UK Labour Leadership election

loyatemu · 22-07-2015 3:16pm #1

Poll today suggesting Jeremy Corbyn is way ahead (though as the election is using STV its likely supporters of the other 3 candidates will transfer between each other rather than to Corbyn; also no-one really knows how reliable the polls are for this).

It's an interesting one this - Labour adopted a one-person one-vote system in reaction to Ed Miliband winning that last time on the back of union block votes, when most of the parliamentary party supported his brother David.

This time around Corbyn initially couldn't raise enough support from the parliamentary party to get on the ballot; if he wins he'll end up leading a parliamentary party that almost universally opposes him - he'd surely be forced out long before the next election... it's a real mess for Labour.

BoJack Horseman · 22-07-2015 3:37pm

I don't think Corbyn will win.

Labour didn't lose the GE because they were too left wing, or not left wing enough.
However, I don't think their chances of winning are improved by reverting to an Arthur Scargill type.

Though, if not Corbyn its Burnham or Cooper.... Christ, that's bleak.

Call Me Dave© & Gideon will relish either.

loyatemu · 22-07-2015 3:47pm

I don't think they can win in 2020 regardless of who is leading them - certainly not with any of the 4 current candidates.

If anything Corbyn is possibly the most likely to boost their overall vote as he offers something different (might help them win back some seats in Scotland), but I can't see how he can lead a party that opposes him - MPs will defy/resign the whip and defect until he is forced to resign.

ancapailldorcha · 22-07-2015 5:01pm

Much as I like Corbyn, I'm not sure how wise it would be to elect him as leader. He's 66 and will be in his early 70s come 2020. In addition he doesn't see to have a huge amount of support given how he was nominated in his party to the media. Even The Guardian aren't that keen on him.

Regardless, if Labour are to have any chance in 2020 they need to sort themselves out. The election is fairly soon thankfully so they can frame their narrative for 2020 well in advance.

BoJack Horseman · 22-07-2015 5:06pm

Its tough though for the LP.

Cameron is the most Blairite leader since Blair.
And when you dominate the centre,you win.

The people are pretty aware that perpetual deficits (ie: "anti-austerity") isn't clever.

The Tories have hammered the young to pamper their elderly base.... And no one wins a GE relying on the youth vote.

Carving a narrative of: ' We are slightly cuddlier than the Tories' didn't cut it last time.

Its a massive task for the new leader.

ancapailldorcha · 22-07-2015 5:08pm

I'm not optimistc for the reasons BoJack Horseman has listed. Labour needs to sort out its identity crisis and soon. UKIP, the Tories, the Greens and the LibDems are at least consistent.

RayM · 22-07-2015 5:21pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Much as I like Corbyn, I'm not sure how wise it would be to elect him as leader. He's 66 and will be in his early 70s come 2020.

Hillary Clinton is 67, and she's likely to be the next US President.

I wonder if his support is being exaggerated, in the hope of ensuring that he doesn't come second or third. Either way, plans for an immediate coup are already afoot, just in case democracy doesn't smile upon the Tory wing of the party.

"We cannot just allow our party, a credible party of government, to be hijacked in this summer of madness. There would be no problem in getting names. We could do this before Christmas."

They must have missed the part where the electorate decided that they're actually not a credible party of government. And nor will they be for a very long time. Cameron, for all his faults, is a very, very competent-looking leader. He looks like he knows what he's doing - and in a country where media coverage of politics is desperately vacuous and obsessed with the trivial, that's a very important skill. The next Labour leader will be their 'Iain Duncan-Smith' (Brown was their 'Major', Miliband was 'Hague'). If they're lucky, their next-leader-but-one (Chuka Umunna) might be able to skip the 'Michael Howard' stage, but that depends on whether the British public is sick of the Tories.

ancapailldorcha · 22-07-2015 5:26pm

Such a coup would sunder the party causing serious damage. It's going to be an interesting few months to say the least.

Labour took 232 seats out of 650 which is just over 35% so they're not that unpopular. The pensioners are unlikely to vote against the Tories so Labour need to re-identify with their working class roots, something that they haven't done in a long, long time.

