2017 Labour Leadership contest if Labour had lost badly

[jamesg]

An idea of mine on this concept:


In the May 2017 UK general election, the Conservatives under May won an expected majority: one of more than forty seats. A slight Labour improvement in Scotland - up from one won in 2015 to five in 2017 - didn't offset at all the immense losses which they took in the North & Midlands portion of England. Comparisons to the collapse of the Blue Wall in the US Mid-West for Clinton against Trump the year before were made: Corbyn lost a good portion of the Red Wall in England for Labour.

Having won two party leadership elections in two years for Labour, and still popular, Corbyn at first seemed resistant to leaving his post. He faced another challenge. In 2017, unlike in 2016, he decided to walk first. It was a surprise for many when really it shouldn't have been: he'd just lead his party to a shocking defeat.


Candidates put themselves forward to replace him. Several seemed prepared for a race and thus in a better position than others due to having done the groundwork.

As had been rumoured ahead of the election, Yvette Cooper had a leadership campaign ready to go. She was first out of the starting blocks. Having run in 2015, she once more sought to be Labour's first (elected) female leader. The public profile of her husband, Ed Balls, who had just been on a popular television entertainment show, was flagged up by some of her supporters as a problem yet others saw it as a bonus. Hilary Benn opted to support her instead of running against her and she also secured the backing of Chuka Umunna too: those were high-profile figures on the centre-right of the party who, if they had run as well, could have drawn away votes from her.

Another woman also put herself forward early on. Lisa Nandy, a further MP from the Red Wall who had held on when others hadn't, announced a run. She had been promoted heavily in the 2015 race by the influential political commentator & activist Owen Jones then but family issues had held her back. She opened her campaign with a centre-left message and sought to take the party in a different direction to what Cooper intended.

Kier Starmer and Clive Lewis openly toyed with the idea of running. The two of them had only been MPs for two years though and didn't have enough support among fellow MPs to be able to gain nominations. Starmer's thunder was stolen by Cooper running on the same ground and Nandy targeted the same supporters which Lewis would. Instead of formally entering, the two of them backed Cooper and Nandy respectively.

John McDonnell was the third and final candidate to officially enter the race to replace Corbyn. He had been the former leader's sternest ally through thick and thin. Right out there on the left, McDonnell shamelessly defended Corbyn's leadership and vowed to appoint Corbyn to his shadow cabinet. There would be no change in party direction under him. Though without as much passion, supporters of Corbyn outside of the slimmed-down Parliamentary Labour Party rallied around McDonnell. He attained the backing of the important trade unions too.


It was July 2017 before the winner of the party leadership was revealed. Since his entry into the race, McDonnell had been the favourite. He had opened up a commanding lead over Cooper and Nandy and maintained that throughout. Corbyn had gone out and 'stumped' for him at rallies where the more laid-back McDonnell couldn't quite drive the level of hype that Corbyn could. McDonnell focused less on crowds but instead on winning party member's backing. That he did. Cooper put off many with her perceived high-mindedness and there was also the issue of Balls whose off-the-record remarks to a journalist concerning Corbyn & McDonnell were leaked and spun in a manner which didn't help his wife's campaign. Nandy remained likeable among large sections of the public and party members yet McDonnell hoovered up her votes.

In the end, McDonnell won 51.2 % of the total votes with Cooper coming in second on 27.6 % and Nandy attaining a respectable 21.2 %. Despite taking just over half of the votes, McDonnell had won a decent victory over two capable challengers. He accepted the leadership in a victory speech at an emergency party conference and promised there would be no turning away from the Corbyn-era party programme. Neither Cooper nor Nandy, plus figures like Benn and Umunna, would serve in his shadow cabinet though he did bring in Starmer and Lewis. Corbyn was appointed his shadow foreign secretary: something the former leader thought he was best suited to.


Meanwhile, May got on with the business of being Prime Minister and trying to deal with Brexit. McDonnell took Labour down a path of continued opposition from a far left position leaving so many in his party, including an overwhelming majority of his MPs, aghast at what had become of their party.

[right]

Jan 31, 2021 11:04:48 GMT The Bishop said:

But that still raises the question of who it might have been, the fact Pidcock was promoted by so many on the left before she lost her seat surely tells its own story.

Pidcock seems such an unattractive figure, but then I'm a Tory. What was the argument for her, political purity aside?

