Next Labour Leader II

[Del monaco]

I watched the Labour hustings.

Conservatives will be in power for this and the next government.
I say this as RLB will be the next Labour leader, Labour left/Momentum will ensure that.

This is likely to happen. Another mistake and I will despair. Seeking power for the wrong reasons. Blair was their greatest leader. Unless they recognise the positives of the Blair/Brown experiment. they're knackered. Corbyn focused on the negatives and denied the genius mostly because he wasn't bright enough. Sorry.

 

[PsB]

How might a candidate show leadership? How might members recognise electability?

It just seems weird to me that Labour have managed to recognise electability exactly once in 40 years, and that in someone who was careful to leave Thatcherism intact, while the Tory party strike gold again and again. Given this history doesn’t it make sense to stop looking for such a rare and ineffable quality, and get someone in who simply has a plan and seems willing to go through with it?

I understand that you’re grumpy and still want to lash out at the Sensibles, but this is rubbish. The CP does not strike gold again and again. Exhibit A: they picked a duffer like Duncan-Smith: a loser, he got thrashed. Chose Hague: brighter but not good enough, yep, got thrashed. They let May slip in on seniority: almost got thrashed (only saved because she was lucky with her opponent). They picked BoJo, oooh lucky again, same opponent.

 

[Seanm]

I understand that you’re grumpy and still want to lash out at the Sensibles, but this is rubbish. The CP does not strike gold again and again. Exhibit A: they picked a duffer like Duncan-Smith: a loser, he got thrashed. Chose Hague: brighter but not good enough, yep, got thrashed. They let May slip in on seniority: almost got thrashed (only saved because she was lucky with her opponent). They picked BoJo, oooh lucky again, same opponent.

Well that’s one way of looking at it. Stepping back a bit I see a run of Thatcher-Major-Cameron-May-Johnson interrupted by one person who was not much to the left of them and think, Hmmm. Perhaps they’ve got us chasing our tail here with this whole electability thing? Because short of literally putting a pig with a blue rosette into number 10 they couldn’t really make it much clearer that the person of the leader is not the determining factor here.

 

[Joe]

short of literally putting a pig with a blue rosette into number 10 they couldn’t really make it much clearer that the person of the leader is not the determining factor here.

Labour supporters keep getting this one wrong imo....the voters who moved the result for the Tories liked Boris Jonhson. His ratings were far higher than Jeremy Corbyn's.

Like it or not modern politics is now a beauty pageant and that is the game that has to be played. Obviously policies matter but the leader has to win on the personality and charisma stakes. Boris, it seems , had it and Jeremy sadly did not.

Repeatedly saying that 'it is wrong and it shouldn't be like that" is not going to cut it.

 

[ks.234]

This is likely to happen. Another mistake and I will despair. Seeking power for the wrong reasons. Blair was their greatest leader. Unless they recognise the positives of the Blair/Brown experiment. they're knackered. Corbyn focused on the negatives and denied the genius mostly because he wasn't bright enough. Sorry.

Blair got into power by being the heir to Thatcherism. Following the same logic, the next Labour leader needs to take up the reins of a hard Brexit and a Trade deal with the US and all that entails.

 

[Woodface]

So even when we do have a Labour govt, it is not really a Labour govt (tm left logoc). So we may as well all vote tory? That's a winning pitch.

 

[Joe]

Blair got into power by being the heir to Thatcherism. Following the same logic, the next Labour leader needs to take up the reins of a hard Brexit and a Trade deal with the US and all that entails.

No... the Labour left should carry on doing what they do...it's always worked in the past hasn't it ?

 

[stephen bennett]

This something of a self fulfilling prophecy as they will only be targeting those who access the Mail’s website

This is really not true.

Targeting will be also on location, views expressed across the Internet, what constituency you are in, how your partner voted, what food you eat, your car etc.

These personal analytics are sophisticated and cost very little to deploy.

You also don’t need to click. A meme on Facebook or twitter is enough to pass on an idea.

Agree re:circlular argument, if not the quality of candidates!

Stephen

 

[ks.234]

No... the Labour left should carry on doing what they do...it's always worked in the past hasn't it ?

The fact that sarcasm appears to be the only alternative on offer is telling. The question that remains is what does any new Labour leader need to do to become ‘electable’? The only answer that comes back is to get elected or become Tony Blair, neither of which is very informative.

 

[ex brickie]

My response was only in the context of what I heard in the hustings today. People on here don’t seem to like prioritising policy over personality, so my comments on RLB were only about her and her presentation, how she ‘appeared’. She came across as the most competent and in command of her brief. Starmer was OK, but no presence. Nandy came across OK but uninspiring. Thornberry came across as wild eyed and tub thumpy, and Philips didn’t seem to have any ideas of her own.

