all a problem going back to 2010- the exodus of the New Labour heavyweights in 2010 was key. None of them ran for leader & they cleared out when Ed Miliband came in; meaning that we had a top team that was very light and inexperienced & we're still seeing that problem today.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/fall-labour-s-golden-generation

[Blair]

The dirty deal between Angela and Long-Bailey has been done according to the infamously reliable twitter journos.

It's the wrong way round with Angela set to run for Deputy.

[Blair]

No more stitch ups, please.

Well we still have the joy of seeing who UNISON & GMB support... in all fairness Rayner was the person most likely to get the nomination stitched up really quickly but yeah this could easily be filed under 'factional plot' gone awry part 100 in Labour History.

[Blair]

I don't want to predict anything re thresholds other than saying RLB will be on the ballot; because she's guaranteed the support of CWU/UNITE & the block of corbynity MPs.

I expect that much like in 2015 some people will make noises about running, go around the tea room and go 'oh god the 40 people who said they liked me won't actually nominate me' and will then fail to get on the ballot.

I haven't gone through the new PLP with a fine tooth comb but I'd want to see a list of declared candidates before working out who doesn't get enough MPs. 

[Blair]

I can see this system getting scrapped though; purely because I haven't met anyone in the party who understands how it will actually work.

[Blair]

Hmmm, the Times.

The real story is that he's another UNITE official. The rot in Corbynism can be directly linked to when UNITE effectively took over LOTO & HQ.

In the week that has seen them lose a libel case against a Labour MP I'd avoid them like the plague.

[Blair]

Eh I didn't hate RLBs piece as much as I usually hate articles written for MPs to post in newspaper- I can't think of any serving politician who I've been impressed by as a result of a op-ed. (A diary entry in the NS is of course the on brand way to announce a leadership bid)

The progressive patriotism line being attacked at least shows a willingness to approach the issue; but of course there's the Miliband era problem of a new tagline not being enough. You need a robust set of populist policies & the ability to survive a huge amount of sh**t (I remember seeing a video of 1995 era Blair awkwardly talking to 'swing voters' who wanted to bring back the birch at school) in order to actually appeal to the people you want to.

The problem that she faces is the line I saw attached to her after her selection in eccles- 'we wanted a good local candidate, but instead we got a UNITE solicitor'.

Ignoring the last 3 years in Parliament there's a really a huge gap over just who she is; it worked like a charm in getting her this fair but she has the feeling of well a career politician (hence why Pidcock was a lot stronger imo)

[Blair]

The "fundamentalist" wing of Corbynism certainly don't see Rayner as "hard left" FWIW - those comparisons with Neil Kinnock aren't just because they are both redheads you know.

I still think it's a huge mistake not pushing Angela for leader; of course it might be a case of her not wanting it but she would easily beat Keir, and would actually be quite good as Leader.

But picking RLB (a former corporate lawyer, who joined the party in 2010!) over Rayner (an ex-trade union official) really does reveal a lot about parts of the left.

Of course this is no different to boosting Pidcock for leader purely because she talked about despising tories & representing her class (despite being as middle class as I am!)

I mean the three priorities for their project should be 1.) Someone who will beat Keir 2.) Someone who is strong enough to face 4 years of crap from the PLP. 3.) Someone who won't ditch the 2017 manifesto.

I know I've ranted about it before; but I feel they've put so much energy into someone with no real charisma, no real strength in the party & no obvious political skills.

[Blair]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ian-lavery-communities-represented-labour-21192144

Current debate on labour twitter; is he wanting to run, is he running to make RLB look less left or is he just enjoying his moment of fame?

Although a better article than Pidcock; but a puzzling conclusion that de-industrialisation hurt Labour in this election (it's obviously a reason in the long term decline of social democracy but Labour won these seats 2 & 4 years ago!)

It didn't help that Lavery went to every PLP meeting MPs 'we're more ready than ever' and was one of the loudest supporters of an early GE...

