Who will be the next Labour leader?

[treelover]

Yep, most of the people on this board will b pushing up daisies before there's another Labour govt.

Nice..

 

[kebabking]

Nice..

Its probably hyperbolic, but it's not far off.

A good way of grasping the size of the problem is to take out a piece of paper and write out 'by the time of the next election, the only Labour leader to have won a majority in the lifetime of anyone under the age of 50, is Blair'.

Then say it out loud.

That's not a clarion call for the resurrection of the Tanned One, it's a way of spelling out how bad the situation is.

Long Bailey appears (so far) utterly uninspiring and barely running, Starmer - regardless of what he's actually saying - sounds like he's saying meh meh meh, Phillips sounds like she's half cut...

I don't hold a particular flame for Nandy and I know little of the details of her specific political beliefs - it's very possible she holds views with which I fundamentally disagree - but she's so far the stand out candidate in terms of her ability to have ideas and articulate them.

 

[Poi E]

Anyway, this Labour. Still got the love-in with weapons of mass destruction? Or can we start to give a fuck about them?

 

[xenon]

Ten years because Labour blame defeat on Brexit and MSM and don't face the likelihood that the country doesn't like far left policies.

What far left policies don’t they like? I mean I don’t remember hearing much about these far left policies. The thing about abolishing private schools, that wasn’t actually in the manifesto.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Long Bailey appears (so far) utterly uninspiring and barely running, Starmer - regardless of what he's actually saying - sounds like he's saying meh meh meh, Phillips sounds like she's half cut...

That's a pretty accurate summary. But you forgot the glaring narcissism of Lewis and the offensive condescension of Thornberry.

I agree with you that Nandy seems intellectually ahead of the rest of them. She actually also seems to want the job. Does RLB? If so, she's got a strange way of going about it. Lacklustre, bland, defensive and flat. I presume the tactic is to keep her covered up and rely on Momentum members to do the job in the ballot?

 

[killer b]

it's a pretty shit tactic if that is the plan, considering how far behind Starmer she is.

 

[kebabking]

I wondered if, given the absence of any kind of public campaign, she was spending her time trying to produce some form of Unite/Momentum based stitch up?

No criticism of The Great Leader, and no interaction with/compromise for, those outside that bubble?

 

[YouSir]

That's a pretty accurate summary. But you forgot the glaring narcissism of Lewis and the offensive condescension of Thornberry.

I agree with you that Nandy seems intellectually ahead of the rest of them. She actually also seems to want the job. Does RLB? If so, she's got a strange way of going about it. Lacklustre, bland, defensive and flat. I presume the tactic is to keep her covered up and rely on Momentum members to do the job in the ballot?

Momentum doesn't have the numbers to decide anything. The reliance is far more on bitterness among the wider membership over the way Corbyn was treated, people will vote for the closest thing because they resent the PLP.

Anyways, none of them seem particularly good, I'm maintaining my membership to vote but probably quitting after.

 

[killer b]

A unite/momentum based stitch up isn't enough by itself, so again it would have been a shit tactic. The corbynite left will remain a strong current in the Labour party, but the bulk of the membership are not currently with them IME.

 

[YouSir]

I wondered if, given the absence of any kind of public campaign, she was spending her time trying to produce some form of Unite/Momentum based stitch up?

No criticism of The Great Leader, and no interaction with/compromise for, those outside that bubble?

Same level of Momentum conspiracy making as came from the press over the past few years. They can organise well enough but day to day they're not controlling the majority of rank and file members, it's just the right of the party and the press who revel in painting them as some kind of collective Rasputin bringing down poor, innocent Centrist Labour types.

 

[kebabking]

A unite/momentum based stitch up isn't enough by itself, so again it would have been a shit tactic. The corbynite left will remain a strong current in the Labour party, but the bulk of the membership are not currently with them IME.

I didn't say I thought it was was an election winner, I'm trying to come up with a reason outside of being a political half-wit that she would be barely running an overt campaign.

 

[killer b]

That would be the reason of a political half-wit though.

 

[killer b]

FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Ten years because Labour blame defeat on Brexit and MSM and don't face the likelihood that the country doesn't like far left policies.

There’s no such thing as ‘far left policies’. I remember seeing a slot on some TV programme some years ago, with that tosser Giles Brandreth, called “the secret socialists of Guildford”. He went round a shopping centre asking people what they thought of all manner of policies, including renationalisation of public utilities, renewable energy etc. Nearly everyone agreed with most of them. Then he told them that the policies were Labour Party ones and the attitudes of the punters changed. All of a sudden they were not so convinced anymore. The policies hadn’t changed one little bit, but their supposed provenance had. That’s the problem.

 

[SpookyFrank]

FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.

If she had any kind of conviction that outweighed her desire to be leader then she would not have this problem, so I've no sympathy for her.

As it stands it's only from second hand sources that anyone is categorising her as a left candidate, or even a Corbynite candidate. She's yet to produce anything that tells me what her position is on anything. All we've had is 'progressive patriotism' or whatever, a phrase clearly invented by a committee of wonks as something which will supposedly appeal to both knuckle-dragging racist brexit voters and enlightened, metropolitan remain voters but which actually appeals to nobody, and is meaningless even by the standards of a country where 'brexit means brexit' counts as robust political analysis.