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2021 19:19:10 GMT right said:

Jan 31, 2021 11:04:48 GMT The Bishop said:

But that still raises the question of who it might have been, the fact Pidcock was promoted by so many on the left before she lost her seat surely tells its own story.

Pidcock seems such an unattractive figure, but then I'm a Tory. What was the argument for her, political purity aside?

The optics of being led by a young northern woman from a working-class background 

[sirbenjamin]

Apr 21, 2021 19:19:10 GMT right said:

Jan 31, 2021 11:04:48 GMT The Bishop said:

But that still raises the question of who it might have been, the fact Pidcock was promoted by so many on the left before she lost her seat surely tells its own story.

Pidcock seems such an unattractive figure, but then I'm a Tory. What was the argument for her, political purity aside?

I'm sure there are plenty of Labour people who privately considered her a bit of an embarrassment/liability/nightmare but didn't want to say as much publicly.

Most parties have gobby youngsters who haven't learned how to do grown-up politics properly but think they know it all, but whose enthusiasm and energy for the cause can't be questioned. I probably used to be one.

They just seem to get further up the ladder earlier in Labour than in other parties. Especially in the last few GE intakes.

[Merseymike]

Apr 22, 2021 23:17:54 GMT sirbenjamin said:

Apr 21, 2021 19:19:10 GMT right said:

Pidcock seems such an unattractive figure, but then I'm a Tory. What was the argument for her, political purity aside?

I'm sure there are plenty of Labour people who privately considered her a bit of an embarrassment/liability/nightmare but didn't want to say as much publicly.

Most parties have gobby youngsters who haven't learned how to do grown-up politics properly but think they know it all, but whose enthusiasm and energy for the cause can't be questioned. I probably used to be one.

They just seem to get further up the ladder earlier in Labour than in other parties. Especially in the last few GE intakes.

Perhaps you are all missing the point. Those who like Pidcock don't share your enthusiasm for what you call grown up politics. Indeed, they see that sort of politics as the problem, whether it is provided by the Tories or by the Labour right. So they aren't going to be enthused by someone offering to tinker at the edges but effectively staying on the same course.

Maybe start from that position and you may recognise that someone who is both enthusiastic and actually believes in what they advocate is going to appeal. If you are so resolutely opposed to the message it's very unlikely that you will grasp what appeals in those who forward it.

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

What is grown up politics?

[matureleft]

Apr 23, 2021 5:32:41 GMT Merseymike said:

Apr 22, 2021 23:17:54 GMT sirbenjamin said:

I'm sure there are plenty of Labour people who privately considered her a bit of an embarrassment/liability/nightmare but didn't want to say as much publicly.

Most parties have gobby youngsters who haven't learned how to do grown-up politics properly but think they know it all, but whose enthusiasm and energy for the cause can't be questioned. I probably used to be one.

They just seem to get further up the ladder earlier in Labour than in other parties. Especially in the last few GE intakes.

Perhaps you are all missing the point. Those who like Pidcock don't share your enthusiasm for what you call grown up politics. Indeed, they see that sort of politics as the problem, whether it is provided by the Tories or by the Labour right. So they aren't going to be enthused by someone offering to tinker at the edges but effectively staying on the same course.

Maybe start from that position and you may recognise that someone who is both enthusiastic and actually believes in what they advocate is going to appeal. If you are so resolutely opposed to the message it's very unlikely that you will grasp what appeals in those who forward it.

I agree. To me she was/is unappealing. But there is an electorate both for her views and her style. There are many who are repelled by the carefully considered, nuanced and cautious views that come from most mainstream politicians. To me they confuse "speak first, think later" communication as authenticity. Johnson, to an extent, taps some of that sentiment.

[Merseymike]

Apr 23, 2021 6:12:03 GMT matureleft said:

Apr 23, 2021 5:32:41 GMT Merseymike said:

Perhaps you are all missing the point. Those who like Pidcock don't share your enthusiasm for what you call grown up politics. Indeed, they see that sort of politics as the problem, whether it is provided by the Tories or by the Labour right. So they aren't going to be enthused by someone offering to tinker at the edges but effectively staying on the same course.

Maybe start from that position and you may recognise that someone who is both enthusiastic and actually believes in what they advocate is going to appeal. If you are so resolutely opposed to the message it's very unlikely that you will grasp what appeals in those who forward it.

