Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

On 22/05/2021 at 16:37, darrenm said:

Wonder how long it takes before the knives are out for Starmer. Perhaps they need to lose Batley first.

Was the smart money on Jo Cox's sister being the candidate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

She has now been officially selected.

Yes, I was posting in relation to that news. I was asking if she was the favourite a few weeks back, as I seem to remember talk of parachuting someone in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Yes, I was posting in relation to that news. I was asking if she was the favourite a few weeks back, as I seem to remember talk of parachuting someone in

I see what you mean. The early rumours were of a Reeves-favoured councillor from Leeds either being parachuted in, or given a place on an short all-women shortlist.

However, the party changed tack, perhaps because of a backlash after Hartlepool, and probably also because once Jo Cox's sister announced her intent, it was clear that she would win anyway, so there was no cost to holding the contest.

Unsurprisingly, the general pattern is that when the leadership are confident that their preferred candidate will win, they allow an open selection, and when they aren't they don't. This isn't a new problem with this leadership, but Hartlepool was particularly egregious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I see what you mean. The early rumours were of a Reeves-favoured councillor from Leeds either being parachuted in, or given a place on an short all-women shortlist.

However, the party changed tack, perhaps because of a backlash after Hartlepool, and probably also because once Jo Cox's sister announced her intent, it was clear that she would win anyway, so there was no cost to holding the contest.

Unsurprisingly, the general pattern is that when the leadership are confident that their preferred candidate will win, they allow an open selection, and when they aren't they don't. This isn't a new problem with this leadership, but Hartlepool was particularly egregious.

So this doesn't fit the general pattern then?  I'm confused as to what you're saying here. I also find it hard to even detect a pattern when there have only been two by-elections, only one of which has the appearance of parachuting anyone in and even then only because the left didn't have a candidate because their favourite (Piddock?) didn't want the nomination. (Yes I get the short timetable thing being what caused the anger)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

So this doesn't fit the general pattern then?  I'm confused as to what you're saying here. I also find it hard to even detect a pattern when there have only been two by-elections, only one of which has the appearance of parachuting anyone in and even then only because the left didn't have a candidate because their favourite (Piddock?) didn't want the nomination. (Yes I get the short timetable thing being what caused the anger)

The general pattern of interference in candidate selections goes back years and years, through Corbyn and Miliband and Brown on and on.

'Rules' often turn out not to be rules, and are often applied selectively; for example, if a woman is preferred over a man, but the man might win an open selection, then you can always find a reason to make it an all-women shortlist. If a man is preferred, declare a 'shortlist of one' (a la Dr Williams) or a shortlist where the preferred candidate is put up against someone so plainly unsuitable they couldn't possibly be chosen etc. The general tendency toward rigging contests is not a rule; not every contest needs to be rigged, and the central party can be caught off-guard by eg a declaration of a snap election or may just not have a preferred candidate for a particular constituency.

The leadership under Starmer has been happy to rig contests where they have wanted to; not only Hartlepool, but the other obvious example is the West of England mayoral candidate selection, where the winning candidate (and subsequent winner) was placed in a shortlist of two despite others not shortlisted receiving more nominations. As I say, Batley and Spen is likely a case where they decided they just didn't need to do any obvious fixing to the shortlist, since their preferred candidate was so strong that it was obvious she would win from the minute she declared.

I don't think the objection to the selection process in Hartlepool is only from the left, or because Pidcock wasn't interested; there are lots of people from all wings of the party who felt that parachuting in someone who was a] a loser in 2019, b] a vocal remainer, c] plausibly claimed to have favoured closing health provision in Hartlepool, and d] not actually from the town, was not a great idea. And there are lots of people, not only from the left of the party, who favour open contests as a point of principle, and for the practical reason that it means you don't start the campaign on a round of negative headlines about 'parachuting in' or 'stitch-ups'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Batley & Spen looks to be on a knife edge with the polling. Selecting Leadbeater may just swing it for Labour. 

I think this is a last roll of the dice for Starmer. If Labour lose this seat then the maths are there for the Socialist Campaign Group to launch a leadership contest. 

Who they'll put forward as their candidate remains to be seen. They could get behind Burnham and he's made it clear he wouldn't say no and the membership would definitely elect him.

So I think if Labour lose this seat you'll see Burnham as leader within 3 months. And then the polls would swing back towards Labour.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Batley & Spen looks to be on a knife edge with the polling. Selecting Leadbeater may just swing it for Labour. 