 

[killer b]

If she had any kind of conviction that outweighed her desire to be leader then she would not have this problem, so I've no sympathy for her.

If she didn't want to become leader she wouldn't have this problem? Yeah, I guess so. If she didn't want to become leader I don't suppose she'd be bothering running though.

 

[SpookyFrank]

If she didn't want to become leader she wouldn't have this problem? Yeah, I guess so. If she didn't want to become leader I don't suppose she'd be bothering running though.

I meant, as I suspect you know, that she cares about being leader more than she cares about exactly which platform she needs to stand on to achieve it. Anyone who is thinking ooh, what should my politics be in order to win this thing is already, by definition, the wrong sort of person to win it.

Not that it's only Long-Bailey doing this. They all are. A plague on the lot of them.

 

[Spandex]

FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.

But Long-Bailey is the continuity Corbyn candidate. She's got his team around her and her pitch to the membership is basically that she'll keep his policies but be better at it than him. Worrying about positioning and trying to be two things at once is a big part of where Labour went spectacularly wrong over Brexit. People can see through it. She needs to own it and fight convincingly for it. She needs to show how she will be better than Corbyn. Not coming up with gibberish about progressive patriotism and ending up saying nothing.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

it's a pretty shit tactic if that is the plan, considering how far behind Starmer she is.

In what circumstances, given we are talking PLP nominations at this point, could RLB expect to be competitive with Starmer?

 

[killer b]

I meant, as I suspect you know, that she cares about being leader more than she cares about exactly which platform she needs to stand on to achieve it. Anyone who is thinking ooh, what should my politics be in order to win this thing is already, by definition, the wrong sort of person to win it.

Not that it's only Long-Bailey doing this. They all are. A plague on the lot of them.

You're only ever going to win the leadership of a broad church (urgh) political party by appealing to as many of the different factions as possible. Corbyn did this more or less by accident in 2015 - I've seen it argued - and I think it's more or less correct - that he was the 'moderate' candidate in the 2015 - it's just that all the others were running well to the right of the membership.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

But Long-Bailey is the continuity Corbyn candidate. She's got his team around her .

She's got some of the team round her. It is clear they are split - hence the Ian Lavery, then Barry Gardiner stories. Hence also abysmal articles claiming that Starmer is on the left. RLB seems weighed own by something, and you have to assume it's this.

 

[killer b]

In what circumstances, given we are talking PLP nominations at this point, could RLB expect to be competitive with Starmer?

I was talking about the yougov membership poll rather than the PLP noms

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I was talking about the yougov membership poll rather than the PLP noms

IIRC RLB hadn't even declared when that was carried out. Anyway, my main point is that her campaign seems weighed down, mired by caution and generally stumbling.

Given the fact that the resource and intellectual investment by much of the Labour left has been focussed on capturing the Party apparatus I am surprised by how quickly it seems to be crumbling.

 

[killer b]

I'm not sure if Long Bailey is running with the progressive patriotism thing btw, it's totally missing from her campaign launch article in the Tribune. I think it got a lot of push back...

 

[killer b]

Anyway, my main point is that her campaign seems weighed down, mired by caution and generally stumbling.

I don't really disagree with this. She's not a very good candidate.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I don't really disagree with this. She's not a very good candidate.

She seems to have been chosen because McDonnell liked her rather than because of any discernible leadership qualities. Given the last 4 years it's a bizarre position for the left to have found itself in.

 

[killer b]

Hard to work out who else they might have gone for, mind.

 

[SpackleFrog]

FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.

I sort of agree with this - certainly its what RLB is attempting and I don't think it's likely to work. But wouldn't another way be to honestly praise what was good about Corbyn while critiquing his failures?

You're only ever going to win the leadership of a broad church (urgh) political party by appealing to as many of the different factions as possible. Corbyn did this more or less by accident in 2015 - I've seen it argued - and I think it's more or less correct - that he was the 'moderate' candidate in the 2015 - it's just that all the others were running well to the right of the membership.

That's one way of understanding why Corbyn won, and its a legitimate analysis. But it's also the case that Corbyn standing drew people towards the party who weren't previously members. By not attempting to triangulate between existing Labour factions Corbyn drew in hundreds of thousands who wanted to become involved to support him. Essentially from the start whether by accident or design he was building support for his leadership outside of the Labour Party.

Couldn't RLB build credibility and support within and beyond the Labour membership by putting forward the best possible political platform rather than attempting to triangulate between existing Labour factions? For example by acknowledging that Corbynism failed on Brexit and on democratising the party, acknowledging that traditional Labour voters were put off by the Brexit fudge and pitching to open up the party to working class communities?

Not that this will happen obviously but I think the failure on Brexit shows the need to look beyond triangulation between Labour factions.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Hard to work out who else they might have gone for, mind.

It's possible they had someone who lost their seat in mind, like Pidcock.

Also possible they just hadn't really thought about it.

 

[killer b]

But a) Corbyn comfortably won with the existing membership anyway, and b) there isn't really anyone left outside Labour that a radical left candidate could draw into the party.