AHC: Liz Kendall wins the Labour leadership election 2015
- Thread starter RepMR
- Start date
Well that's going to be hard. First off you need to keep Corbyn out of the contest, even then you still need to find some way for her to beat Coopham. You might want to stick your head in the PMQs thread over in Chat if you haven't already since the regulars over there are your likely best bet for some decent ideas.
Kendall actually fared quite well in terms of being placed second on people's ballots (especially, strangely enough, on the ballots of people who were Corbynites first and foremost). At least, that's what I gauged from people working closely on Corbyn's campaign on the phone banks.
The huge influx of new supporters and members would probably not have happened without Corbyn, and so a large left-wing base of support is taken away to swing the election to Andy Burnham (if anyone could get excited about him as the "left-wing candidate" - let's face it, nobody was going to get excited about him). Liz will still be the main outsider with new solutions that she sincerely believes in, which marks her out as someone with some sincerity as compared to Cooper and Burnham.
Cooper would be better placed as the candidate of the sensible centre, and so she might have quite an edge (especially when it comes to second preferences). However, this might help Kendall. This is because Cooper would likely be knocked out in the first round and her second preferences would, for the most part, go to Kendall due to the prospect of electing Labour's first female leader.
The huge influx of new supporters and members would probably not have happened without Corbyn, and so a large left-wing base of support is taken away to swing the election to Andy Burnham (if anyone could get excited about him as the "left-wing candidate" - let's face it, nobody was going to get excited about him). Liz will still be the main outsider with new solutions that she sincerely believes in, which marks her out as someone with some sincerity as compared to Cooper and Burnham.
Cooper would be better placed as the candidate of the sensible centre, and so she might have quite an edge (especially when it comes to second preferences). However, this might help Kendall. This is because Cooper would likely be knocked out in the first round and her second preferences would, for the most part, go to Kendall due to the prospect of electing Labour's first female leader.
Keep Corbyn out and I think she has as good a shot as the other two. Corbyn's entry made it into a left-right battle, and when the membership are concerned, the left will win that. But keep him out and it's dreariness vs change - and she can win the change mandate.
You would need Cooper to fuck up as much as Burnham did, and whatever happens it'll be messy, but I can see something like a narrow Burnham lead in round one (however laughable it was, he was at first the de facto left wing candidate and so got a lot off that), Cooper drops out and her preferences vastly go to Kendall, pushing Kendall, Mili-E style, into a squeaker of a win.
Honestly, if Corbyn is out, this isn't very difficult to make happen. You do need her campaign to have different priorities, but I think the absence of Corbyn would be enough to make that happen - she was running a relatively effective 'I'm competent and I want things to change' campaign in the few weeks or so before Corbyn entered. Remember he entered quite late.
You would need Cooper to fuck up as much as Burnham did, and whatever happens it'll be messy, but I can see something like a narrow Burnham lead in round one (however laughable it was, he was at first the de facto left wing candidate and so got a lot off that), Cooper drops out and her preferences vastly go to Kendall, pushing Kendall, Mili-E style, into a squeaker of a win.
Honestly, if Corbyn is out, this isn't very difficult to make happen. You do need her campaign to have different priorities, but I think the absence of Corbyn would be enough to make that happen - she was running a relatively effective 'I'm competent and I want things to change' campaign in the few weeks or so before Corbyn entered. Remember he entered quite late.
Almost all of why Burnham was stunted and failed as a candidate was due to Corbyn. Without Corbyn, he wouldn't be flip-flopping daily or cut off from the oxygen of momentum in constituency endorsements etc. He would just camp on the left and invite people to come at him. Cooper would still have not the slightest idea of what she was doing there and would probably fail.
What this election showed us is how balefully important the Twittersphere and social media is in vetting candidates now. I don't pretend to fully understand the Labour mind but it's a pretty big stretch to assume that people who were calling her a Kipper or a Tory IOTL on said mediums will fall for her simply on the basis that she's a dynamic force.
I don't remotely see why Cooper's preferences would go to Kendall to the extent necessary for victory, Cooper and Burnham were basically appealing to exactly the same constituency; old right, working class, etc. It's notable that they pretty much ended up with a photo finish for second place.
Remove Corbyn, and I'm not sure whether it would be Cooper - who I think would try to appeal as a 'unity' candidate ITTL - or Burnham, but I don't see it being Kendall. She did worse than Dianne Abbott in 2010 did IOTL. (and that was with Cooper and Burnham running utter dogs of candidacies) Very hard to see anyone coming back from that.
What this election showed us is how balefully important the Twittersphere and social media is in vetting candidates now. I don't pretend to fully understand the Labour mind but it's a pretty big stretch to assume that people who were calling her a Kipper or a Tory IOTL on said mediums will fall for her simply on the basis that she's a dynamic force.
