Next Labour Leader II

[Tony L]

Last night's Newsnight is worth watching. Debate between the four leadership hopefuls.

I’m most of the way through it now. As previously Lisa Nandy is the big surprise here, she really is very good indeed, and despite my not agreeing with her on several points (notably Brexit) I’m beginning to think she is the best of the bunch. I’d place Starmer and Thornberry in the middle, both are competent, polished and largely have their ducks in order, but nothing particularly inspiring. I’m sorry, I know I’ll get flack for this, but I can’t see anything in Long-Bailey. She strikes me as that ‘computer says no!’ type woman one finds in every dole or housing benefit office across the land, someone just parroting preset statements without conviction or connection to the question/audience. Either that or a late-series BBC Apprentice candidate. I’m sure she’s a lovely well-meaning person in reality, but she clearly just hasn’t got it in any leadership/PR context. If she wins Labour may actually move backwards from where it is now!

 

[Seanm]

I’m most of the way through it now. As previously Lisa Nandy is the big surprise here, she really is very good indeed, and despite my not agreeing with her on several points (notably Brexit) I’m beginning to think she is the best of the bunch [...]

Have you got to the bit where she says scrapping tuition fees is stupid and unaffordable and then 2 minutes later says she'll scrap tuition fees? Maybe this is some kind of new-fangled triangulation approach for the digital age but one thing we should have learned once and for all is that triangulation doesn't work for Labour. Of course you could just draw the more straightforward conclusion that she's confused or being dishonest. She lied about nationalisation and tuition fees being uncosted, for instance.

 

[Colin Barron]

it is debatable whether any of them have got what it takes to be leader. But if a choice is required Long Bailey is out because she is business as usual, Thornberry does not appear to debate very well and does not have what it takes. That leaves Starmer and Nandy. A very difficult decision, Starmer is competent and no doubt has the ability but lacks that common touch. Nandy lacks experience and office but maybe has more potential.

 

[Stunsworth]

Have you got to the bit where she says scrapping tuition fees is stupid and unaffordable and then 2 minutes later says she'll scrap tuition fees?

I'm trying to remember from last night, but wasn't the scrapping of tuition fees not being affordable in the context of _all_ the spending pledges in the manifesto? I could be wrong there, so apologies if I am.

Someone should tell RLB not to wear glasses with frames that block her eyes from the camera.

My personal TOTP chart would be 1. Starmer. 2. Nandy. 3. Long Bailey. 4. Thornbury.

 

[jackbarron]

I don't like any of the candidates and won't be voting for the new Labour Leader.

Starmer isn't particularly good at putting his point across, which surprises me since he is a QC.

Jack

 

[Seanm]

I'm trying to remember from last night, but wasn't the scrapping of tuition fees not being affordable in the context of _all_ the spending pledges in the manifesto? I could be wrong there, so apologies if I am.

Someone should tell RLB not to wear glasses with frames that block her eyes from the camera.

My personal TOTP chart would be 1. Starmer. 2. Nandy. 3. Long Bailey. 4. Thornbury.

It's a generous reading but possible. Clumsy at best. Saying "we haven't a clue how to pay for those things" is just straight-up dishonest, unless she's really not been paying attention: those things are fully costed.

As with her comments on Scotland, best case scenario seems to be "She doesn't have a clue about some very fundamental issues".

 

[Weekender]

ISomeone should tell RLB not to wear glasses with frames that block her eyes from the camera.

This should not be underestimated.

 

[Stunsworth]

It's a generous reading but possible. Clumsy at best. Saying "we haven't a clue how to pay for those things" is just straight-up dishonest, unless she's really not been paying attention: those things are fully costed.

Thanks, if everything had been fully costed the only thing I can think of is that the costings were based on economic forecasts that she feels to be over optimistic.

 

[Woodface]

Spot on. The advantage in the digital era is you can obtain feedback quickly to refine your message to maximum effect, eg 'get Brexit done'.

There are also many disadvantages. It is not the silver bullet it is made out to be.

 

[ks.234]

Based on the Newsnight interviews, Starmer has positioned himself as the vanilla candidate who might be able to bring both sides of the party together. For that reason he’s, so far at least, most likely to get my vote. He avoided the bear trap questions quite deftly by saying vey little of substance and talked positively about moving forward. One of the bear trap questions was about adopting the BoD’s 10 pledges which would take a Tory supporting organisation hostile to Labour, and give them a role within Labour, a role that if past experience is anything to go by, they will use to create more division. (One of the questions asked if the Shadow Cabinet would also have to sign up to the pledges, which kinda gives the BoD’s a role in selecting the Labour front bench?) Nandy and RLB said they would adopt the 10 pledges. Starmer was the only candidate who avoided that bear trap while also making it very clear that he would be taking a strong lead on eradicating the evil of antisemitism within the party.

