'Cold, cynical and paranoid: if this is Labour in opposition..

[Nearly Sane]

What will it look like in power?'


John Harris with his take on Starmer's Labour

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/11/labour-opposition-power-keir-starmer-party

[jeremyp]

Well thanks for that. That cheered my day up no end /sarcasm

[ProfessorDavey]

What will it look like in power?'


John Harris with his take on Starmer's Labour

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/11/labour-opposition-power-keir-starmer-party

One person's cold, cynical and paranoid is another person's careful, professional due diligence. And this article seems particularly long on speculation and random anecdote and low on actual analysis.

What I would say is that history tells us that when there are large shifts in MPs from one party to another at a general election the party likely to gain needs to be very careful about who they select in seats where they might not have expected to win, but in the end do.

We've seen this most recently with the Tories and the SNP where landslides and close to landslides have resulted in all sorts of candidates elected who aren't up to the job.

So I think it is right that Labour are really careful about their due diligence, even more so now that social media posts can come back to haunt years later.

And in a broader sense I see no issue with the leadership of a party wanting to ensure that its candidates are on the same page politically - why shouldn't they. And over the years we've heard the same kind of stuff - of purging parties of their more extreme tendencies (e.g. Kinnock and Blair), or in some cases of their more moderate tendencies (e.g. Corbyn and Johnson).

[Nearly Sane]

One person's cold, cynical and paranoid is another person's careful, professional due diligence. And this article seems particularly long on speculation and random anecdote and low on actual analysis.

What I would say is that history tells us that when there are large shifts in MPs from one party to another at a general election the party likely to gain needs to be very careful about who they select in seats where they might not have expected to win, but in the end do.

We've seen this most recently with the Tories and the SNP where landslides and close to landslides have resulted in all sorts of candidates elected who aren't up to the job.

So I think it is right that Labour are really careful about their due diligence, even more so now that social media posts can come back to haunt years later.

And in a broader sense I see no issue with the leadership of a party wanting to ensure that its candidates are on the same page politically - why shouldn't they. And over the years we've heard the same kind of stuff - of purging parties of their more extreme tendencies (e.g. Kinnock and Blair), or in some cases of their more moderate tendencies (e.g. Corbyn and Johnson).

So do you have actual analysis? 

[ProfessorDavey]

So do you have actual analysis?

I'm not a journalist.

I'm expressing an opinion - specifically that:

1. I think carefully vetting candidate and doing your due diligence is critical when selecting candidates.
2. It is more important if you think that you may win a load of new seats and therefore have a big bunch of new MPs.
3. That it is perfectly reasonable that the leadership of a political party should be permitted to prioritise candidates who have political views that closely align with the leadership and should be allowed not to shortlist those who may have political views that don't align with the leadership.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not a journalist.

I'm expressing an opinion - specifically that:

1. I think carefully vetting candidate and doing your due diligence is critical when selecting candidates.
2. It is more important if you think that you may win a load of new seats and therefore have a big bunch of new MPs.
3. That it is perfectly reasonable that the leadership of a political party should be permitted to prioritise candidates who have political views that closely align with the leadership and should be allowed not to shortlist those who may have political views that don't align with the leadership.

So no journalist is allowed to express an opinion?

[ProfessorDavey]

So no journalist is allowed to express an opinion?

Of course - but seeing as this is their profession you'd probably expect a little more analysis.

This article reads to me as a series of 'hard-done by' anecdotes. And given the Labour (and other major parties) have literally thousands of candidate selections processes required at various electoral levels you will always find individuals who feel hard done by as they weren't long-listed, or weren't short-listed or ultimately weren't selected.

And do you agree with me that it is perfectly reasonable for a party leadership to look to prioritise those candidates whose political views are more closely aligned with the leadership compared to those whose views may be opposed to the leadership.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course - but seeing as this is their profession you'd probably expect a little more analysis.

This article reads to me as a series of 'hard-done by' anecdotes. And given the Labour (and other major parties) have literally thousands of candidate selections processes required at various electoral levels you will always find individuals who feel hard done by as they weren't long-listed, or weren't short-listed or ultimately weren't selected.

And do you agree with me that it is perfectly reasonable for a party leadership to look to prioritise those candidates whose political views are more closely aligned with the leadership compared to those whose views may be opposed to the leadership.