I don't remotely see why Cooper's preferences would go to Kendall to the extent necessary for victory, Cooper and Burnham were basically appealing to exactly the same constituency; old right, working class, etc. It's notable that they pretty much ended up with a photo finish for second place.
Remove Corbyn, and I'm not sure whether it would be Cooper - who I think would try to appeal as a 'unity' candidate ITTL - or Burnham, but I don't see it being Kendall. She did worse than Dianne Abbott in 2010 did IOTL. (and that was with Cooper and Burnham running utter dogs of candidacies) Very hard to see anyone coming back from that.
Last edited:
Both of those are, shall we say, decidedly hypothetical choices.
The more I think about it, the more I think Cooper would win if you remove Corbyn. She'll posture as the unity candidate and just continue with her utterly bland front porch campaign while Kendall and Burnham slug it out and mutually alienate their supporters. It would end up something in the region of 42-42-15 first round and Kendall second preferences would put her over the top.
People are right that there was a definite Marxists4Liz/Blairites4SocialistRevolution bizaro element, but that was partly due to Corbyn and Kendall very deliberately engaging in mutual preening as the only 'principled' candidates, and a calculation that if they weren't going to get their candidate, they should get the candidate that most benefitted them politically. Won't happen ITTL - not quite in the same way anyway.
Kendall for me was the best choice for Labour. All this rubbish about her "being a Tory" was utter rubbish, she is a moderate Central left politician but one that understands the "centre ground" and understood the fact that the Labour had lost the election because people didn't trust them with the economy, and not because they where not "left wing" enough!
If "Chairman Corbyn" does NOT get onto the ballot then I think Kendall could win, but more likely on a far reduced number of voters, Burnham will win and he would be basically be "Ed Mark 11".
Her campaign was actually how Cameron's did turn out for the Tories back in 2005. They were both outsiders who few people had actually ever heard of, but young and full of new ideas. Both had basically the same campaign theme as well "Change to Win". The difference is that the Tory party of 2005 listened whilst the Labour party of 2015 as thrown itself of a very big cliff.
If "Chairman Corbyn" does NOT get onto the ballot then I think Kendall could win, but more likely on a far reduced number of voters, Burnham will win and he would be basically be "Ed Mark 11".
Her campaign was actually how Cameron's did turn out for the Tories back in 2005. They were both outsiders who few people had actually ever heard of, but young and full of new ideas. Both had basically the same campaign theme as well "Change to Win". The difference is that the Tory party of 2005 listened whilst the Labour party of 2015 as thrown itself of a very big cliff.
Last edited:
Perhaps you'd need to keep Corbyn out but also avoid changing the electoral system of the leadership election so the MPs have a voice, they seem like the most Blairite bloc, but even then it's pretty hard. Maybe you need to have Labour run a campaign that appears even more left-wing and lose even harder so people know they didn't lose for being 'Tory-lite' but even then Labour probably just won't care. Maybe you'd need to fundamentally alter politics so Labour is in power at the time and cares about keeping it, not a protest party in opposition as IOTL.
If she does win, I heard she proposed a federal UK, like in Canada. I wonder how that would go down and if that could work?
If she does win, I heard she proposed a federal UK, like in Canada. I wonder how that would go down and if that could work?
A few thoughts - Corbyn needs to go, but that isn't difficult to arrange, all that's needed are a couple of MP's who nominated him to decide than it isn't important to 'have a range of views' - or at least not at the expense of electoral plausibility. Once Corbyn goes, Kendell has the option of being the 'change' candidate - she wasn't part of Brown's cabinet like Cooper/Burnham.
From what little I recall of her during the campaign she wasn't half bad, but she was certainly massively overshadowed (as were the other two, to a lesser extent) by the Corbyn story - another effect of no Corbyn.
It's possible, if there is no Corbyn, but still fairly unlikely, in my view.
From what little I recall of her during the campaign she wasn't half bad, but she was certainly massively overshadowed (as were the other two, to a lesser extent) by the Corbyn story - another effect of no Corbyn.
It's possible, if there is no Corbyn, but still fairly unlikely, in my view.
As a tangent, Corbyn not being nominated is officially the easiest modern POD in British politics, he was nominated with ten seconds (yes, seconds) to spare. All you need is for someone to drop their phone or for a single call to fail to connect at the worst possible time, and he's out. Neil Coyle going to the toilet at the wrong moment means Yvette Cooper takes Labour into the next general election.
This is rather tangential, but I'm hesitant about the idea that it's quite that easy to get rid of Corbyn. If he received the final nomination ten hours late, let alone ten seconds, would anybody really say that he shouldn't be included? Perhaps I'm underestimating the strict rigidity of adherence to procedure amongst the Labour Party and overestimating its democratic regard, but I think that a lot of people—both those from the left of the party who would see it as a deliberate exclusion and those from the right of the party who wanted to 'broaden the debate' as a way to look impressively principled and didn't know what the results of the aforesaid broadening would be—wouldn't stand for it.
