Abbott or McDonnell had stood instead of Corbyn

[froome]

Would we have had the same result?

The subtext of the question is whether it was purely the message that had come of age and resonated with many Labour members and supporters, or did Corbyn's personality also play a part?

My guess is that his personality was quite a major factor. I think he came across as personable and someone who could be trusted, and that won votes from some who would not have voted for another 'hard left' candidate. Whether Abbott or McDonnell would actually have won - well, I really don't know.

[Sibboleth]

McDonnell could not have made the ballot because he does not play well with other children while Abbott could not have won as she is fundamentally not credible (and is too well known to be a red-hued blank slate). But most of the other possible Left contenders would also have won by a country mile.

[mondialito]

Sept 15, 2015 17:21:38 GMT Sibboleth said:

McDonnell could not have made the ballot because he does not play well with other children while Abbott could not have won as she is fundamentally not credible (and is too well known to be a red-hued blank slate). But most of the other possible Left contenders would also have won by a country mile.

Spare a thought for Jon Trickett.

[hedgehog]

I dont think we would have seen anywhere near the momentum that Corbyn generated and it's down to his personality and credibility.

Dianne Abbott may have just scapped past Liz Kendall in the final ballot, I would imagine McDonnell would have had even less support.

Without Corbyn, I should imagine that Andy Burnham would have comfortably won a lackluster leadership election.

[Devil Wincarnate]

The next Labour conference would have looked like Jonestown.

[Pete Whitehead]

Sept 15, 2015 20:44:28 GMT hedgehog said:

I dont think we would have seen anywhere near the momentum that Corbyn generated and it's down to his personality and credibility.

Lol.. No it really isn't. The credulity of the electorate maybe

[carlton43]

Corbyn has been around a long time and he has bottom as well as baggage. The other two are far more recent and lightweight. Abbott is a know-nothing airhead and as thick as 8-short planks and thee pots of glue. McDonnell is a charmless friendless piece of ordure that most of us would avoid stepping in. I am not keen on Corbyn but the comparison is odious.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2015 17:21:38 GMT Sibboleth said:

McDonnell could not have made the ballot because he does not play well with other children while Abbott could not have won as she is fundamentally not credible (and is too well known to be a red-hued blank slate). But most of the other possible Left contenders would also have won by a country mile.

Even Ronnie Campbell?

[A Brown]

Sept 15, 2015 21:34:16 GMT joe said:

Sept 15, 2015 17:21:38 GMT Sibboleth said:

McDonnell could not have made the ballot because he does not play well with other children while Abbott could not have won as she is fundamentally not credible (and is too well known to be a red-hued blank slate). But most of the other possible Left contenders would also have won by a country mile.

Even Ronnie Campbell?

No but Ian Lavery might have done well (being 14 years younger than Corbyn and even comes across better than Burnham in a way (despite the hard left NUM stereotype) ).

[hedgehog]

Sept 15, 2015 21:07:10 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Sept 15, 2015 20:44:28 GMT hedgehog said:

I dont think we would have seen anywhere near the momentum that Corbyn generated and it's down to his personality and credibility.

Lol.. No it really isn't. The credulity of the electorate maybe

Contrasting with Abbott and McDonnell to a left wing audience he has a great deal of credibility.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Sept 15, 2015 19:36:19 GMT @boogieeck said:

Corbyn alone could have done it. Abbot will never recover from the schools issue. McDonnell is more vicious than Corbyn. Nobody else had Corbyn's name recognition, nor purity

Name recognition? I suspect that more of his opponents than his eventual supporters knew who Corbyn was at the start of the contest. Long-serving endemically rebellious backbenchers are not well know to the general public, and the selectorate are a lot more like the general public than they are nerds like us.

Sept 15, 2015 21:25:12 GMT carlton43 said:

Corbyn has been around a long time and he has bottom as well as baggage. The other two are far more recent and lightweight. Abbott is a know-nothing airhead and as thick as 8-short planks and thee pots of glue. McDonnell is a charmless friendless piece of ordure that most of us would avoid stepping in. I am not keen on Corbyn but the comparison is odious.

You're showing your age if you think that 1983 was a long time ago but 1987 was far more recent. Abbott is coming up on three decades in parliament. McDonnell took longer to get elected, but in the mid-1980s (when he was Livingstone's deputy) he would have been a bigger name.

[Richard Allen]

Sept 15, 2015 21:25:12 GMT carlton43 said:

Corbyn has been around a long time and he has bottom as well as baggage. The other two are far more recent and lightweight. Abbott is a know-nothing airhead and as thick as 8-short planks and thee pots of glue. McDonnell is a charmless friendless piece of ordure that most of us would avoid stepping in. I am not keen on Corbyn but the comparison is odious.

I think this is basically correct. In the previous two leadership elections McDonnell tried to get nominations using the same approach that Corbyn did i.e lend me your nomination so we can have a debate. It didn't work for him because he is a vile individual where as Corbyn while not exactly being likeable or liked by his colleagues isn't obviously offensive. Abbott was able to get nominated simply by virtue of being black but could never win an election because of her severe intellectual limitations.

[londonseal80]

If Abbott had won Labour would have been down to less than 100 seats this election.

[finsobruce]

May 27, 2017 9:01:40 GMT londonseal80 said:

If Abbott had won Labour would have been down to less than 100 seats this election.

He says, wistfully.

[The Bishop]

She came 5th out of 5 in 2010 for a reason.

And whilst I don't think even a more "credible" overtly left candidate would have won then, they would have surely done better.

(Ed's "shock" election was already a sign that things were beginning to shift)

[thirdchill]

McDonnell would have run a tighter ship at the top and possibly be seen as more competent. However Corbyn has a more likeable personality and anything people disliked about Corbyn would have been magnified in the case of McDonnell.

Abbott - Far more useless and ineffective than either of them. None of the likeability that Corbyn has and none of the firmness that McDonnell has.

[Richard Allen]

Slightly surprisingly McDonnell has managed to present himself in a much more cordial manner since becoming Shadow Chancellor. He has demonstrated a level subtlety and political skill which had not previously been apparent. Whether he could have managed this as leader, and thus been subjected to the level of scrutiny and criticism that Corbyn has, is questionable.

[mrpastelito]

Sept 15, 2015 23:17:49 GMT Richard Allen said:

Abbott was able to get nominated simply by virtue of being black but could never win an election because of her severe intellectual limitations.

Synaptically challenged you mean?

[greenhert]

I do not believe either Diane Abbott or John McDonnell would have won, for various reasons. In fact, I wish the Green Party would work harder in Hackney North & Stoke Newington to oust Diane...

[neilm]

McDonnell comes across as someone who could hold office competently. Obviously, he'd be an utter disaster but he looks the part, unlike some of the others. Paul Flynn looks fairly competent as well.