[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Bulldog]

Tony Blair said something like "when the Labour Party learn to love Peter Mandelson they will learn to love power". Well they are a long way from that at the moment. My own conclusion is that I would happily take Tony Blair back as leader of the Labour Party. If that means forgiving the Iraq war mistake, then that is a price I would pay. Look at the current alternatives - Boris Johnson v Jeremy Corbyn; so poor it sends a shudder down my spine. And it leaves all the moderate Labour supporters with a grudging, vague hope that Keir Starmer will become leader; not because of his own innate worth, but becuase he is not one of them. We should do better.

This, This, and This.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Can someone explain why whoever is elected doesnt choose own deputy. Also why those that are not elected are not considered for deputy leader

Because I believe the deputy is elected by the NEC. Them's the rules. That's why Jeremy Corbyn was lumbered with Tom Watson..... or alternatively why Watson was lumbered with Corbyn.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Which policies in the Labour manifesto would you abandon?

Free broadband, menopause leave, and WASPY pension reversal, three very rapidly off the top of my head.

And if any of those were not actual manifesto pledges then Labour need to stop spouting ‘free this, free that’, because that is the public perception, and the public believe it is unrealistic.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Because I believe the deputy is elected by the NEC. Them's the rules. That's why Jeremy Corbyn was lumbered with Tom Watson..... or alternatively why Watson was lumbered with Corbyn.

The deputy leader is elected by the members of the Labour Party.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The deputy leader is elected by the members of the Labour Party.

I knew it was something like that - not chosen by the leader......

 

[amexer]

I knew it was something like that - not chosen by the leader......

Doesnt make sense. Why wouldnt a leader chose own deputy and then be 100% certain has similar views and can work with them. Thus be assured of a Corbyn/Watson situation

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Doesnt make sense. Why wouldnt a leader chose own deputy and then be 100% certain has similar views and can work with them. Thus be assured of a Corbyn/Watson situation

Hasn’t it worked best when the two have different politics so they have a chance to unite the party? Blair and Prescott worked pretty well. Blair reaching outwards to the rest of the country as a man who could win elections whilst Prescott, in the early years, concentrated on keeping the unions broadly on side.

In that respect, a Starmer/ Rayner axis might make sense.

 

[BLOCK F]

Doesnt make sense. Why wouldnt a leader chose own deputy and then be 100% certain has similar views and can work with them. Thus be assured of a Corbyn/Watson situation

Probably because it is the disfunctional Labour Party!

 

[BLOCK F]

Hasn’t it worked best when the two have different politics so they have a chance to unite the party? Blair and Prescott worked pretty well. Blair reaching outwards to the rest of the country as a man who could win elections whilst Prescott, in the early years, concentrated on keeping the unions broadly on side.

In that respect, a Starmer/ Rayner axis might make sense.

No-one really knows Starmer's politics and he is banging on about 'unifying the party', but is this really possible with the extremists of Momentum on one side and moderates( and most of the left leaning public) of the party on the other side. Until Labour is honest with itself and moves away from the hard left, I reckon it will remain in the wilderness. RLB won't do this and I seriously wonder whether Starmer will either.

 

[essbee1]

No-one really knows Starmer's politics and he is banging on about 'unifying the party', but is this really possible with the extremists of Momentum on one side and moderates( and most of the left leaning public) of the party on the other side. Until Labour is honest with itself and moves away from the hard left, I reckon it will remain in the wilderness. RLB won't do this and I seriously wonder whether Starmer will either.

In effect, the only way that Labour are going to elect as leader someone who is generally acceptable in many's eyes will be if they distance themselves totally
from Momentum. That is not going to happen.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

No-one really knows Starmer's politics and he is banging on about 'unifying the party', but is this really possible with the extremists of Momentum on one side and moderates( and most of the left leaning public) of the party on the other side. Until Labour is honest with itself and moves away from the hard left, I reckon it will remain in the wilderness. RLB won't do this and I seriously wonder whether Starmer will either.

Definitely won’t happen under RLB. That’s why, imho, essential Labour doesn’t choose her, the candidate the Tories most want to win. Much more likely under Starmer or Nandy - who I’m warming too and has been impressive.

 

[Surf's Up]

I don't cry - I organise - have been ding so for many years.

As for moving to centre left (there isn't actually such a thing) - well Brown failed with that and so did Miliband - and Corbyn got more votes than each of them in both elections.

A 'centre-left' LP pretty much guarantees a Tory victory at the next election unless the Tories f*ck up in a dramatic fashion.

If Labour get the election of their next leader wrong they will self-destruct. The Tories won't have to do anything.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Because I believe the deputy is elected by the NEC. Them's the rules. That's why Jeremy Corbyn was lumbered with Tom Watson..... or alternatively why Watson was lumbered with Corbyn.

On the night of the GE, just after the exit poll indicated that it was a Labour meltdown, I tuned into the coverage by C4. Watson was a guest and was grinning from ear-to-ear. I don't think (and certainly don't hope) that Watson's mirth was actually caused by the poll but the optics were not good and for me it kind of encapsulated Labour's woes.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Doesnt make sense. Why wouldnt a leader chose own deputy and then be 100% certain has similar views and can work with them. Thus be assured of a Corbyn/Watson situation

Ask the Labour Party, not me.

