politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hilary Benn. The Peacemaker who should be the next Labour lead
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hilary Benn. The Peacemaker who should be the next Labour leader
Leadership talk is in the air. Names are tossed into the ring, trampled on and tossed out again. I have a simple view. When you look at the enormous task of transforming Labour’s fortunes there is only one name worth considering.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
FPT: Rebecca Long Bailey is a lady with a very political, very creative cv. All the shop and factory stuff is missing from Linkedin, which says:
1979: Born
1998: Left school
Manchester Met University
2003 onwards: Solicitor
That looks like a series of Saturday or Summer jobs being given a lot of weight.
Keeping a greenish book on Lab leadership is an f**** nightmare!
I grew up locally by Old Trafford football ground and began my working life serving at the shop counter of a pawn shop, an experience that taught me more about the struggles of life than any degree or qualification ever could. I also worked in call centres, a furniture factory , and as a postwoman before eventually studying to become a solicitor, where, for many years I acted on behalf of NHS Bodies on a range of governance and contractual issues.
http://www.rebeccalongbailey.com/find_out_more
"Eventually" seems to comprise a period between the ages of about 18 and 19.
He hasn't. If anything, his performance since has been considerably more inept. He has doubled down on policy, promoted still more nonentities to plug the gaps of still more resignations, split the parliamentary party from top to bottom over Europe and managed to find the one line - Brexit with full free movement - that alienates all Labour's supporters rather than just 50% of them.
What he has done, undoubtedly, is improved his performances in the Commons. However, he has the huge advantage of being up against May, a plodding methodical character who isn't good at thinking on her feet and has poor judgement of what will go over well, rather than Cameron, who was the master of a withering putdown dragged up from memory. Given his experience it would be a real disaster, indeed, if he couldn't do well under those circumstances. But it's irrelevant. Michael Foot was one of the great Commons performers of the twentieth century. But like Corbyn, his policies were toxic (and it isn't just Corbyn, it is his policies - ask canvassers in Copeland).
There is therefore no sign he is improving or planning a succession at present, and even if he were I doubt Benn would win an election given there would surely be one leftist on the ballot.
Labour's best hope for a quick recovery is an election this year that would destroy Corbyn while there is a residual loyalty to the party. Ironically May doesn't seem to want it at the moment. What has Labour come to when its survival depends on a mercy killing from a Prime Minister provided by the enemy?
But this quote is immediately relevant:
'The New Statesman’s Stephen Bush in his indispensable daily newsletter counsels caution. He ssays “Corbyn would never voluntarily hand back control of the party to his opponents, so until there is a rule change(so that fewer MPs are needed to nominate a leadership contender), any talk that he has planned his retirement should be treated with extreme scepticism.”"'
Well, quite.That's why the current effort by Labour First and Progress (cf. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/12/labour-jeremy-corbyn-critics-organise-locally-leadership-election) to block the rule change is so stupid, another attempt to regain control by cunning wheezes ("let's make sure that people we don't like aren't on the ballot") rather than winning arguments ("let's persuade members we need a change"). Do they want Labour to, in their terms, move on or not?
By whom? IMO anyone who disbelieves Trump with a kneejerk assumption is as silly as anyone who does the opposite.
Benn could've stood against Corbyn at the second leadership election.
If Corbyn wouldn't cede control to his political adversaries then surely he can't afford to resign at all?
The Tories managed just 37%, a majority of 12 and are only 2 years into their first govt for 18 years.
As things stand today they may win big next time. But one landslide does not make a one party state.
PS note to self. I agree with Plato on something.
It seems quite clear that the majority of active, long standing members, MPs, MEPs and councillors don't want another hard left leader. Only the clicktivists who don't attend meetings, will never canvass and have at least half a foot in other parties want another left leader who can't win an election, thereby giving Tories a free pass.
The fact that this even being considered show that Labour are all over the place.
So, I agree experience and being battle hardened makes a key difference. Blair is a good example of someone who developed his skills over a decade.
The other route is to be so utterly charismatic/different that you somehow manage to rise above business as usual. People like that come up very, very rarely.
I can't be the only person who didn't realise until this weekend that Hazel Blears had actually stood down in 2015?