[Blair]

I certainly agree that class & the decline of industry is a major problem; but again this is nothing new (Hobsbawn Marx Memorial Lecture in '78 actually traces it back to 50-60 years before then- http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/78_09_hobsbawm.pdf)

North West Durham: Labour vote

1992: 26,734
2001: 24,526
2005: 21,312
2010: 18,539

-8225

Bolsover

1992: 33, 978
2001: 26, 249
2005: 25, 217
2010: 21, 994

-11, 984

Jarrow

1992: 28,956
2001: 22,777
2005: 20,554
2010: 20,910

-8046

Well yes; but these numbers are deceptive (not including 1997) and equally they still had huge Labour majorities in 2010 despite Labours share of the vote being the lowest since 1983. There's a reason we went from slowly dipping in these seats ( a pattern seen in 2017) to massively haemorrhaging support in seats we've held since '45.

A lot of this was turnout, some of it was switching to the Tories and another bit of it was losing votes to the Lib Dems/Greens.

Also there is no reason why Corbyn would be hated by the working classes, because he is a cooky leftist while the middle classes of Battersea and Putney are like nah he's fine.

Actually there is a lot of reasons.

Mainly middle class people in Battersea/Putney (insert urban remain voting seat) have a different set of values to people in traditionally working class seats like Sedgefield & Wakefield. I worked in a seat where we saw the Labour vote hold up & expand in the middle class ex-tory ward, whilst falling massively in the neighbouring white working class wards.

Add in age as a factor (seats like Putney tend to be younger & have more transplants), Corbyns social liberalism (on issues like immigration) and the weakness on national security (as Al has said his handling of the Skripal poisoning did a huge amount of damage) and you get a cocktail that creates a huge problem in traditional working class areas.

And finally Brexit; an issue that much like Scottish Nationalism has made people do two things; abandon traditional voting intentions & become more likely to vote tactically for their outcome.

I dismissed it as overblown trivialised stuff during the election but this focus group of 2017 Labour Leavers sums it up

https://www.channel4.com/news/focus-group-can-tories-win-over-people-who-voted-labour-and-leave

Any leader from the left would be disliked by the working classes as labor policies have not materially improved their lives since left parties embraced liberalism.

Again I'm not sure about this; or the definition of Liberalism (as Corbyn in some respects was much more liberal than Blair ever was on issues like policing, surveillance, immigration detention etc)

Equally there was a generation who saw huge material differences under New Labour (minimum wage, tax credits, sure start centres, record NHS & education investment). This core group of voters (often women with kids) voted Labour between 1997-2005 because of the economic offer (low inflation, growing economy, record state investment etc) that was put on the table.

Of course this blew up in 2008 but again I don't buy the argument that the Labour brand is dead forever in these seats.

In 1983, Foot was a radical that hated the UK and was supportive of unilateral disarmament, the industrial working class were fine with that, while the middle classes/lower-middle classes in London swung heavily against the Labour Party, for being too radical.

I mean the 1983 election was during an extremely different sociological period in British Politics; I don't think the argument was ever made that Foot hated Britain.

It was just that the party was divided, he wasn't seen as a fit PM & the SDP/Alliance took a lot of air out of Labour.

Clinton was a centrist, she was hated most in white working class industrial areas and saw the greatest swings agains her in those areas.

Clintons problem was that she was Hillary Clinton; someone who had been around in Politics for far too long, who was associated with scandal and was seen as out of touch, aloof & baggage ridden from the 90s.

I don't think the issue for these voters was that she was seen as Centrist; it's that she was seen as  a typical politician who offered nothing new.

Shorten was basically a soft-left technocrat (Owen smith) and he saw the largest swings against him in working class areas especially in rural areas but also in outer-surbuban lower middle class areas, both of which were labor heartlands, and this lost him the unlosable election.

I assume knowing little about Australian politics that it's like the UK in that an average centre-left candidate will still lose to a below average right wing candidate 

[Blair]

Of course I'm banging my own drum but I really think that a lot of people would benefit from spending 6 weeks with a CLP and looking through the campaign data & comments from voters.

