Next Labour Leader

[LondonJohn]

Speaking as a paid up member of the party I'm voting for Kier Starmer.

I'm afraid I just can't see Starmer getting the job done (i.e., ultimately, getting his party back into power with himself as PM). He's tremendously able, a good speaker, and someone with real experience and skills outside of politics (all big plus points).

But..... I just don't think he has the "X-Factor": the charisma, the drive, the hunger in his eyes, the personality that gives off an urge for change and improvement and the promise of a better world ahead (stop me if I'm getting all esoteric, new-age and wonky....).

I think someone like Starmer would make an outstanding occupant of one of the other great offices of State: Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, or Chancellor. But under someone else as PM.

I think back to when John Smith died in 1994 as Labour leader. It was likely that the next election was going to be in 1997 (as indeed it was), and John Major's premiership was sailing onto ever-rockier ground. The received wisdom is that a) John Smith's Labour would have won a stonking majority in 1997 if he'd lived, and b) John Smith would have been a towering PM in the same way as his successor Blair ended up being (and that Smith and the country had been robbed of this by his untimely death).

But I think differently (and my view echoe that of some political commentators): I think that Smith was a fantastically talented man, with moderate views and the ability to unite the party. But.... he just was not very charismatic or dynamic (nor was he all that young, and he looked like a late-middle-aged accountant). By contrast, Blair was younger, dynamic and photogenic, as well as being extremely intelligent and able. I think the country could see in Blair the prospect (whether just an illusion or not) of real change, re-invigoration, excitement and prosperity.

I think that had Smith lived, Labour would most likely have won a majority in 1997. But I don't think Smith would have served more than one term in office, and nor would he have much of a lasting legacy. As ironic and unpleasant as it sounds, Smith's death in 1994 was perhaps in many ways the best thing that could have happened to the Labour party: Blair was consequently able to lead them into 13 years of Labour government and (at the time at least - even though horribly sullied by history, especially with respect to foreign policy) a true legacy of achievement in power.

 

[angrysoba]

Emily Thornberry*throwing her hat in.

I do like her bluntness.

She would be terrible.

 

[welshdean]

Shami Chakrabarty *taps nose knowingly*

That's a bottle then, or 2-1 in tic-tac.

 

[welshdean]

I have always been impressed by Yvette Cooper's political acumen and ability to get to the heart of a matter. It'd be great to see her elected as Labour leader. She would make complete mincemeat out of Boris as she does not tolerate BS.

Oh come now, she positively blossomed under Bliar.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Needs to be someone who wont frighten voters on issues like climate change or the widening wealth gap. Take a leaf from Australian Labor’s Albanese who likes coal mines and doesn’t rock the boat by voting against the incumbent right wing coalition too much.

Socialists need not apply for Labour Party leadership.

 

[welshdean]

What the opposition needs is a leader that can galvanise the centre right, the remain vote and the anti buffoon ex Tory that will never vote for Johnson. Add in the disaffected brexiteers from the north and they could be a party that a disenfranchised loyal Tory could and would vote for.

Can't see me voting Tory again.
Will never vote for anything vaguely smelling of Corbyn.
Wasted my Dec 12 vote on SDP rather than spoil.

I am one of many that need representation but have nowhere to turn.

 

[angrysoba]

What the opposition needs is a leader that can galvanise the centre right, the remain vote and the anti buffoon ex Tory that will never vote for Johnson. Add in the disaffected brexiteers from the north and they could be a party that a disenfranchised loyal Tory could and would vote for.

Can't see me voting Tory again.
Will never vote for anything vaguely smelling of Corbyn.
Wasted my Dec 12 vote on SDP rather than spoil.

I am one of many that need representation but have nowhere to turn.

SDP? Do they still exist?

 

[Tolls]

SDP? Do they still exist?

All these parties do in some form or other.
It's a bit like the Life of Brian gladiator arena scene.
"That's him over there"

 

[The Don]

SDP? Do they still exist?

Yup:

https://sdp.org.uk/

 

[angrysoba]

Yup:

https://sdp.org.uk/

Wow! “The Hidden Majority”!

No kidding; they are very well hidden. They ran twenty candidates by the looks of things.

 

[Worm]

She certainly could, as a member of the House of Lords....

I'm not sure about the technicalities of it, and I take the point about a successful leadership candidate standing in a 'safe' by-election to become an MP, but my understanding from reporting I have seen is that one has to already be an MP to stand for Labour leader. That's not a parliamentary rule or precedent, it's a Labour Party rule.

 

[Camillus]

She certainly could, as a member of the House of Lords.