RayM · 22-07-2015 5:54pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Such a coup would sunder the party causing serious damage. It's going to be an interesting few months to say the least.

It would be a massive two-fingers to the party's own membership. If there's that much of a disconnect between the parliamentary party and its own grassroots, then what hope does it have of winning new voters?

The Tory press seems to be getting a bit edgy about Corbyn. A couple of weeks ago, the Telegraph was telling its readers to 'sabotage' Labour by joining and voting for Corbyn. Now they seem to have ramped up the attacks and downright smears (he had coffee with the Sinn Fein leaders yesterday, apparently, which - according to one unnamed former Conservative minister (Norman Tebbit, I presume) is 'offensive'). While he probably wouldn't win in 2020, he'd probably force the Tories back towards the centre on issues like benefits and taxing the wealthy. And that's the last thing the owners of the likes of the Mail, Sun and Telegraph would want.

BoJack Horseman · 22-07-2015 6:32pm

RayM wrote: »

It would be a massive two-fingers to the party's own membership. If there's that much of a disconnect between the parliamentary party and its own grassroots, then what hope does it have of winning new voters?

The Tory press seems to be getting a bit edgy about Corbyn. A couple of weeks ago, the Telegraph was telling its readers to 'sabotage' Labour by joining and voting for Corbyn. Now they seem to have ramped up the attacks and downright smears (he had coffee with the Sinn Fein leaders yesterday, apparently, which - according to one unnamed former Conservative minister (Norman Tebbit, I presume) is 'offensive'). While he probably wouldn't win in 2020, he'd probably force the Tories back towards the centre on issues like benefits and taxing the wealthy. And that's the last thing the owners of the likes of the Mail, Sun and Telegraph would want.

The Tories are in the centre though.
They all but own the centre now.

Electing a throwback, stuck firmly in the left of Labour concedes everywhere on the spectrum to the Tories.
He wouldn't drag the Tories anywhere they already aren't.

He wouldn't win in 2020, for sure.
And Labour would have a decade of the wrong leader.

RayM · 22-07-2015 7:24pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Tories are in the centre though.
They all but own the centre now.

Electing a throwback, stuck firmly in the left of Labour concedes everywhere on the spectrum to the Tories.

He wouldn't win in 2020, for sure.
And Labour would have a decade of the wrong leader.

They'll win whenever the public tires of the Tories. History would suggest that it takes longer than a decade for that to happen. I suspect that's the real reason why Chuka Umunna (widely seen as Blair, Clinton and Obama all rolled into one expensive suit) withdrew his candidacy - no point in leading Labour into an election in 2020, only to fail and become a political 'has-been' in his early 40s.

The Tories - with the help of a sympathetic press - are portraying themselves as being in the 'centre', but they're well to the right of public opinion (the majority of British people, for example, support a 50% tax rate for those earning in excess of £150,000, and believe railways and energy suppliers should be renationalised).

Also, let's not forget that Labour lost forty seats in Scotland... to a centre-left party (a party that now looks very much like the unofficial Opposition in Westminster). They could do a lot worse than electing Corbyn as leader. The Tory press already seems to be crapping itself at the prospect, if today's headlines are anything to go by.

BoJack Horseman · 23-07-2015 8:47am

RayM wrote: »

They could do a lot worse than electing Corbyn as leader.

I'd love to see it.

It would be interesting to see Labour go back to the old days.

But I think you want the right-wing to fear Corbyn.
However, objectively, I can't see how someone of the Paul Murphy school of economics being a threat to the ruling party.

This morning on the Today programme, John Prescott said he nominated Corbynn, but told him he didn't think he was fit to lead the party.

loyatemu · 23-07-2015 9:33am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

This morning on the Today programme, John Prescott said he nominated Corbynn, but told him he didn't think he was fit to lead the party.

Corbyn has never held so much as a shadow-cabinet post, he is very much a protest politician so Prescott may be right.