It's still pretty easy to say that just one MP who chose to nominate him in OTL doesn't in TTL—it's not uncommon for PoDs to rely on tilting the decisions of a few hundred people in a close election, let alone just one—but I'm not so confident that a mere delay would suffice.
It's still pretty easy to say that just one MP who chose to nominate him in OTL doesn't in TTL—it's not uncommon for PoDs to rely on tilting the decisions of a few hundred people in a close election, let alone just one—but I'm not so confident that a mere delay would suffice.
Yes. The deadline is the deadline is the deadline, and indeed the hope in head office was that he wouldn't make it. It really did - and would - come down to the second.
It's impossible to say whether a minute or two's leeway is ASB, but ten hours is never going to happen.
I think you are underestimating it, as well as the extent to which many people didn't want him anywhere near the ballot. Labour loves its own party rules, and Simon Danczuk and John Mann would not have begun queuing up to declare 'aw he was so close, let him in'.
It's a bit like someone turning up at 2202 to vote on polling day - it's simply non-optional for them to be given a ballot. Rules is rules.
In respect of 'she's not a Tory, absolutely not!', curiously, during my most recent time away, I had a discussion with a moderate Tory voter which is relevant to this issue, feeding in as it does into Kendall's internal electability. They are well-informed, very middle of the road, totally un-tribal, a sort of David Willetts-style type. Couldn't really be called a Conservative, because they're not a member and would happily vote for another party should circumstances dictate.
We were discussing this, and he pointed out to me that Kendall struck him as decidedly Conservative-like at the start of her campaign, ('Even I was surprised' is the words he used IIRC) so it was usurping that she got the broad reception that she did. This kind of dumbfounded me a little, because to me Kendall it al are Blairites, and Blairites are not Tories. They're horrendously bad knock-offs of Tories. But I was left questioning to what extent my perception was defective, to what extent I'd been snared by a combination of my own political prejudices and repulsion at her treatment by social media.
I think people like Kendall are going to be victims of apparent association as long as the state of the Tories is what it is. Unless there is a shift away from the centre ground Labour modernisers will never have a distinctive political space to occupy which could be acceptable to Labour; but I still think, as I noted during the leadership campaign, that even if said space existed, said modernisers would also have to phrase that occupation of the centre ground in far, far different terms to that which they do, a distinctively Labour narrative.
We were discussing this, and he pointed out to me that Kendall struck him as decidedly Conservative-like at the start of her campaign, ('Even I was surprised' is the words he used IIRC) so it was usurping that she got the broad reception that she did. This kind of dumbfounded me a little, because to me Kendall it al are Blairites, and Blairites are not Tories. They're horrendously bad knock-offs of Tories. But I was left questioning to what extent my perception was defective, to what extent I'd been snared by a combination of my own political prejudices and repulsion at her treatment by social media.
I think people like Kendall are going to be victims of apparent association as long as the state of the Tories is what it is. Unless there is a shift away from the centre ground Labour modernisers will never have a distinctive political space to occupy which could be acceptable to Labour; but I still think, as I noted during the leadership campaign, that even if said space existed, said modernisers would also have to phrase that occupation of the centre ground in far, far different terms to that which they do, a distinctively Labour narrative.
As an American, I obviously have a hard time understanading British politics, but I don't quite get the reasoning that if Corbyn doesn't run, the people who voted for him in OTL--presumably the most anti-Blairite of Labour Party members--will then vote for the most Blairite (at least by reputation) of the candidates! (Of course some of them might not vote at all, but I don't think you can explain a 60% victory *solely* by new members who would not have joined if Corbyn had not been a candidate.)
I notice one contributor to this thread says Kendall "understood the fact that the Labour had lost the election because people didn't trust them with the economy, and not because they where not 'left wing' enough!" Well, Kendall may think that way, and you may think that way and for that matter I may think that way, but the question is: Did the majority of the members of the Labour Party think that way?
I notice one contributor to this thread says Kendall "understood the fact that the Labour had lost the election because people didn't trust them with the economy, and not because they where not 'left wing' enough!" Well, Kendall may think that way, and you may think that way and for that matter I may think that way, but the question is: Did the majority of the members of the Labour Party think that way?
I think the argument runs that (1) it wouldn't be a traditional left-right contest, since the policy views between the three others were fairly muted, (2) you won't get the surge in new party members, and (3) turnout may well be lower even among the existing party members. Still seems likeliest that Burnham or Cooper wins, but it's not implausible that Kendall could come out ahead, especially if she can beat Cooper on first preferences.