What analysis would you expect Harris to have done here?

And no, I don't agree. I think leadership has to be open to challenge, and political parties may have boundaries but that enforcing groupthink is bad.

[ProfessorDavey]

And no, I don't agree. I think leadership has to be open to challenge, and political parties may have boundaries but that enforcing groupthink is bad.

So the SNP shouldn't prioritise candidates who support Scottish independence over those who don't support Scottish independence then?

Or is that on the wrong side of your boundaries? If so then why isn't the Labour leadership also permitted their own boundaries.

If you understood anything about the Labour party (I suspect you don't but I was a member and activist for many years) where there is a sitting MP who wants to stand again the decision rests pretty well entirely with local membership and local affiliates - if they don't 'trigger' the MP then they are selected again as a candidate. At most elections, this will be the situation for most MPs.

So this is only in situations where:
1. There is a sitting MP but he or she doesn't want to stand again.
2. Where there is no sitting MP
3. Where there are boundary changes which mean it isn't clear whether there is a sitting MP or where two sitting MPs fight it out.

So the party cannot make wholesale changes to the composition of their MPs as even if there is a big swing a large proportion we be re-elected MPs where candidature rests with the local party and local affiliates entirely.

[Nearly Sane]

So the SNP shouldn't prioritise candidates who support Scottish independence over those who don't support Scottish independence then?

Or is that on the wrong side of your boundaries? If so then why isn't the Labour leadership also permitted their own boundaries.

If you understood anything about the Labour party (I suspect you don't but I was a member and activist for many years) where there is a sitting MP who wants to stand again the decision rests pretty well entirely with local membership and local affiliates - if they don't 'trigger' the MP then they are selected again as a candidate. At most elections, with will be most MPs.

So this is only in situations where:
1. There is a sitting MP but he or she doesn't want to stand again.
2. Where there is no sitting MP
3. Where there are boundary changes which mean it isn't clear whether there is a sitting MP or where two sitting MPs fight it out.

So the party cannot make wholesale changes to the composition of their MPs as even if there is a big swing a large proportion we be re-elected MPs where candidature rests with the local party and local affiliates entirely.

Straw going cheap round your way?

[Outrider]

And no, I don't agree. I think leadership has to be open to challenge, and political parties may have boundaries but that enforcing groupthink is bad.

How tight or loose is that boundary, though? Where is the line between ensuring common purpose and enforcing groupthink? Or, conversely, how broad a church is enough? If Labour wants to be everything 'left' of the current Tories then there isn't much that they can exclude, but that's a lot of competing voices and views and that incoherence is an opportunity for the Tories. On the other hand, if the Labour want to choose to be more centrist or centre-left then they exclude some voices for the benefit of consistency (and plausible deniability for some of the more extreme views) and run the risk of being split by the eternal internal wranglings of the left that leave the cynicism of the right to mop up on a regular basis.

On a pragmatic basis, I'll accept Labour excluding some voices for coherency, reliability and consistency in order to increase the chances of finally putting an end to the current Tory regime. I don't see that paranoid, I'd accept that it's cold and arguably cynical, but I'll take that over idealistically noble and in opposition.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Straw going cheap round your way?

Why is explaining the rules that the Labour party have for selection of candidates when discussing the selection of candidates a straw man NS?

The whole process of trigger ballots was actually brought in to prevent sitting MPs from being kicked out by leadership whims, placing the process in the hands of local parties. This has been in place since 1992 (I think).

Actually the rules were changed relatively recently to make the position of sitting MPs less secure, but the process still lies with the local party/local affiliations. But that change wasn't under Starmer, but brought in under Corbyn on the basis that local members would kick our moderate MPs.

[Nearly Sane]

How tight or loose is that boundary, though? Where is the line between ensuring common purpose and enforcing groupthink? Or, conversely, how broad a church is enough? If Labour wants to be everything 'left' of the current Tories then there isn't much that they can exclude, but that's a lot of competing voices and views and that incoherence is an opportunity for the Tories. On the other hand, if the Labour want to choose to be more centrist or centre-left then they exclude some voices for the benefit of consistency (and plausible deniability for some of the more extreme views) and run the risk of being split by the eternal internal wranglings of the left that leave the cynicism of the right to mop up on a regular basis.