The 3 alternatives are seriously uninspiring political drones though. As an impartial observer it is interesting politics though - Labour are in a similar situation to the Tories during the Blair years - I think they're going to have to go through a series of leaders before they find the right one to drag them back to power (and even in the case of Cameron, he was only just good enough in 2010 to overhaul an ailing Labour govt in the midst of a financial meltdown).

blinding · 23-07-2015 9:43am

Why don't all the people that want the Labour party to be the "New Tory Party"

Just join the Real Tory Party.

Blair, Brown and Blairites,Brownites could just have easily been in the Tory party.

Why do you need Two Tory Parties ? ? ?

Tabnabs · 23-07-2015 9:52am

Corbyn, by virtue of having his name in the ring, is putting Labour back in the spotlight. The other candidates have no significant public profile and will similarly fail to get Labour back into government next time round. They offer no distinct advantage. Corbyn may also not stick around for long once he has the eyes and ears of the party faithful resting upon him. But he offers something different and exotic to many in a neoliberal dominated world, hence the heart ruling the head in this leadership contest.

The huge sway of current SNP candidates show that the UK still has a significant appetite for left wing electoral promises and it is this base that the Labour has to rekindle in their favour before it can shift to the more centrist ground and, with the baton handed on to a more palatable candidate in 24/36 months, they could gain just enough ground on the Tories to have option of coalition or even outright majority of the kind of slim majority the tories now hold.

Corbyn's leadership bid is most likely a flash in the pan, but by god does it make a dreary and uninspiring debate just a bit more interesting.

ancapailldorcha · 23-07-2015 10:01am

RayM wrote: »

It would be a massive two-fingers to the party's own membership. If there's that much of a disconnect between the parliamentary party and its own grassroots, then what hope does it have of winning new voters?

The Tory press seems to be getting a bit edgy about Corbyn. A couple of weeks ago, the Telegraph was telling its readers to 'sabotage' Labour by joining and voting for Corbyn. Now they seem to have ramped up the attacks and downright smears (he had coffee with the Sinn Fein leaders yesterday, apparently, which - according to one unnamed former Conservative minister (Norman Tebbit, I presume) is 'offensive'). While he probably wouldn't win in 2020, he'd probably force the Tories back towards the centre on issues like benefits and taxing the wealthy. And that's the last thing the owners of the likes of the Mail, Sun and Telegraph would want.

Bang on. Any talk of clamping down on tax evasion will quickly makes enemies of Sky, the Mail, etc... I'm a bit disappointed in the Guardian but then it's just slightly less corporate than the rest.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd love to see it.

It would be interesting to see Labour go back to the old days.

But I think you want the right-wing to fear Corbyn.
However, objectively, I can't see how someone of the Paul Murphy school of economics being a threat to the ruling party.

This morning on the Today programme, John Prescott said he nominated Corbynn, but told him he didn't think he was fit to lead the party.

It would be an interesting result I agree.

loyatemu wrote: »

Corbyn has never held so much as a shadow-cabinet post, he is very much a protest politician so Prescott may be right.

The 3 alternatives are seriously uninspiring political drones though. As an impartial observer it is interesting politics though - Labour are in a similar situation to the Tories during the Blair years - I think they're going to have to go through a series of leaders before they find the right one to drag them back to power (and even in the case of Cameron, he was only just good enough in 2010 to overhaul an ailing Labour govt in the midst of a financial meltdown).

To be honest, I'd rather have the Tories than a Labour party led by Kendall, Burnham or Cooper. At least they're consistent. A vote for them would signify that popularity is more important that core values IMO. Obviously, you need popularity to win votes but there's a line between that pragmatism and trying to guess what the public want to hear.

Tabnabs wrote: »

The huge sway of current SNP candidates show that the UK still has a significant appetite for left wing electoral promises and it is this base that the Labour has to rekindle in their favour before it can shift to the more centrist ground and, with the baton handed on to a more palatable candidate in 24/36 months, they could gain just enough ground on the Tories to have option of coalition or even outright majority of the kind of slim majority the tories now hold.

