- Lavery didn't stand, despite some membership and union support (and being named by 'sources on the left' to the Morning Star as one of the most likely), and instead supported Andy Burnham. The NUM payment would be an issue and, as the incident with his son shows, within the left he comes from a very different place to Corbyn. Because of that, he would be nowhere near as unpopular with the people Corbyn was unpopular with; though equally it should be mentioned that he wouldn't have the same appeal (however limited) Corbyn did.
- Mearns would be even more of a "who?" than Corbyn, and ended up nominating Yvette Cooper of all people. That in mind, he's the MP for Gateshead and part of the 2010 intake. There's little to say about the man except that, as a committee chair, he didn't have a shadow portfolio or (again) any sort of profile during the Corbyn leadership. Like Lavery, he's not really from the same background as Corbyn is. He was apparently part of Militant at one point. Perhaps what should be mentioned are the comments of one Ivan Lewis: "somebody of great integrity who is genuinely committed to fighting antisemitism."
- Trickett didn't stand because, having been a frontbencher, he had left the Socialist Campaign Group and was concerned that he wouldn't have the left's full support. Let's say that Lansman manages to succeed in persuading him in their meeting, he gets the nominations required, and from there wins the leadership as in hindsight it seems that any candidate of the left would have. He was close to Miliband and would have been more within the party mainstream than Corbyn was or, say, McDonnell or Abbott would be, but his leadership would still mean a significant shift to the left.
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
If Corbyn didn't stand: Lavery, Mearns, or Trickett?
- Thread starter Edmund
- Start date
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I’m guessing this alternate potential 2015 leadership candidates, I will say if Corbyn just isn’t there then it probably would be Jon Trickett.
Trickett does have the problem of being rather openly Eurosceptic (and would stick to his guns unlike the mumbling of Corbyn). Trickett likely doesn’t have the anti-semitism problems due to being of Jewish descent himself.
Mearns is always an interesting one, from what I’ve heard he’s known for competence if anything.
Lavery is a possibility though not a great one, I could see a scenario in which he’s leader…but probably not with a pod in 2015.
Trickett does have the problem of being rather openly Eurosceptic (and would stick to his guns unlike the mumbling of Corbyn). Trickett likely doesn’t have the anti-semitism problems due to being of Jewish descent himself.
Mearns is always an interesting one, from what I’ve heard he’s known for competence if anything.
Lavery is a possibility though not a great one, I could see a scenario in which he’s leader…but probably not with a pod in 2015.
My pick would be Jon Trickett. His EU-scepticism would actually be an asset post-Brexit referendum, if he can unite socialists and offer an industrial strategy for communities after we've left. As has been mentioned, the antisemitism campaign by the media and others would probably fail, similarly to Bernie Sanders in the US. Providing Trickett can get democratic reforms through the party and build a solid movement, a radical Labour government could be on the cards.
I think it likely that Trickett would probably be successfully brought down following the referendum if he does campaign to Leave (and I assume that by doing so he would bring a good amount of the left with him, both those ambivalent and those who despite being Eurosceptic followed Corbyn in backing Remain). Of course, being more mainstream than Corbyn I doubt it would be Owen Smith going up against him. Which would certainly send a message to Labour Leave voters (and keep in mind that Hemsworth is one of the few constituencies where they'll have been a majority of Labour voters).
Would any of them be better at dealing with sabotage by party employees more into Trot-bashing than electing a Labour government?
- Pronouns
- he/him
Just to be clear, you're suggesting that it's not that the media exaggerated the antisemitism scandals, you're saying that the media chose to run an 'antisemitism campaign' and would have done so anyway, regardless of the actual candidate?
That does seem to be what you're saying.
Yes. Based on evidence from the past 7 years, it's my belief that accusations were (and continue to be) made singularly to expel left-wing members, including Jews, predominantly because of the Israel-Palestine issue, trying to crush socialism and having the UK government defend American imperial interests.
However, I'm very willing to avoid that debate here
EDIT: Choose a progressive who doesn't challenge British establishment foreign policy and militarism, and you probably don't get the same attacks.
There was and is genuine antisemitism within Labour; the party organisation refused to deal with complaints because they were more interested in "smashing Trots", which rather exacerbated the issue. Separately, Corbyn himself has some issues with antisemitism, mostly relating (IMO) to his long standing relationships with the dissident left.