I agree. To me she was/is unappealing. But there is an electorate both for her views and her style. There are many who are repelled by the carefully considered, nuanced and cautious views that come from most mainstream politicians. To me they confuse "speak first, think later" communication as authenticity. Johnson, to an extent, taps some of that sentiment.

That reflects your cautious, centrist politics, though. And I do see that as the problem. I don't think you can grasp that people have done some thinking, but conclude that your approach will mean business as usual. I don't think it's about authenticity, but determination to change things, rather than carry on as before.
I think Johnson's appeal is different. It's much more an image of not really being a politician. It's very studied, very clever. More than I had initially realised....I saw some of his buffoonery as, well, just that, but it's something much more directed and calculated. There is so much rubbish talked about Johnson from the left, but trying to challenge it is a waste of time because too many are stuck in the Eeeevil Toreeez trench. I don't agree with Johnson's politics but he is not racist or homophobic - irreverent, yes, but that's something quite different.
As for Pidcock. She can be a bit earnest, but actually the article she wrote after losing her seat was very perceptive. I think her stock rose after she lost her seat, partially because of that reason alone, but also because RLB clearly didn't want the leadership role and in my view, Pidcock would have stood if still in the Commons and motivated the left more than RLB was able to do.

[matureleft]

Apr 23, 2021 6:37:15 GMT Merseymike said:

Apr 23, 2021 6:12:03 GMT matureleft said:

I agree. To me she was/is unappealing. But there is an electorate both for her views and her style. There are many who are repelled by the carefully considered, nuanced and cautious views that come from most mainstream politicians. To me they confuse "speak first, think later" communication as authenticity. Johnson, to an extent, taps some of that sentiment.

That reflects your cautious, centrist politics, though. And I do see that as the problem. I don't think you can grasp that people have done some thinking, but conclude that your approach will mean business as usual. I don't think it's about authenticity, but determination to change things, rather than carry on as before.
I think Johnson's appeal is different. It's much more an image of not really being a politician. It's very studied, very clever. More than I had initially realised....I saw some of his buffoonery as, well, just that, but it's something much more directed and calculated. There is so much rubbish talked about Johnson from the left, but trying to challenge it is a waste of time because too many are stuck in the Eeeevil Toreeez trench. I don't agree with Johnson's politics but he is not racist or homophobic - irreverent, yes, but that's something quite different.
As for Pidcock. She can be a bit earnest, but actually the article she wrote after losing her seat was very perceptive. I think her stock rose after she lost her seat, partially because of that reason alone, but also because RLB clearly didn't want the leadership role and in my view, Pidcock would have stood if still in the Commons and motivated the left more than RLB was able to do.

Well yes. To an extent. It also reflects being 66 and having served in political roles for around 25 of those years. I have encountered others seemingly of this type through that span. I've never met her so I can't judge but there's a fair number who "adjusted" (particularly through the Blair period) as opportunities arose. And I never confuse rhetoric with serious intent and planned purpose (an example of that was the difference between Corbyn and McDonnell, and I saw her as being in Corbyn's category).

And we largely agree about Johnson. I'd argue that he is seen as more "authentic" than many, but it's an act. He's not a racist or a homophobe. He made a good living as a journalist of a type paid to express opinions that suited his audience. Unsurprisingly some of those views fit those categories and he was prepared to express them for money. In most of his behaviour he's a metropolitan liberal (and for that reason, in spite of his achievements for his party, distrusted by many I'd imagine).

[grahammurray]

Apr 23, 2021 6:07:48 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

What is grown up politics?

It doesn't surprise me at all that you've needed to ask.

[carlton43]

Apr 23, 2021 6:07:48 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

What is grown up politics?

It is a politics of which you fully approve the content and the mode and method of delivery.

[No Offence Alan]

Apr 23, 2021 6:07:48 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

What is grown up politics?

Anything in between Woke on one side or Populist on the other.

[The Bishop]

There is an argument that "grown up politics" should contain some populism.