The Scottish and English electorates are very different beasts. You could also say that about the northern and southern English voters. The Sun and co. were aggressively in favour of the SNP in Scotland as they knew the Tories had no support there and that it would fragment the Labour vote.

TwoGallants · 23-07-2015 1:39pm

Anyone here following the Labour leadership elections? Honestly, watching the four of them together really highlights how removed the elites are from the people. Corbyn is probably the first real left of center politician the labour party has had in a serious position since the early 90s. Everyone is mad and mean with him because he presents left wing views - so what? Labour is supposed to be the party of the working man. When you see the three of them together, honestly, it makes me want to get sick. Yvette Cooper - a scowling headmistress who doesn't actually say anything. Liz Kendall - a Tory in a red dress. And Andy Burnham - pure careerism. Then look at Corbyn. Somebody with real principles, who doesn't follow the rat race and genuinely wants to change the Labour Party and Britain for the better.

Lets have a look at his platform:

Raise taxes on the wealthy - back to 50% plus levels, nothing like it was in the 60s and 70s.
Nuclear disarmament - does Britain really need these weapons?
Recognition of and support for Palestine - hardly a controversial position.
Nationalisation of the Railways and the Post - natural monopolies that neoliberal forces basically gave away to spivs. So the worst of both worlds, inefficient services at high prices. Great.
A new generation of social housing - with house prices so high and so many people struggling, this is just a common sense solution.

These are just some of his beliefs, but not exactly as outrageous as the Tory press make it out to be. Its just a standard left wing platform.

The best Prime Minister the Tories ever had was Tony Blair, because he moved the debate and the paradigm far to the right. The other contenders just want to be Tory-lite. Nobody except Corbyn is making a convincing anti-neoliberal economic message.

Labour lost the election because they promised austerity lite and because the Tories played on people's fears. They lost votes to UKIP because working class people blamed immigrants rather than bankers for their problems, and lost votes to the Greens because Labour went after the immigrants in order to get the kippers back to Labour. And the center voted for Cameron (NOT the tories) because Miliband was a dufus.

Even if Labour loses in 2020, at least it has a chance to reshape the political debate in Britain and be at the forefront of a new generation of left of center thinking across Europe and the industrialised world. Capitalism is entering a new, dangerous phase, and without meaningful, people centered reforms, it is destined to lurch from crisis to crisis, causing enormous harm along the way.

But capitalism also is on the brink of a post labour age. With advances in robotics, self driving cars, and other productivity enhancing innovations, the 40 hour week is increasingly looking like a bizarre anachronism. Do we really want to mess around with the same old stodgy 1980s neoliberal dogmas or come up with something new? Corbyn may not have all the answers and he may well be too left for most Britons, but at least he has ideas, some of which good, some of which bad. And the biggest problem in British politics right now, is that all of the ideas are coming from an incredibly ideological Conservative Party. This is why Labour needs a Corbyn led opposition.

Gringo180 · 23-07-2015 2:04pm

TwoGallants wrote: »

Anyone here following the Labour leadership elections? Honestly, watching the four of them together really highlights how removed the elites are from the people. Corbyn is probably the first real left of center politician the labour party has had in a serious position since the early 90s. Everyone is mad and mean with him because he presents left wing views - so what? Labour is supposed to be the party of the working man. When you see the three of them together, honestly, it makes me want to get sick. Yvette Cooper - a scowling headmistress who doesn't actually say anything. Liz Kendall - a Tory in a red dress. And Andy Burnham - pure careerism. Then look at Corbyn. Somebody with real principles, who doesn't follow the rat race and genuinely wants to change the Labour Party and Britain for the better.

Lets have a look at his platform:

Raise taxes on the wealthy - back to 50% plus levels, nothing like it was in the 60s and 70s.
Nuclear disarmament - does Britain really need these weapons?
Recognition of and support for Palestine - hardly a controversial position.
Nationalisation of the Railways and the Post - natural monopolies that neoliberal forces basically gave away to spivs. So the worst of both worlds, inefficient services at high prices. Great.
A new generation of social housing - with house prices so high and so many people struggling, this is just a common sense solution.

