Yvette Cooper wins the 2015 Labour Leadership Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
I voted for Corbyn in 2015-although I did not in 2016 and would not do so now. I didn't dislike Cooper, but I felt that she was overrated as a leadership candidate. The professional political class did like her-which is why her chances always seemed to be overestimated, but I never felt that she offered anything which ordinary party members could get excited about-and that's generally what wins internal party elections.

There are only two scenarios I can think of that would see Cooper win in 2015; one where Corbyn doesn't get on the ballot at all; and another where he does, but somehow he fails to win-the only way I can see this happening is if the electoral college remains in place-which is very easy to make happen, Eric Joyce doesn't go drinking one night, and there would be no Falkirk scandal. By the time nominations closed IOTL, with the four candidates on the ballot, Corbyn was always going to win.

Even if the electoral college was still around though, the winner would have likely been Burnham, not Cooper, so you need an additional PoD to get her past Burnham and then beat Corbyn in the run off.

If Corbyn did not stand, he's still a backbench nobody, if he does and fails to win, then he becomes a hugely prominent figure in the party, particularly as the narrative would be that the PLP stole the election from the left-the party would then enter a different sort of civil war-more akin to the early 1980s with a moderate leadership against a left wing insurgency-maybe Corbyn would estabilish himself as a latter day Tony Benn type figure, or maybe he would stand aside for someone from the younger generation like Long-Bailey or Lewis in time.

One thing I am certain of is that Cooper would never offer Corbyn a job in her shadow cabinet, let alone agree to run on some sort of joint ticket-she was profoundly opposed to Corbyn's politics, and that's why she refused to sit in his shadow cabinet-if she did a deal with him, you'd likely see a mass exodus of her parliamentary support for Kendall and Burnham, and her campaign would deflate massively, even if the electoral college was not there.

In terms of how things would go with Cooper as leader, it's easy to sit here with the current dumpster fire that is Labour and talk about how much better things would be had someone other than Corbyn won out in 2015, but I don't think things would anywhere near as good as some people imagine. There was a reason he wiped the floor with Cooper and the other two- they were each of them dull, technocratic, and utterly lacking in any kind of vision. Even if one of them somehow won, that problem would not go away-they would fail to inspire the electorate in much the same way they failed to inspire the membership. This is not a left or right thing- although Blair was a centrist, he also managed to seem fairly radical in many ways-and Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall, all failed to do that.

Obviously, there is a big question over what would happen with Brexit-Cooper would campaign more strongly for Remain than Corbyn did, so maybe that is just enough to tip the balance toward Remain-or maybe not. It's difficult to quantify how much of an effect opposition leaders have on these sorts of things.

If Remain wins, I imagine the next election would come in 2020, Labour would be polling competitively with the Tories for much of the parliament, but there would be the same a sense of a malaise that there was under Miliband as they struggle to get a decisive lead, whilst UKIP rise in the polls at the same time. The Greens would also probably be polling better at this stage as well.

If Brexit still happens, then I think Labour is also equally screwed-remember Cooper's line has been broadly similar to Corbyn's-she's not a second referendum supporter. Like Corbyn, she would try and fail to hold the party together by taking a middle road, but probably end up disillusioning both sides in the process. The Brexiteers would go off to support the Tories or BP, and the Remainers would go off to support the Lib Dems or the Greens-who would probably do even better than in the first scenario by rallying left wing remainers who have stuck by Corbyn IOTL-you could even see a handful of defections from some Labour left wingers-depending on how strong there faction is within Labour in this scenario.

I still think there wouldn't be the kind of surge in support for May or any other new Tory PM that we saw OTL-which means no snap election-so the Tories would still have a majority, but in all probability not a large enough one to get the deal passed. So in many ways, we could be in a very similar position to where we are now-a Labour Party that is trying and failing to be all things to all people-except on the economy as well as Brexit-and we have four or maybe even five parties polling within ten points of each other.
 
Last edited:
I voted for Corbyn in 2015-although I did in 2016 and would not do so now. I didn't dislike Cooper, but I felt that she was overrated as a leadership candidate. The professional political class did like her-which is why her chances always seemed to be overestimated, but I never felt that she offered anything which ordinary party members could get excited about-and that's generally what wins internal party elections.