That's how low a profile Rebecca Long Bailey has been keeping.
It was the opposite approach taken by Edward III or Alexander the Great. Or King Arthur. If it had been King Gordon, he would've been sat at the round table by himself.
If anything says 'we're lightweight and not a serious proposition' it is positing politically inexperienced candidates like RBL and Angela Rayner as natural successors.
Benn is serious, and would be tough to oppose. He is also a significant parliamentarian - which should be respected.
The big beasts and old heads that started in '97 were knackered, dead or had enough by 2010. It's not surprising after more and a decade in opposition and 13 years in government.
The next generation were groomed for government not opposition. This is a problem that besets all successful parties in the end.
The likes of David Owen, Shirley Williams, Stephen Dorrell, Peter Lilley, David Milliband and James Purnell were good at running departments, not winning elections.
The street-fighters that do emerge in govt, Dennis Healey, Ken Clarke, Ed Balls seem to be too controversial to prosper.
Didn't Blears join a demo outside her local hospital after voting for the very thing that the demo was protesting about?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/12/12/young-prezza-to-save-old-jezza-the-task-facing-corbyns-new-speechwriter/
It seems David Prescott has proved to be as useful as some PBers suggested rather than what Don Brind hoped.
And the reason they were knackered or had had enough was, in a large part, due to the aggro they got from Brown's lieutenants. They spent as much time and energy against 'enemies' within their own party as they did those in rival parties. It was a poison, and much of the subsequent failure of Labour (especially in Scotland) can be put down to it.
I mean, just look at McBride as an example of sh*t behaviour right at the heart of Brown's coterie.
It's interesting to think what would have happened if Blair had sacked Brown in the 2001-2005 parliament. Might Labour now be in a much stronger position?
I think having spent time working in the NHS in some capacity... Manager, nurse, doctor whatever is surely a benefit to a health secretary.
For job like PM I can certainly believe that there is no sufficient training... You just have to sink or swim.
Basically he could grow into a Portillo within the chamber if he takes her advice - gets to know the Tory party and the country.
I find it hilarious - and slightly worrying - that an MP (and PM) representing a Home Counties constituency said that about an MP representing a northern constituency and who had been somewhat championing the north.
But his inner circle do politics all day. They talk directly to people who talk directly to voters, they have their own focus groups and their own polls. They must have at least some inkling what's going to happen?
Both Major and Brown suffered from having to lead parties in the shadow of greater predecessors, Both suffered from internal management and discipline issues resulting from long years in Government and long years of dominant powerful leadership.
There's a common theme - after a long period in office, parties go mad or rather they begin to believe they are immortal and act accordingly. That is what will happen to the Conservatives probably around 2025 - they will implode under May's successor and go down to a huge defeat because, as night follows day, as one party begins to go mad, the other starts to become sane.
For all the Conservative nonsense about the Corbynite domination of Labour, let's not forget the Conservative membership chose both William Hague and IDS - Cameron's election, rather like Blair's a decade earlier, was an indication of returning sanity.
The one woman who seems to be trying is Lisa Nandy. So I would opt for her.
We should all be very tolerant of differing lifestyles and natures - being gay or a feminist, say. That doesn't mean we should be bullied into being 'proud' or having to wear silly T-shirts. I think both May and Osborne in their different ways can be a bit authoritarian. Osborne getting knocked down a peg or two will have done him some good. let's just hope he has learnt to respect the views of ordinary people who might disagree with him.
To be fair, the Right has lurched from austerity to reflation but there has been no alternative offered from the other side.
With the A50 negotiations looming, the debate about what kind of Britain we want to be in the 2020s and beyond is beginning but if the only voice heard is May and those who think like her, the field will be hers by default.
Leaving the EU doesn't leave you with only one societal and economic model and in any case there are huge issues such as social care and care for the elderly which would still exist even if we had voted to REMAIN.
The problem the centre-left has is the traditional response of throwing money at the problem has been thoroughly discredited - even May's interventionist rhetoric hasn't found universal favour. There's a problem but no one wants to offer money as the solution so what is the solution ?