These are just some of his beliefs, but not exactly as outrageous as the Tory press make it out to be. Its just a standard left wing platform.

The best Prime Minister the Tories ever had was Tony Blair, because he moved the debate and the paradigm far to the right. The other contenders just want to be Tory-lite. Nobody except Corbyn is making a convincing anti-neoliberal economic message.

Labour lost the election because they promised austerity lite and because the Tories played on people's fears. They lost votes to UKIP because working class people blamed immigrants rather than bankers for their problems, and lost votes to the Greens because Labour went after the immigrants in order to get the kippers back to Labour. And the center voted for Cameron (NOT the tories) because Miliband was a dufus.

Even if Labour loses in 2020, at least it has a chance to reshape the political debate in Britain and be at the forefront of a new generation of left of center thinking across Europe and the industrialised world. Capitalism is entering a new, dangerous phase, and without meaningful, people centered reforms, it is destined to lurch from crisis to crisis, causing enormous harm along the way.

But capitalism also is on the brink of a post labour age. With advances in robotics, self driving cars, and other productivity enhancing innovations, the 40 hour week is increasingly looking like a bizarre anachronism. Do we really want to mess around with the same old stodgy 1980s neoliberal dogmas or come up with something new? Corbyn may not have all the answers and he may well be too left for most Britons, but at least he has ideas, some of which good, some of which bad. And the biggest problem in British politics right now, is that all of the ideas are coming from an incredibly ideological Conservative Party. This is why Labour needs a Corbyn led opposition.

Unfortunately I cant see Corbyn winning the Labour leadership. I have been listening to him for the last couple of years and he seems to be quite an honest and down to earth guy that has his country and more important the majority of the people's best interests at heart. His policy of a higher rate of tax for the rich and putting a stop to tax haven islands that make there profits in Britain seem very logical to me instead of cutting the working class and people on the bread line, but that won't go down well with the media and in a new age of corporatism.

loyatemu · 23-07-2015 3:28pm

Gringo180 wrote: »

Unfortunately I cant see Corbyn winning the Labour leadership.

I wouldn't say it's impossible - the method of electing the leader has changed and there seems to be a real disconnect between ordinary members and the parliamentary party.

If he does win though he will have to deal with that parliamentary party and AFAIK he has no experience of being in any sort of position of power and infiuence - it can only end in tears.

but that won't go down well with the media and in a new age of corporatism.

I don't think his main problem will be the media, it'll be his own MPs.

Sam Russell · 23-07-2015 3:45pm

Looking at the British media, one would think that the LP were annihilated at the last election. They increased their vote by 1.5% compared to the Tories who increased theirs by 0.8%. The Tories are depicted as having a glorious win (with 36.9% of the vote) compared to the LP having only 30.4%.

It was the destruction of the LibDems, and the special case of Scotland that caused the result. The LP lost as many seats to the Tories as the Tories lost to them. It was the fact that the LibDems lost so many seats to the Tories that allowed the Tories in.

If Brown had resigned immediately after the 2010 election and allowed the formation of a rainbow government with Labour, Libdems, SNP etc, they may have struggled on in Government.

The LP in Britain have too frequently allowed the Tory press to dictate the agenda. Milliband fell into that trap, both during the Scottish referendum and during the election. He should have concentrated his fire power on the Tories and their rich friends and ignored his fellow travellers, the SNP. He had already lost those Scottish seats because of the LP campaign on the referendum - bussing up English MPs to Scotland was not a good idea.

Will they ever learn?

ancapailldorcha · 23-07-2015 4:19pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The LP in Britain have too frequently allowed the Tory press to dictate the agenda. Milliband fell into that trap, both during the Scottish referendum and during the election. He should have concentrated his fire power on the Tories and their rich friends and ignored his fellow travellers, the SNP. He had already lost those Scottish seats because of the LP campaign on the referendum - bussing up English MPs to Scotland was not a good idea.