The upside is that you get a deputy the membership likes.
The downside is the possibility of a dysfunctional leadership pairing..... such as Watson and Corbyn.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

On the night of the GE, just after the exit poll indicated that it was a Labour meltdown, I tuned into the coverage by C4. Watson was a guest and was grinning from ear-to-ear. I don't think (and certainly don't hope) that Watson's mirth was actually caused by the poll but the optics were not good and for me it kind of encapsulated Labour's woes.

I always thought the leadership’s freezing out of a Watson was mistake - really stupid.

 

[beorhthelm]

I always thought the leadership’s freezing out of a Watson was mistake - really stupid.

traditional Labour, not Momentum, not on message. they presumably hope to have a more united Long-Bailey/Rayner team.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Harry,

I found this post of yours very impactful and thought-provoking. Sorry this reposnse took several days, but I didnt have the time to reply suitably before.

I think the situation you describe in your profession is one many of us can relate to in other fields, and it is quite discouraging and depressing. I wonder if the explanation is the inherent nature of people to eventually subvert any institution or profession for their own selfish and egotistical desires. It can be seen over and over again in every sphere and every culture; it is probably just more covert and better hidden in English academia than, for example, in a corrupt third world government. I think Jordan Peterson has a point when he says wherever humans come together in the pusuit of value, a hierarchy forms. I would add to this that eventually entropy, corruption and selfishness set in and damage anything that was originally meritorious about that hierarchy. The only way to fight it is to keep the institiution fresh, so that it keeps re-inventing itself, thereby keeping people on their toes, but this rarrely happens.

I really agree with how you extrapolate this out onto our electorate and the worrld of politics. We have to take on board the way people are, the way institutions are, and do the best we can with that reality. Momentum have a grip of the Labour Party at the moment, and keeping that seems to be more of an aim for them than winning power and changing the country for the better. The longer they maintain this situation the more embedded this nonsese will become, as they reinforce their view of the world to each other in their weird echo chamber. Tony Blair said something like "when the Labour Party learn to love Peter Mandelson they will learn to love power". Well they are a long way from that at the moment. My own conclusion is that I would happily take Tony Blair back as leader of the Labour Party. If that means forgiving the Iraq war mistake, then that is a price I would pay. Look at the current alternatives - Boris Johnson v Jeremy Corbyn; so poor it sends a shudder down my spine. And it leaves all the moderate Labour supporters with a grudging, vague hope that Keir Starmer will become leader; not because of his own innate worth, but becuase he is not one of them. We should do better.

Thanks for your kind comments and thoughtful reply. It is much appreciated and you won't be surprised that I agree with every word.

One thing about current labour and the intention of Corbyn's circle and supporters to keep control.....I don't think they have a full skill set for doing that. What I means is that just as they were unable to organise a coherent manifesto, or persuade the nation they were fit for power, I'm not sure they will be able to navigate a leadership contest outcome that suits them. Ironically that is in part because they are too fair, and disinclined or unable to plot the path. This is ironic since when I saw the list of candidates I assumed that, as each favoured candidate failed in successive elimination ballots, their supporters would switch and so on, in an orderly fashion until Rebecca Long Baily beat Sir Kier in a head to head. Sometheing tells me they may cock it up. Entropy may prevail (not that Sir Kier appears yet to be particularly disruptive)

I've had dealings with a maverick businessmane in the last year over a drug I'm trying to develop and he relishes the notion of 'disruptive'. By that he means a left-field invention that breaks the mould, or an approach to a problem that is counterintuitive. I like that. Boris is a disruptive politician (who seriously saw him becoming PM after the bottled the leadership contest that gave us Mrs May or, earlier, when he bluffed his way through HIGNFY?). I await the arrival of a disruptive labour leader (Blair was extremely disruptive, but not for long enough). And the interesting thing about it is that few people see disruption coming, almost by definition.

Anyway, we live in hope. Things will change again eventually. If Boris' adventure in Brexitting goes pear shaped someone may step forward in labour and capture the public's imagination. It may be sooner than some think.

All the best, from darkest Faversham

 

[Albion Prem]

I think Labour should copy the Finnish model. Get a centre left, progressive and young leader in. It would not hurt the rep to get a female in either seeing as labour have yet to do just that.

An other female following the recent one,??

 

[BLOCK F]

Ask the Labour Party, not me.

The upside is that you get a deputy the membership likes.
The downside is the possibility of a dysfunctional leadership pairing..... such as Watson and Corbyn.

The upside may be that you get a deputy the membership likes, but it could also be a downside. If the membership is dominated by the far left then they get a far left pleasing deputy, which may go down well in the 'echo chamber', but will probably not go down so well with the electorate who want a centre left Government.
The Labour party has got to learn that to gain power it must stop preaching to the converted and widen their appeal outside the 'party faithful'!

 

[BLOCK F]

Ask the Labour Party, not me.

The upside is that you get a deputy the membership likes.
The downside is the possibility of a dysfunctional leadership pairing..... such as Watson and Corbyn.

The upside may be that you get a deputy the membership likes, but it could also be a downside. If the membership is dominated by the far left then they get a far left pleasing deputy, which may go down well in the 'echo chamber', but will probably not go down so well with the electorate who want a centre left Government.
The Labour party has got to learn that to gain power it must stop preaching to the converted and widen their appeal outside the 'party faithful'!

Woops, duplicate alert!