[Blair]

Ian Lavery not even mentioned?

Nandy must be disappointed with that score too.

(also a useful reminder that there is a strong likelihood nobody will get 50% on the first round this time - transfers could yet be highly significant)

FWIW I actually forget that Nandy was a viable candidate until the 12th December; the only thing I'd seen her do in 2019 was the endless Brexit tease of 'will I vote for this deal'.

I don't dislike her but she's had an extremely quiet time since she left the shadow cabinet and certainly isn't a big figure- of course being only 1% behind Thornberry shows just how well she has done.

I don't know if you share this but the most important thing about the transfers is that they're unpredictable, bizarre and not straight forward- I remember hearing that 20% of 2015 Liz Kendall voters had Corbyn as a 2nd preference, and equally I think lots of people in Labour assume that everyone votes fractionally in their order (they don't)

To give just one example my 1st preference in the the Deputy Leadership will most likely go to someone who I feel will balance out RLB in case she wins as Leader; as much as I love Angela I can't see her being a good deputy to RLB.

So this does not take account of the registered supporters+affiliateds, though, right? I assume RLB would be running considerably better among them, though probably not quite *as* good, as she would need to win.

We don't know if or what the affiliated supporter scheme looks like; there's a good chance the NEC will keep up a high fee (it was £3 in '15 but & £25 in 2016) along with a short time-frame (2 days to sign up)

Affiliate turnout tends to be quite low (it was lower than affiliates even in 2016) but if the big unions split we could see a more interesting result, but they tend to broadly follow the headline results (with some variation)

[Blair]

I've never been her biggest fan but Jess has something that very few Labour Politicians in the last decade have had- cut through.

[Blair]

Really? Her recognition ratings amongst "ordinary" voters aren't that great.

That video is well put together, but its still mostly "me me me".

Not in terms of that- I just think if she spends 2 hours on a stage with Starmer, Nandy and Long-Bailey she has the best chance of appearing human, and not just talking in the usual labour party management talk.

Of course part of this is a crafted routine; but I feel there's a chance she could do a lot better than a lot of people inside the party thing (or equally a lot worse)

[Blair]

Really? Her recognition ratings amongst "ordinary" voters aren't that great.

That video is well put together, but its still mostly "me me me".

Not in terms of that- I just think if she spends 2 hours on a stage with Starmer, Nandy and Long-Bailey she has the best chance of appearing human, and not just talking in the usual labour party management talk.

Of course part of this is a crafted routine; but I feel there's a chance she could do a lot better than a lot of people inside the party thing (or equally a lot worse)

Trouble is, even accepting that she is still very capable of spectacularly messing the whole thing up.

Oh of course; we are playing with fire by giving the keys to the 2015 intake.

FWIW whatever rump of the Progress faction is left in the PLP appears to be backing Jess- Peter Kyle, Neil Coyle and Wes Streeting have all came out in support of her (all part of the same intake) and all very much so on the right of the party.

Interesting in that she isn't a candidate of the right; although I think this is more a case of the right being so fractured, so demoralised and frankly not willing to get 2% of the vote again; much like with Corbyn's team backing Thornberry in 2017 Jess is simply the strongest person running who gives them a vague chance of influence.

I'll leave Al's impression of her for a good laugh...

One could try to place Phillips in to an ideological or factional bracket, but this would be an error. She is primarily a gadfly. Very hostile to the present leadership and with a famously bad relationship with just about everyone even vaguely associated with it. She does have a genuine popular following of sorts, though how many presently have a vote I'm not sure. Still, beware of the power of Mumsnet. If they put their collective Will to it I'm sure they could do entryism better than Trots or even the Canadian wing of the SAD. Phillips likes to imply that she comes from a working class background, but she doesn't. She is, however, most definitely a Brummie, and while the focus has been on Labour's poor performance in the North of England, results in the Midlands were even more disturbing.