[Merseymike]

Apr 23, 2021 7:08:33 GMT matureleft said:

Apr 23, 2021 6:37:15 GMT Merseymike said:

That reflects your cautious, centrist politics, though. And I do see that as the problem. I don't think you can grasp that people have done some thinking, but conclude that your approach will mean business as usual. I don't think it's about authenticity, but determination to change things, rather than carry on as before.
I think Johnson's appeal is different. It's much more an image of not really being a politician. It's very studied, very clever. More than I had initially realised....I saw some of his buffoonery as, well, just that, but it's something much more directed and calculated. There is so much rubbish talked about Johnson from the left, but trying to challenge it is a waste of time because too many are stuck in the Eeeevil Toreeez trench. I don't agree with Johnson's politics but he is not racist or homophobic - irreverent, yes, but that's something quite different.
As for Pidcock. She can be a bit earnest, but actually the article she wrote after losing her seat was very perceptive. I think her stock rose after she lost her seat, partially because of that reason alone, but also because RLB clearly didn't want the leadership role and in my view, Pidcock would have stood if still in the Commons and motivated the left more than RLB was able to do.

Well yes. To an extent. It also reflects being 66 and having served in political roles for around 25 of those years. I have encountered others seemingly of this type through that span. I've never met her so I can't judge but there's a fair number who "adjusted" (particularly through the Blair period) as opportunities arose. And I never confuse rhetoric with serious intent and planned purpose (an example of that was the difference between Corbyn and McDonnell, and I saw her as being in Corbyn's category).

And we largely agree about Johnson. I'd argue that he is seen as more "authentic" than many, but it's an act. He's not a racist or a homophobe. He made a good living as a journalist of a type paid to express opinions that suited his audience. Unsurprisingly some of those views fit those categories and he was prepared to express them for money. In most of his behaviour he's a metropolitan liberal (and for that reason, in spite of his achievements for his party, distrusted by many I'd imagine).

I think Corbyn is more a campaigner who ended up as party leader. McDonnell more the practical politician no doubt learned at the GLC.
I actually see Pidcock as more in the McDonnell mode. Burgon is more akin to Corbyn.

[Merseymike]

Apr 23, 2021 6:07:48 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

What is grown up politics?

The sort of politics we are both, correctly, sceptical about

[The Bishop]

Tbh the main obvious drawback with Pidcock is that she was, even by modern political standards, terribly young and inexperienced as regards becoming a party leader.

[pragmaticidealist]

Apr 23, 2021 11:21:46 GMT The Bishop said:

Tbh the main obvious drawback with Pidcock is that she was, even by modern political standards, terribly young and inexperienced as regards becoming a party leader.

By the likely time of the next general election, it will be the best part of two decades since Starmer first became DPP. By 2010, it had been almost two decades since Cameron was special advisor to a Chancellor and similarly with Ed Milband in 2015 (and in both of those cases they held the special advisor role at a time when key and quite historic decisions were made). I mention these examples because these are some of the more inexperienced in terms of parliamentary service. 

[mercian]

Apr 23, 2021 12:52:49 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

Apr 23, 2021 11:21:46 GMT The Bishop said:

Tbh the main obvious drawback with Pidcock is that she was, even by modern political standards, terribly young and inexperienced as regards becoming a party leader.

By the likely time of the next general election, it will be the best part of two decades since Starmer first became DPP. By 2010, it had been almost two decades since Cameron was special advisor to a Chancellor and similarly with Ed Milband in 2015 (and in both of those cases they held the special advisor role at a time when key and quite historic decisions were made). I mention these examples because these are some of the more inexperienced in terms of parliamentary service. 

What I struggle to understand is how someone fresh(ish) out of university can be a special advisor to a senior politician? Unless it's a euphemism for teaboy for instance.  Wouldn't it be better to have someone from the HoL for instance from your own party?

[J.G.Harston]

May 21, 2021 22:20:09 GMT mercian said:

Apr 23, 2021 12:52:49 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

By the likely time of the next general election, it will be the best part of two decades since Starmer first became DPP. By 2010, it had been almost two decades since Cameron was special advisor to a Chancellor and similarly with Ed Milband in 2015 (and in both of those cases they held the special advisor role at a time when key and quite historic decisions were made). I mention these examples because these are some of the more inexperienced in terms of parliamentary service. 

What I struggle to understand is how someone fresh(ish) out of university can be a special advisor to a senior politician? Unless it's a euphemism for teaboy for instance.  Wouldn't it be better to have someone from the HoL for instance from your own party?

Ditto. When I was on Sheffield Council I insisted on refering to Cabinet Assistants not Cabinet Advisors. An Advisor would be somebody with greater skills and more experience that oneself, so-called cabinet advisors are the deputies to the cabinet member, not some sort of resource of expertise to tell them how to do their job. Certainly when I had such a post I definitely considered myself Cabinet Assistant for Environment.