So there's some fire there; it's true to suggest that the media chose to blow an awful lot of smoke based on that degree of fire, compared with the level of attention they paid to antisemitism or islamophobia in the Conservative party who were (then and now) the government not the opposition.
So there's some fire there; it's true to suggest that the media chose to blow an awful lot of smoke based on that degree of fire, compared with the level of attention they paid to antisemitism or islamophobia in the Conservative party who were (then and now) the government not the opposition.
A large part of Corbyn’s appeal in 2015 was his apparent earnestness and anti-politics image: for his supporters he just seemed like a harmless and decent old man who was fed up with the status quo and the professionalisation exemplified by people like Burnham and Cooper. Many of these people didn’t realise his faults at the time: his irritation and self-righteousness when confronted by any scrutiny, his indecisiveness and lack of leadership, his historic connections and views on foreign policy.
I think that the other candidates would be more confrontational and stereotypical of the Campaign Group Left to the extent that (a) they don’t narrowly meet the nominations threshold as Corbyn did, (b) even if they did, I doubt that they take off in the same way as Corbyn. Not that they wouldn’t have a chance of winning, given Corbyn’s majority, but if they do it will probably be a much narrower win with big consequences for party management.
I think that the other candidates would be more confrontational and stereotypical of the Campaign Group Left to the extent that (a) they don’t narrowly meet the nominations threshold as Corbyn did, (b) even if they did, I doubt that they take off in the same way as Corbyn. Not that they wouldn’t have a chance of winning, given Corbyn’s majority, but if they do it will probably be a much narrower win with big consequences for party management.
This is fair but I think misses the extent to which Corbyn came across as the anti austerity candidate.
I think it was really more down to him being the leftmost candidate, and other candidates from the left would share that part of his appeal given that at that point it was essentially tied to the left. I mean--it's not like anyone aligning themselves with the Socialist Campaign Group before Corbyn was elected was doing so out of insincere careerism. And given that without Corbyn the vast majority of those people would have voted for Burnham, well...
As for personality and difficulty getting on the ballot: Lavery I suppose to an extent, Trickett I would hardly describe as particularly confrontational and off-putting to other sections of the party, and unfortunately Mearns I don't know much about. But you can still justify them getting the required nominations--indeed, you sort of have to for the purposes of the hypothetical--without it being too handwavey.
Last edited:
- Location
- Balham
- Pronouns
- he/him
The other candidates have to go along with Harman abstaining on the welfare bill and create the space for NotCorbyn to just go 'well I'm voting against'. That more than anything crystallised the 'hang on we really do have a choice of This Guy or Tory Lite But Even More Than 2015!Ed Was' issue within the party and is why (lest we forget) Corbyn won handsomely among pre-2015 members as well.
Trickett is probably the most interesting AH potential choice. Just a very different ballgame if he got in.
Trickett is probably the most interesting AH potential choice. Just a very different ballgame if he got in.
I would agree with that: he's also, however, been discussed in the past, so I suppose with the inclusion of Lavery and Mearns I was trying to broaden the debate a bit.
But to be honest I don't think you could do much with Mearns in either a simple hypothetical or a more detailed scenario unless you know the man. McDonnell, Abbott, even Lavery have all had plenty written about them and are relatively high-profile for Labour Left MPs. Mearns? Next to nothing. Ivan Lewis' comment offers a flicker (Gateshead has a very large number of Haredi Jews), but that's all that it is and that's all there is. There's nothing about his personality or anything like that to know what he would do.
Last edited:
If you're willing to step back a bit and invite (or ignore) butterflies I suppose you could also consider people who tried to get into Parliament but failed (or didn't get selected). But like Mearns these will share the issue that, well, there's not much about these people. The best you're going to get to know what they're like is probably a Twitter account if they have one.
There are other (im)possible candidates. Lisa Nandy, who had given birth a few weeks earlier--maybe a potential leader (2020 aside, but she wasn't winning that) in a "Scotland votes for independence and the election is delayed by a year but Miliband loses anyway" scenario. Richard Burgon, Clive Lewis, and Cat Smith; perhaps even Rachael Maskell (I would love to see that) or Rebecca Long-Bailey--but with all of them there's the issue that they'd only just arrived in Parliament. At least unlike Mearns or the ones who weren't even MPs IOTL there's a good amount actually known about them.