I have been saying this for 18 months. See, for example, point 4 of this:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/26/alastair-meeks-looks-at-the-options-for-labours-right-wing/
'Gibraltar poses threat to post-Brexit aviation access
Spain signals it would block EU air access deal unless terms exclude Gibraltar airport'
http://tinyurl.com/zofmavv
I'm fascinated who these people are who continue to back David Miliband. He's not in Parliament, not even in the country and has evinced not the slightest interest in the job. Yet as of this morning he was last matched at 22. I'd have thought adding a zero on the end of that would still be no bargain.
Getting ones hands dirty in the literal sense is a great leveller for desk jockeys.
"The fundamental issue for labour is however squaring the circle of their two main bodies of supporters, The 'old' white working class, and the metropolitan young 'right-ons',"
I agree and it's not squareable. Brexit was a good example. They'd like to go with the metropolitan right-ons but pay lip service to the wwc. A very difficult balancing act, especially with Abbott and Thornberry. You need to be a Tony Blair to get away with it for a while.
If he dropped out or his ratings collapsed before the first round, cui bono? Hamon?
The Democrats are electorally in a far better place than Labour and it remains to be seen whether those who voted for Trump (or didn't vote for Clinton) last November will think the same in the midterms let alone 2020.
Trump has set himself some ambitious targets and if he can get the jobs back to Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania good luck to him. The cost of his failure will be severe for the Republicans.
As for the Democrats, for all the "there are no decent candidates" nonsense, the likes of Carter, Clinton, Obama and dare one say it, Trump, weren't obviously on the radar four years before they became President. I do agree the Democrats need a non-Washington outsider next time but there's plenty for time for that candidate to emerge.
The Republicans need to decide if they are going to endorse Trump or risk him running as a third party independent against the GOP candidate.
But it's not true that you get your fees whatever happens provided you fill out your time sheet correctly - law firms are a business like any other, and can and do go bust. A large firm went into administration only last month:
http://www.legalweek.com/sites/legalweek/2017/01/17/end-of-the-road-for-legacy-sj-berwin-as-kwm-europe-files-for-administration/?slreturn=20170113044411
The answer to many of the problems are obvious. We have an ageing population with growing care needs.. and lots of fit OAPs who could help.
Join up the dots.
We have lots of asset rich OAPs who are cash poor. We need more housing and financing of such building.
Join up the dots.
And so on.
Just needs someone to work out a program to make it happen.
As Labour has lots of MPs who have never had to run anything in their lives, it is unreasonable to expect they are going to think through what needs to be done..
Firstly, he's writing for an informed, interested and intelligent audience. Unfounded assertions and half-truths will therefore be noticed and called out - and that undermines confidence in the rest of piece. The 'Surrey sweetheart deal' might be a good soundbite for a 60-second news-story but it'll be taken apart where there's space to do so. There was no sweetheart deal: there was a piece of successful lobbying from a council and there was a solution that was and is available to others. Brind is too keen to try to pump the Labour line. There's no need: that is not his job here.
And secondly, his argument doesn't work for the reasons that he rightly identifies:
"in my view, too many in the party are trapped in a simple “Stop the War” mentality whereas building peace around the globe is a complex task."
That is right, and were things otherwise, Benn would be an excellent choice to lead Labour. But things aren't otherwise and the membership is what it is. Even were it possible to Benn to win (and it would be possible if the PLP could unite around him), it still might not be possible to for him to lead Labour if that stitch-up simply opened up a new front in Labour's civil war, with the Corbynite activist base (which is unusually active in his own constituency, we shouldn't forget), looking for an outlet for their rage at being out-manoeuvred.
But he's one of the few Labour politicians who impressed me when he made his speech last year. This is what I wrote then on PB the day after the Syria debate. Regardless of whether you agree with intervention in Syria and, on the whole, I think staying out of the whole Middle Eastern quagmire is probably sensible until people there come to their senses, I still stand by what I then wrote.
" It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.
The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs."
As it's clear no one is able to stick their arm into the U-bend and remove the blockage* the best hope is that a new charismatic leader emerges to lead a new centre left party probably through the Lib Dems and manages to attract those Labour MPs who realize their party is disintegrating
I agree with IA that 100 seats at the next election with Corbyn or anyone acceptable to him sounds about right.
*(sorry I've just seen Trainspotting)