On a pragmatic basis, I'll accept Labour excluding some voices for coherency, reliability and consistency in order to increase the chances of finally putting an end to the current Tory regime. I don't see that paranoid, I'd accept that it's cold and arguably cynical, but I'll take that over idealistically noble and in opposition.

O.

Same questions right back at you. How cpntrolling are you willing to be? At what stage does it become just abput groupthink? What boundaries are you willing to accept?

[Nearly Sane]

Why is explaining the rules that the Labour party have for selection of candidates when discussing the selection of candidates a straw man NS?

The whole process of trigger ballots was actually brought in to prevent sitting MPs from being kicked out by leadership whims, placing the process in the hands of local parties. This has been in place since 1992 (I think).

Actually the rules were changed relatively recently to make the position of sitting MPs less secure, but the process still lies with the local party/local affiliations. But that change wasn't under Starmer, but brought in under Corbyn on the basis that local members would kick our moderate MPs.

Well this straw for a start

'So the SNP shouldn't prioritise candidates who support Scottish independence over those who don't support Scottish independence then?'

Didn't say anything like that, and buggered if I can see the relevance.

[ProfessorDavey]

How tight or loose is that boundary, though? Where is the line between ensuring common purpose and enforcing groupthink? Or, conversely, how broad a church is enough? If Labour wants to be everything 'left' of the current Tories then there isn't much that they can exclude, but that's a lot of competing voices and views and that incoherence is an opportunity for the Tories. On the other hand, if the Labour want to choose to be more centrist or centre-left then they exclude some voices for the benefit of consistency (and plausible deniability for some of the more extreme views) and run the risk of being split by the eternal internal wranglings of the left that leave the cynicism of the right to mop up on a regular basis.

On a pragmatic basis, I'll accept Labour excluding some voices for coherency, reliability and consistency in order to increase the chances of finally putting an end to the current Tory regime. I don't see that paranoid, I'd accept that it's cold and arguably cynical, but I'll take that over idealistically noble and in opposition.

O.

I'd agree with pretty well all of this.

Except that I'm not sure I'd call it cynical at all, unless you think wanting to win an election is cynical and wanting to have a disciplined and supportive parliamentary party around you in government is cynical. Given the record of the past 13 years I think we desperately need the kind of professionalism and discipline that we saw exhibited by the Labour party in the run up to 1997.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd agree with pretty well all of this.

Except that I'm not sure I'd call it cynical at all, unless you think wanting to win an election is cynical and wanting to have a disciplined and supportive parliamentary party around you in government is cynical. Given the record of the past 13 years I think we desperately need the kind of professionalism and discipline that we saw exhibited by the Labour party in the run up to 1997.

To do what?

[ProfessorDavey]

Well this straw for a start

'So the SNP shouldn't prioritise candidates who support Scottish independence over those who don't support Scottish independence then?'

Didn't say anything like that, and buggered if I can see the relevance.

It is entirely relevant to discussion about political parties prioritising who gets on long-lists, short-list and are ultimately selected as candidates on the basis of fundamental agreement with the leadership.

[Nearly Sane]

It is entirely relevant to discussion about political parties prioritising who gets on long-lists, short-list and are ultimately selected as candidates on the basis of fundamental agreement with the leadership.

Not the membership?

[ProfessorDavey]

To do what?

Hopefully competently govern the UK and bring some much needed economic responsibility and pragmatism in the delivery of public services.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not the membership?

Hmm - party members - you know the guys and gals that gave us Corbyn, Johnson and Truss in recent years.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm - party members - you know the guys and gals that gave us Corbyn, Johnson and Truss in recent years.

Who were all leaders. So you wouldn't support that leadership, just the 'right' leadership. Hmmm....

[Nearly Sane]

Hopefully competently govern the UK and bring some much needed economic responsibility and pragmatism in the delivery of public services.

How?

[ProfessorDavey]

How?

How, what?

[Nearly Sane]

How, what?

How would they do that?

[ProfessorDavey]

How would they do that?

By being competent in government - and given that Starmer has turned a disorganised, squabbling rabble trounced in the polls into what appears to be a well run, competent party in opposition in a pretty short time I think there is a good chance they will be competent in government.

And by having sensible and pragmatic policies - in other words that will work rather than being driven primarily by ideology rather than pragmatism.

Ultimately we won't know until they've been elected and been in office for a few years, but the omens look promising.