This is the main reason for Labour's poor result IMO. While they were dealing with their identity crisis via "Which Miliband do we want?" the Tories and the press were framing the debate forcing Ed to spend most of his time trying to look credible on the economy as opposed to carving his own path. This time around there'll be plenty of time for Labour to sort itself out before the next election though if they go with another Blairite then they'll essentially occupy the same space as the LibDems on the UK political spectrum.

loyatemu · 23-07-2015 4:25pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Looking at the British media, one would think that the LP were annihilated at the last election. They increased their vote by 1.5% compared to the Tories who increased theirs by 0.8%. The Tories are depicted as having a glorious win (with 36.9% of the vote) compared to the LP having only 30.4%.

the problem is this is all largely meaningless - the voting system means the election is won or lost in a handful of marginal seats - labour made no inroads in those constituencies.

Corbyn may get younger, left wing voters out who didn't bother voting this year, but if they're all in seats Labour already holds it won't do them any good. OTOH maybe he can win back some of the seats in Scotland (the tide will turn on the SNP at some point, they're the party of government in Scotland though they like to pretend they're not).

BoJack Horseman · 23-07-2015 4:25pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

the Tories and the press were framing the debate forcing Ed to spend most of his time trying to look credible on the economy as opposed to carving his own path.

Its not like that didn't happen?

Every day on the hustings the parties pitched their agendas....
The Tories, it was the economy...
Labour, it was the NHS & education.

it would have helped the two Eds enormously if they were more confident on economics, but they didn't make a great case.

When Milliband tried 'big sky thinking' we got the 'Ed stone'!

loyatemu · 23-07-2015 4:28pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

if they go with another Blairite then they'll essentially occupy the same space as the LibDems on the UK political spectrum.

I would've said the LibDems were to the left of Labour for most of the Blair years (when Ashdown and Kennedy were the leaders, less so under Clegg).

The LDs are very diminished now, it will be tough for them to come back from such a low base with a virtual unknown as their leader.

ancapailldorcha · 23-07-2015 4:28pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its not like that didn't happen?

Every day on the hustings the parties pitched their agendas....
The Tories, it was the economy...
Labour, it was the NHS & education.

it would have helped the two Eds enormously if they were more confident on economics, but they didn't make a great case.

When Milliband tried 'big sky thinking' we got the 'Ed stone'!

When I was watching the debates, he was having to spend a lot of time convincing people that he'd cut the deficit as well as being able to implement his plans on tuition fees, the NHS and so on.

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-07-2015 10:18pm

The Labour Party are a complete mess, imagine abstaining on a Tory budget that will really hurt the poor and the lower paid workers FFS. It is farcical stuff and just proves why Labour were decimated in Scotland (courtesy of FPTP which put the Tories in on less than 37% of the vote). The 'centre right' contenders have zero credibility, zero leadership and zero charisma

RayM · 23-07-2015 10:29pm

There was a brilliant moment on Channel 4 News last night, when Yvette Cooper was asked if Corbyn's popularity was a result of the blandness of the other candidates. Her response...

"Well, I think, look, the challenge for us is how we reach out across the country. I think we can be very optimistic and excited about the future."

BoJack Horseman · 23-07-2015 10:57pm

Cooper built her career on inoffensivness.

As bland a statement as one can get.

gallag · 25-07-2015 2:48pm

Is the "no to austerity" mantra not dead yet? I think more people realised we had to stop the spiraling debt instead of pushing it to our children and seen trough the lefty lies.

Harry Palmr · 26-07-2015 6:08pm

If Corbyn should fluke this Labour can look forward to a quiet time on the opposition benches for a generation. The Tories must be quietly creasing themselves at the prospect as they know Labour will be riven by another Michael Foot type leader. Terribly nice chap and completely wrong for actually winning anything.

Manach · 26-07-2015 6:34pm

As per Mr. Palmr said above. During the 80s after the initial Thatcher wins, Labour had seemed to have went into into a soul-searching mode and picked the ideologically acceptible candidates and factional fighting. This did not especially resonate with the electorate until the advent of Blair.

UK Labour Leadership election

Comments