Nancy is good, but she seems a bit knee jerk, abolishing Tuition fees was a bad idea in the past, but then saying she would support it in the future (though only putting her hand up after she saw that the other 3 candidates had)

Thornberry went up in my estimation and RLB down.

 

[Seanm]

Thanks, if everything had been fully costed the only thing I can think of is that the costings were based on economic forecasts that she feels to be over optimistic.

Again, generous! She might have thought that, and I can see why she might want to abbreviate the argument to make it punchy, but there comes a point where that tips over into misrepresentation. Lots of people worked very hard to cost those pledges in a necessary effort to persuade voters that things that are normal across Europe are also possible here. The figures were backed up by well-respected, mainstream economists. For her to come on and say "Ha ha we didn't give it any thought at all! Totally bonkers stuff voters caught us out though LOL" is pretty counter-productive/ignorant/revealing of actual agenda (delete as appropriate).

 

[Tony L]

Arguably unwise, but she is likely attempting to place some real distance between her and the Corbyn project failure. Starting from scratch with new targets and costings would make a lot of sense, and dismissing the Corbyn-era math would cause damage to RLB who seems to just be regurgitating most of the same soundbites that led to the worst Labour defeat in history. I think Nandy is playing a pretty sharp game.

 

[Weekender]

I'll have vanilla please.
Hopefully he'll turn out to be Taste the Difference Extra Special with real vanilla pod extract

 

[droodzilla]

I dipped into the Newsnight debate twice and was promptly reminded of why I stopped watching BBC news months ago (hectoring, interruptions, trick questions... zero interest in exploring ideas and arguments in depth).

By chance I caught the Nandy bit and was stunned. It's a blatant lie to say Labour had no idea how it was going to deliver its manifesto, and it plays right into the hands of our political foes. She might as well go around saying that Labour crashed the economy in 2008.

I was impressed when I attended Nandy's leadership event in Sheffield but since then I've cooled somewhat. One reservation at the time was that she appeared to lack vision, and that impression has only grown during her campaign. Unlike Starmer and RLB, it's hard to think of a single big policy commitment from Nandy.

It's a pity as, of all the candidates, I enjoy listening to her the most - there's something refreshingly plain about her delivery and she sometimes gives the impression that she's really thinking about her answer as she speaks. I also think she might go down well (far better than Sir Keir) in some of the seats we lost to the Tories in December.

PS: Interesting Twitter thread from a Corbyn supporter who came out for Nandy and has now switched to RLB: https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Nandy/status/1226807832181444609

 

[Seanm]

Arguably unwise, but she is likely attempting to place some real distance between her and the Corbyn project failure. Starting from scratch with new targets and costings would make a lot of sense, and dismissing the Corbyn-era math would cause damage to RLB who seems to just be regurgitating most of the same soundbites that led to the worst Labour defeat in history. I think Nandy is playing a pretty sharp game.

A bit scorched earth: "Yes, that was all just made up numbers and we've richly deserved our reputation for economic incompetence - until now. Now here are some slightly rearranged figures that you can 100% believe in!"

Surely there's enough Corbyn did actually get wrong: she doesn't have to further torch Labour's reputation or pretend to reinvent economics to distance herself from him.

Her routine about Labour not understanding the importance of buses is also a straight up lie. She's trashing her reputation. It's interesting. Between her and Jess Phillips it suggests that it really is going to be quite difficult to pull Labour to the right: there just doesn't seem to be any space to develop a rational argument that the membership is likely to buy, so they're reduced to clowning (Phillips) or self-defeating misrepresentation (Nandy).

 

[droodzilla]

Here's the third part of my labour leadership series. Parts 1 and 2 are here:

Lisa Nandy
Rebecca Long Bailey

This week it was Starmer's turn. Another huge lecture theatre in Sheffield Hallam University packed out (all three events have been extremely well attended, which has been great to see). The event was scheduled to run for two hours but Starmer had to leave early due to a family bereavement at the weekend. All credit to him for attending, in tough circumstances.

It's often said that Starmer is a dull speaker, and I tend to agree. However, judging by his performance this week he must have been having lessons because he came across as far more lively than I expected. Unfortunately the effect, in my view, was akin to when Gordon Brown was told to smile more, and felt rather unnatural. This was exacerbated by some standard politician tropes - weird hand gestures, random repetition of phrases for emphasis - which I've come to find tiresome, like being in a slightly dull TED talk.

The substance was better as he clearly set out his three-pronged plan: unite the party, effective opposition and plan to win the next election (genius!). On the third point, I was pleased to see him placing emphasis on the Green New Deal, devolution of power and international human rights although, as usual, I expect the devil to be in the details. His idea of effective opposition seemed to be very parliament-centric (which will please most people here, I guess) and rooted in exposing Johnson's lies with facts and logic. OK, fair enough, nobody loves facts and logic more than I do, but I'm increasingly worried about their effectiveness when the far-right's strategy is to "flood the zone with shit" (to use Bannon's phrase). Another positive is that he was very clear on the need for short sharp messages about how a Labour government will improve things for potential voters (an implicit criticism of December's campaign, where messaging was not well thought out, to put it mildly).