That’s not a bad summary to be fair.

The only candidate I’ve heard others say is a positive surprise is Lisa Nandy. In the post Hustings chats with audience members her name came up most. I also thought she was brave to do Andrew Neil first and gave a good account of herself.

 

[h.g.]

Well that’s one way of looking at it. Stepping back a bit I see a run of Thatcher-Major-Cameron-May-Johnson interrupted by one person who was not much to the left of them and think, Hmmm. Perhaps they’ve got us chasing our tail here with this whole electability thing? Because short of literally putting a pig with a blue rosette into number 10 they couldn’t really make it much clearer that the person of the leader is not the determining factor here.

"Thatcherism" fell apart over a decade ago on labour's watch and rather than being replaced it was propped up in an unsustainable manner. Socially and economically things are now breaking down and the rules for what will be successful politically is changing. As the general population and wealth creating industry becomes aware of the scale of the decline they will want an "adult" to sort it out. All labour has to do to win a landslide at the next election is work at becoming that "adult". This means growing the perception of being knowledgeable about the causes of the decline (the real ones), putting forward consistent real world solutions years not days before an election, get supported by wealth creating industry, avoid losing the trust of capital and much of the general population by clearly rejecting the beliefs from the hard left that trigger complete distrust and opposition from rational moderates from the centre left, centre and centre right. The latter doesn't necessarily mean support from the centre right but that labour would be trusted by them to govern in a rational rather than faith based manner and hence not to crash the country as they see it. Opposition from the hard right is inevitable and so should have negligible influence.

Starmer possibly looks like the candidate most likely to be trusted by the centre right whereas RLB is possibly the one least likely to be trusted (note trust not support). It may be an unpalatable way to look at things for committed supporters of Corbynism but if the labour party is to play the leading role in fixing the inevitable harm that is coming to the interests of the majority in the UK over the next few years it is probably the correct way.

 

[flatpopely]

The fact that sarcasm appears to be the only alternative on offer is telling. The question that remains is what does any new Labour leader need to do to become ‘electable’? The only answer that comes back is to get elected or become Tony Blair, neither of which is very informative.

May we enquire what your suggestion is to get Labour into power?

 

[Seanm]

"Thatcherism" fell apart over a decade ago on labour's watch and rather than being replaced it was propped up in an unsustainable manner. Socially and economically things are now breaking down and the rules for what will be successful politically is changing. As the general population and wealth creating industry becomes aware of the scale of the decline they will want an "adult" to sort it out. All labour has to do to win a landslide at the next election is work at becoming that "adult". This means growing the perception of being knowledgeable about the causes of the decline (the real ones), putting forward consistent real world solutions years not days before an election, get supported by wealth creating industry, avoid losing the trust of capital and much of the general population by clearly rejecting the beliefs from the hard left that trigger complete distrust and opposition from rational moderates from the centre left, centre and centre right. The latter doesn't necessarily mean support from the centre right but that labour would be trusted by them to govern in a rational rather than faith based manner and hence not to crash the country as they see it. Opposition from the hard right is inevitable and so should have negligible influence.

Starmer possibly looks like the candidate most likely to be trusted by the centre right whereas RLB is possibly the one least likely to be trusted (note trust not support). It may be an unpalatable way to look at things for committed supporters of Corbynism but if the labour party is to play the leading role in fixing the inevitable harm that is coming to the interests of the majority in the UK over the next few years it is probably the correct way.

As ever h.g. the diagnosis is mostly clear sighted but the prescription wishful thinking (faith based perhaps). "All Labour has to do" is avoid being perceived as incompetent by a press determined to present them as incompetent, while winning the support of the massively powerful sections of capital that they are going to have to hobble. This is not a small task. Where will the agency come from to perform it? How will they do it? You always talk as if it were simply a matter of removing the obstacle of the "hard left" and encouraging people to come to their senses. The truth is that even though everyone has actually known what has to be done for some time - at least since the Great Financial Crash - only the "hard left" has shown any appetite for the fight or any kind of vision regarding how it might be won.

It seems to me pretty obvious that any of the candidates bar Jess Phillips would actually make a decent fist of all the things we're told are sufficient to win the day. THey're fairly articulate, well-informed, bright, earnest, vaguely human-sounding. They all know a lot more than the blowhards who'll be interviewing them looking for gotchas, and will be able to come up with reasonable, grown-up responses. They are all (again, bar Phillips) quite a lot better at all this stuff than Corbyn. The question is whether they have the initiative and nerve to make some necessary changes within the party (mostly at council level) and to hold on to the current agenda in the face of massive, reckless, blind resistance inside and out. To me Starmer seems to be the most likely to capitulate at the first sign of trouble (even if Thornberry has already promised to capitulate at the first sign of trouble!)