Clause VII of the Labour Party Rule-Book:

The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among
Commons members of the PLP

She would have to renounce her seat in the Lords, find someone to step down as an MP and get elected before she could run. Not going to happen.

 

[Wudang]

I guess it will come down to whether the Labour Party is minded to make itself electable again, or whether ideological purity is seen to be more important.

My experience in the 70's and 80's is that it may take considerable time and effort to move the party from the latter to the former.

Was it Healey who talked about people "who perfer the ideological purity of opposition to the hard decisions of power"?

I've been in a few Labour discussions where all the loudest Corynistas apparently thought that Labour centrists (i.e. anyone not of their stamp) was the first enemy to be removed. Good call guys, alienate the people you have most common ground with.
I think another Corbynista would be a bad idea as they seem totally tone deaf. And the first layoff should have been Seamus.
There's been a spike in Labour party membership as a lot of people for various reasons want a say in selecting the next leader.

 

[Giz]

Yvette Cooper or Kier Starmer sound OK.

Only go with Thornberry if you have a burning desire to guarantee Boris wins the next election.

 

[commandlinegamer]

he just was not very charismatic or dynamic (nor was he all that young, and he looked like a late-middle-aged accountant).

[cough]John Major[/cough]

 

[LondonJohn]

[cough]John Major[/cough]

Oh I agree. But at the time of the Thatcher downfall, as bizarre at it may seem now, Major was actually the most go-getting "Young Turk" from among the credible candidates to succeed her as Conservative leader! And it also needs to be borne in mind that Kinnock lost the 92 election as much as Major won it.

I'd strongly argue that between the mid-80s and the mid-90s, the game changed significantly in politics to one where presentation and (perceived) dynamism started to count for much more electorally than ever before. I suspect a big catalyst for that change was (Bill) Clinton's ascent to the Democratic nomination and then the presidency in 92. Suddenly it seemed that the leaders of major democracies had to have the verve, dynamism and sheer youth to be able to credibly claim that their victory would bring real change, prosperity and national pride.

As I said in my previous post, I suspect that Labour under Smith would have won a majority in 97 and Smith would have become PM. But I just can't see that Labour would have lasted nearly so long in power, nor been so successful, had Smith been at the helm. Perhaps one single incident encapsulates the difference for me pretty vividly: when Diana died in 1997, only a couple of months after Blair's labour victory, Blair stood outside the church near Chequers the following morning and made that now-legendary speech packed with empathy and feeling in which he identified Diana as "The People's Princess". IMO, even if those exact same words had been spoken by either Major or Smith (though I don't think they'd have even chosen those sorts of words...), neither of those men would have been able to "sell" the words anything like Blair did. He seemed, in a very real sense, to be the mouthpiece of the whole nation that day (irrespective of your party politics). And that's just one (albeit good) example.

 

[LondonJohn]

Clause VII of the Labour Party Rule-Book:



She would have to renounce her seat in the Lords, find someone to step down as an MP and get elected before she could run. Not going to happen.

Ah that gosh-darned Labour Party Rule Book! I'd forgotten about Labour's idiosyncratic party rules. Oh well. I'd agree that, especially given the time frames in play, it's very unlikely to happen.

 

[Information Analyst]

(On that last point, I remember reading something by Ricky Gervais which has always resonated, and which immediately reminded me of exactly this Rees-Mogg set of incidents. Gervais recounted that after The Office went gangbusters in the USA, all sorts of big-time producers and studios in LA/Hollywood wanted to work with him. Inevitably he'd meet them for lunch (since "lunching" is almost always how one conducts early-stage meetings in Hollywood...). Gervais would notice how the producers or studio honchos treated the restaurant staff (and it was always the producers/honchos who booked the tables, took the lead within the restaurant, paid the bill, etc). He was surprised and somewhat angered by the high proportion of them who were either abrupt and unfriendly towards the restaurant staff, or even downright hostile. And he resolved that there was no way whatsoever that he'd ever work with any such producers/honchos, no matter how seemingly-attractive the offer. A good rule to live by, in my opinion.)

Moral: if Ricky Gervais thinks someone is an ********, then they must really be an ********.

 

[angrysoba]

Ah that gosh-darned Labour Party Rule Book! I'd forgotten about Labour's idiosyncratic party rules. Oh well. I'd agree that, especially given the time frames in play, it's very unlikely to happen.

I think any party trying to get a member of the House of Lords to be Prime Minister would be trying to pull an idiotic move. It may have been done in the past, but people wouldn't stand for it now.

 

[3point14]

If the last few weeks have taught me anything it's that the most important thing is that he be acceptable to the Tory press.

Which, to my mind, is not a good starting point.