There are other (im)possible candidates. Lisa Nandy, who had given birth a few weeks earlier--maybe a potential leader (2020 aside, but she wasn't winning that) in a "Scotland votes for independence and the election is delayed by a year but Miliband loses anyway" scenario. Richard Burgon, Clive Lewis, and Cat Smith; perhaps even Rachael Maskell (I would love to see that) or Rebecca Long-Bailey--but with all of them there's the issue that they'd only just arrived in Parliament. At least unlike Mearns or the ones who weren't even MPs IOTL there's a good amount actually known about them.
Last edited:
It's unlikely. He had already tried to stand in 2007 and 2010 but didn't get the nominations, and immediately said that he didn't want to stand. More than simply "it was Corbyn's turn"* (though that was the language he apparently used) it was the fact that McDonnell didn't want to go through that again (indeed after it he was opposed to standing a candidate) and Diane Abbott wanted to go for the Mayor of London selection instead. And if he had, well, as he admitted he again probably wouldn't have received the nominations required.
*Which didn't really exist. Keep in mind that both Meacher and McDonnell had stood in 2007, and in 2010 both McDonnell and Abbott. Despite the focus on what was really a throwaway line from McDonnell no rotational system actually seems to have existed and it could have been anyone who was willing to stand, either from the Socialist Campaign Group or on their behalf.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Nandy I believe has the strongest potential in a scenario where Burnham wins in 2015 and wherever he get’s into government or fails, in the aftermath of that, I feel Nandy’s position would be a lot greater.
Clive Lewis I remember pondering in a ‘Burnham’ win’s scenario as the ‘Left’s Boris Johnson’ as it were. Meanwhile, Cat Smith is underutilised as a potential leadership candidate, given she’s on the Left but perfectly happy to work with the Soft Left etc.
Yes. Based on evidence from the past 7 years, it's my belief that accusations were (and continue to be) made singularly to expel left-wing members, including Jews, predominantly because of the Israel-Palestine issue, trying to crush socialism and having the UK government defend American imperial interests.
However, I'm very willing to avoid that debate here
EDIT: Choose a progressive who doesn't challenge British establishment foreign policy and militarism, and you probably don't get the same attacks.
MOD POST:
This post seeks to diminish the antisemitism problems that existed within the Labour party at the time, whilst it is certainly true that people used that period as a political tool to oust people, using the term "accusations" and suggesting that it was conspiracy is belittling and diminishing it and the charges were not solely aimed at left-wing members. This is in breach of Rule 1 as it downplays antisemitism at a time when that is once again on the rise, you are kicked for a week.
They would be most viable in the years after 2015, of course, but I do think that if Corbyn for whatever reason doesn't stand and one of them volunteers to be the candidate they would almost certainly end up as leader because, again, if the left's candidate gets on the ballot they're basically guaranteed to win. But I think they would probably crack and implode under the pressure of anything like what happened in 2016--then again, I probably would have assumed the same of Corbyn.
The "Nandy after Scottish independence and Miliband losing anyway" scenario I think is actually an interesting one, even if not the topic of this thread. I think that an election delayed by a year until Scotland is independent is more likely to end up with a Labour majority than anything else, but let's say the Conservatives (led by whoever replaces Cameron after he stands down) and Lib Dems get just enough seats to form a second Coalition, Miliband resigns as leader despite having made considerable gains, and she wins with the combined support of the party's left.
I'm not sure whether or not there would still be a referendum on Europe: Scottish independence might be enough to tip the Conservatives into "no more referendums", at least for the time being. A post-referendum focus on Scottish independence could also take away a lot of unjustifiable media attention from UKIP that the party benefited from. And of course the Lib Dems would do significantly better than their OTL 2015 result without the Conservatives having the SNP to squeeze them with. A collapse, but the sort everyone was expecting rather than the one they got.
Last edited:
Cat's really great, I sort of know her vicariously as my mother was an officer of her CLP (reboundaried), but she's only been in parliament since 2015