I think this is a last roll of the dice for Starmer. If Labour lose this seat then the maths are there for the Socialist Campaign Group to launch a leadership contest. 

Who they'll put forward as their candidate remains to be seen. They could get behind Burnham and he's made it clear he wouldn't say no and the membership would definitely elect him.

So I think if Labour lose this seat you'll see Burnham as leader within 3 months. And then the polls would swing back towards Labour.

That sounds plausible. Agree with all of it. Whats your take if Labour do win Batley? Just bumble along as is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

That sounds plausible. Agree with all of it. Whats your take if Labour do win Batley? Just bumble along as is?

What else can they do? Only a general election would change things then. Or another by-election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, darrenm said:

What else can they do? Only a general election would change things then. Or another by-election. 

Yes, agree. A winnable by election loss. Thats the only realistic catalyst. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I would be very surprised if a loss in Batley led to a leadership contest.

Jon Trickett has been hinting at it about the same time as Diane Abbott wrote this

Quote

 

Keir Starmer should resign if Labour loses the Batley and Spen byelection, the former shadow home secretary Diane Abbott has said, suggesting the party’s left wing would endorse a leadership run by Andy Burnham.

..

“Support from the large minority ethnic electorate may enable the party to hold the seat and Starmer to hang on as Labour leader,” Abbott said. “But if Labour loses again, it must surely be curtains for him. And then, it may be that Andy Burnham’s time will have come.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/19/losing-byelection-would-be-curtains-for-keir-starmer-says-diane-abbott

Labour currently have 198 MPs. The rules state that a leadership challenge can be started by 20% of MPs. That's currently 40. Lose one more seat and it's 39 - apparently the current number of SCG MPs + enough who are dismayed enough at the current polling to want Burnham in.

I can see Burnham being a really popular leader and would transform Labour's fortunes. But no-one should listen to me, I thought that about Starmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's still rather a large elephant in the room with Burnham. Which Greater Manchesterish MP (or Liverpool I guess) are the Labour Party going to get to resign?

If it happens as a result of anything that happens in Batley and Spen, it really isn't going to be a good look.

Also has anyone seen any sign that Burnham is mad enough to resign as GM Mayor? That in itself is another serious risk Labour would be taking.

I'm with Hanoi here, I really cannot see a leadership challenge by the left after B&S, if there is, they'll risk taking the Party further down in the polls. I just don't see how it'll happen if Burnham is to be that candidate

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Jon Trickett has been hinting at it about the same time as Diane Abbott wrote this

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/19/losing-byelection-would-be-curtains-for-keir-starmer-says-diane-abbott

Labour currently have 198 MPs. The rules state that a leadership challenge can be started by 20% of MPs. That's currently 40. Lose one more seat and it's 39 - apparently the current number of SCG MPs + enough who are dismayed enough at the current polling to want Burnham in.

I can see Burnham being a really popular leader and would transform Labour's fortunes. But no-one should listen to me, I thought that about Starmer.

The Socialist Campaign Group should - but may not, they stand on plenty of rakes - have the strategic sense to realise that they need Starmer to be *really* buried before they stick the knife in.

They have advantages; the suspicion has to be that most of the membership would still prefer someone standing on a Corbyn-ish platform, as Starmer did before his heel turn. They would surrender that advantage by being seen to be blowing up the party. They need other MPs, from the middle of the PLP, to come to the conclusion that Starmer is hopeless and a lost cause.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

Which Greater Manchesterish MP (or Liverpool I guess) are the Labour Party going to get to resign?

I wondered about that but apparently there's nothing in the Labour Party rules which prevents a non-MP from being leader.

I know it's unlikely and another reason he wouldn't want to resign as mayor but these are strange times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I wondered about that but apparently there's nothing in the Labour Party rules which prevents a non-MP from being leader.

There's nothing in any rules that prevent it, it's just stupidly impractical.

The Labour Leader can be in the Lords but he can't question the PM and PMQ's for instance. It would be severely limiting on a practical basis for the leader not to be an MP

EDIT: you are wrong Darren, Clause VII, A, ii of the Labour Party Rules states that...

Quote

The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4 Clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with clause VI above. In respect to the election of the leader and deputy leader, the standing orders of the PLP shall always Constitutional rules Page 5 automatically be brought into line with these rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it'd go down very poorly for Burnham to be willing to step away as Mayor so soon after winning the vote, as well. Although he's currently popular, if he was to resign within months and stand for election as an MP instead, I think it's far from a certainty he'd win it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...
Â