 

[Deej]

I think Labour's problems are deeper than Corbyn and don't even necessarily come down to ideology.

The biggest problem is it's haemorrhaging of its working class vote. Some of that is out of its control with the decline of heavy industry and unions which Labour always made a base from. Consequently the party has lost touch with the very dock and mining communities it once relied on. Some of it absolutely is in their control such as how it's taken these voters for granted for years and become increasingly London-centric, paying the price heavily in four successive elections.

So Labour's answer is a leader who will reconnect with these communities, accept Brexit and also accept that while immigration is a good thing, there has to be an element of control. Nandy seems to be the closest leadership candidate to me to understand this.

 

[slavedata]

I think Labour's problems are deeper than Corbyn and don't even necessarily come down to ideology.

The biggest problem is it's haemorrhaging of its working class vote. Some of that is out of its control with the decline of heavy industry and unions which Labour always made a base from. Consequently the party has lost touch with the very dock and mining communities it once relied on. Some of it absolutely is in their control such as how it's taken these voters for granted for years and become increasingly London-centric, paying the price heavily in four successive elections.

So Labour's answer is a leader who will reconnect with these communities, accept Brexit and also accept that while immigration is a good thing, there has to be an element of control. Nandy seems to be the closest leadership candidate to me to understand this.

Agree with this biggest problem. Labour need to reconnect on the ground with it's base thorough advice centres / community centres. Until it does this and builds from the ground up who is leader is just window dressing.

 

[Deej]

Agree with this biggest problem. Labour need to reconnect on the ground with it's base thorough advice centres / community centres. Until it does this and builds from the ground up who is leader is just window dressing.

Indeed. They need to get back on the ground and in these communities, so Nandy's plans for Labour's HQ to move to the North is a welcome one.

It's all very well doing well in metropolitan student towns and cities, but until it reconnects with the voters its lost in Scotland, Northern England, the Midlands and increasingly Wales, it won't win an election anytime soon.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

One thing that has resonated with me is the idea that Labour's 'base' is fragile. The assumption that working class people, particularly in the North, are, or will always be, Labour's base is now open to challenge. You can't assume that people will vote in their own interests.

So Labour has to decide where its base is, or should be. There's an element of 'build it and they will come' in that of course (and Corbyn did a fair bit of that), but it's self-evidently not enough. These years of opposition, while undesirable, are an opportunity to re-form a base that will be robust and durable. Just winning back the (self-evidently fickle) Northern industrial vote, isn't going to do that. What needs to happen is for Labour to re-establish its credibility in the minds of swathes of centre-left and left-leaning people. It's not simply a 'not-Tory' position, it's the establishment of a credible and viable alternative. That means instilling belief that a) you have answers that b) will work and c) you know how to implement them.

Starmer can deliver on b) and c), but perhaps needs some help and support on a). Nandy can probably handle a) and b), but might need some support on c).

There's no one strong candidate, so it's to be hoped that the eventual winner can draw his fellow competitors close and deploy their considerable talents in some sort of collective leadership effort, rather than winner takes all.

 

[Tony L]

May we enquire what your suggestion is to get Labour into power?

Labour only need to wait and look vaguely credible as the current Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Rabb, Grayling shower of UKIP-influenced popularists are so absurdly inept, corrupt and incompetent and the prospect of making Brexit anything but an economic disaster so implausible people will likely be begging to see the back of them in four years. As such Labour just need to pick someone vaguely sensible and uncontroversial and wait. It would take a simply astounding level of wilful mismanagement to fail in this long-term scenario, though sadly I don’t put that entirely beyond the party’s current membership...

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Labour only need to wait and look vaguely credible as the current Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Rabb, Grayling shower of UKIP-influenced popularists are so absurdly inept, corrupt and incompetent and the prospect of making Brexit anything but an economic disaster so implausible people will likely be begging to see the back of them in four years. As such Labour just need to pick someone vaguely sensible and uncontroversial and wait. It would take a simply astounding level of wilful mismanagement to fail in this long-term scenario, though sadly I don’t put that entirely beyond the party’s current membership.

Umm, six months ago we were confidently predicting the total implosion of the Tory party. Let's not get carried away.

 

[Tony L]

Umm, six months ago we were confidently predicting the total implosion of the Tory party. Let's not get carried away.

I honestly think what we have now is an illusion. Johnson’s majority is down to a) Labour nationalists wanting Brexit, b) Farage/Banks simply buying the election by standing candidates they knew couldn’t win, but would damage Labour in key seats, and c) an electoral system that turns a 43% minority vote into an outright dictatorship. This is not a honest majority and certainly can’t be read as a mandate for wider Tory policy. The next election will likely be about failed Tory policy.