As you might expect, he handled questions pretty well, albeit (to my mind) in a generic-politician kind of way. The last question (which I suspect might have been from a plant) gave him an opportunity to talk about constitutional reform including abolishing the HoL, federalism and votes for 16 year olds. He even referred to how many people feel that their votes count for nothing which I took as a hint of potential support for PR in future - intriguing. Anyway, this stuff falls within Starmer's comfort zone and he was able to give a passionate answer to the question to round off his performance.

So, overall, competent and surprisingly lively (in a weird way). Personally my heart feels heavy when I contemplate the prospect of another middle-aged white guy in a suit with all the standard-issue politician tics, but I see the argument for a period of "normalcy" and stability after the last few years. I'm not convinced Starmer is a winner in the Northern towns we need to reclaim but, perhaps, we will not go backwards under his leadership.

Judging by the discussion on the Hallam CLP group Starmer went down well with members who are politically quite close to me, so I might be being unduly downbeat. It's worth saying that I've returned from all three leadership events to a lively and thoughtful discussion on the CLP group. Contrary to what people might think, Labour Party members take the December defeat seriously and are doing a lot of soul-searching about where the party goes next.

 

[Tony L]

A bit scorched earth: "Yes, that was all just made up numbers and we've richly deserved our reputation for economic incompetence - until now. Now here are some slightly rearranged figures that you can 100% believe in!"

Surely there's enough Corbyn did actually get wrong: she doesn't have to further torch Labour's reputation or pretend to reinvent economics to distance herself from him.

Her routine about Labour not understanding the importance of buses is also a straight up lie. She's trashing her reputation. It's interesting. Between her and Jess Phillips it suggests that it really is going to be quite difficult to pull Labour to the right: there just doesn't seem to be any space to develop a rational argument that the membership is likely to buy, so they're reduced to clowning (Phillips) or self-defeating misrepresentation (Nandy).

Yes, an odd strategy for sure. IIRC there is a rematch on C4 on Monday, will be interesting to see how they all fair there. I’m certainly not as up on Labour policy as some here so really I’m just viewing it as a general progressive floating voter without a horse in the race. There is something refreshing about Nandy, and I do like her, though I initially thought that about Corbyn and he turned out an utter clusterf*** in practice. I think what is needed now is safe and sensible, maybe even boring, so that brings us back to Starmer...

 

[droodzilla]

A bit scorched earth: "Yes, that was all just made up numbers and we've richly deserved our reputation for economic incompetence - until now. Now here are some slightly rearranged figures that you can 100% believe in!"

Surely there's enough Corbyn did actually get wrong: she doesn't have to further torch Labour's reputation or pretend to reinvent economics to distance herself from him.

Her routine about Labour not understanding the importance of buses is also a straight up lie. She's trashing her reputation. It's interesting. Between her and Jess Phillips it suggests that it really is going to be quite difficult to pull Labour to the right: there just doesn't seem to be any space to develop a rational argument that the membership is likely to buy, so they're reduced to clowning (Phillips) or self-defeating misrepresentation (Nandy).

The comparison with Jess Philips is pertinent. Nandy seems increasingly eager to channel Philips' determination to make members feel shit (as if we needed any help with that). Disappointing.

 

[Stunsworth]

His idea of effective opposition seemed to be very parliament-centric (which will please most people here, I guess) and rooted in exposing Johnson's lies with facts and logic. OK, fair enough, nobody loves facts and logic more than I do, but I'm increasingly worried about its effectiveness when the far-right's strategy is to "flood the zone with shit" (to use Bannon's phrase).

A big difference between the US and the UK is that Johnson has to face PMQs once a week. Sure it can be like a zoo at times, but it gives the opposition a chance to call out his lies and bluster to his face - and even if people don't watch it directly it gets reported in the media.

 

[Tony L]

The comparison with Jess Philips is pertinent. Nandy seems increasingly eager to channel Philips' determination to make members feel shit (as if we needed any help with that). Disappointing.

Again that may be a conscious strategy. There is certainly a belief outside the party that the members/Momentum got so stuck in their own echo chamber they totally lost touch with the wider electorate and effectively made the party unelectable. With this I’m not really talking about pandering to middle class progressive remainers like me, we always had the LDs and Greens, more about communicating with the working class northern heartlands. Which in fairness folk like Nandy and Philips will understand way better than the likes of Corbyn (wealthy private schooled southerner) ever will. The next leader obviously needs to get past the membership and worse the block trade union vote, but also appeal more widely to real voters. A tough ask to get both.