There are only two scenarios I can think of that would see Cooper win in 2015; one where Corbyn doesn't get on the ballot at all; and another where he does, but somehow he fails to win-the only way I can see this happening is if the electoral college remains in place-which is very easy to make happen, Eric Joyce doesn't go drinking one night, and there would be no Falkirk scandal. By the time nominations closed IOTL, with the four candidates on the ballot, Corbyn was always going to win.

Even if the electoral college was still around though, the winner would have likely been Burnham, not Cooper, so you need an additional PoD to get her past Burnham and then beat Corbyn in the run off.

If Corbyn did not stand, he's still a backbench nobody, if he does and fails to win, then he becomes a hugely prominent figure in the party, particularly as the narrative would be that the PLP stole the election from the left-the party would then enter a different sort of civil war-more akin to the early 1980s with a moderate leadership against a left wing insurgency-maybe Corbyn would estabilish himself as a latter day Tony Benn type figure, or maybe he would stand aside for someone from the younger generation like Long-Bailey or Lewis in time.

One thing I am certain of is that Cooper would never offer Corbyn a job in her shadow cabinet, let alone agree to run on some sort of joint ticket-she was profoundly opposed to Corbyn's politics, and that's why she refused to sit in his shadow cabinet-if she did a deal with him, you'd likely see a mass exodus of her parliamentary support for Kendall and Burnham, and her campaign would deflate massively, even if the electoral college was not there.

In terms of how things would go with Cooper as leader, it's easy to sit here with the current dumpster fire that is Labour and talk about how much better things would be had someone other than Corbyn won out in 2015, but I don't think things would anywhere near as good as some people imagine. There was a reason he wiped the floor with Cooper and the other two- they were each of them dull, technocratic, and utterly lacking in any kind of vision. Even if one of them somehow won, that problem would not go away-they would fail to inspire the electorate in much the same way they failed to inspire the membership. This is not a left or right thing- although Blair was a centrist, he also managed to seem fairly radical in many ways-and Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall, all failed to do that.

Obviously, there is a big question over what would happen with Brexit-Cooper would campaign more strongly for Remain than Corbyn did, so maybe that is just enough to tip the balance toward Remain-or maybe not. If Remain wins, I imagine the next election would come in 2020, Labour would be polling competitively with the Tories for much of the parliament, but there would be the same a sense of a malaise that there was under Miliband as they struggle to get a decisive lead, whilst UKIP rise in the polls at the same time. The Greens would also probably be polling better at this stage as well.

If Brexit still happens, then I think Labour is also equally screwed-remember Cooper's line has been broadly similar to Corbyn's-she's not a second referendum supporter. Like Corbyn, she would try and fail to hold the party together by taking a middle road, but probably end up disillusioning both sides in the process. The Brexiteers would go off to support the Tories or BP, and the Remainers would go off to support the Lib Dems or the Greens-who would probably do even better than in the first scenario by rallying left wing remainers who have stuck by Corbyn IOTL-you could even see a handful of defections from some Labour left wingers-depending on how strong there faction is within Labour in this scenario.

Whilst I still think there wouldn't be the kind of surge in support for May or any other new Tory PM that we saw OTL-which means no snap election-so the Tories would still have a majority, but in all probability not a large enough one to get the deal passed. So in many ways, we could be in a very similar position to where we are now-a Labour Party that is trying and failing to be all things to all people-except on the economy as well as Brexit-and we have four or maybe even five parties polling within ten points of each other.

Hmm interesting, what made you change your mind about Corbyn if you don't mind me asking?
 
I think that if Cooper had won in 2015 then likely as not the UK would have voted to remain in the EU in 2016 and pundits would be expecting Labour to defeat Osborne's unpopular austerity-plus government in next years election.
 
Who do you think it would be? McDonnell?
Probably either Long-Bailey or Thornberry. Possibly Rayner. McDonnell probably wouldn't run due to age and physical fitness. Plus there will be a lot of pressure to ensure that the next leader is a woman, so he will probably row in behind Long-Bailey, who is his protege. For that same reason, Starmer is only an outside bet.

The new nomination rules are so restrictive we'll probably have three candidates on the ballot-one of them could be a right winger, but even if that is Cooper, the party membership is still probably too left wing to vote for her.
 
Probably either Long-Bailey or Thornberry. Possibly Rayner. McDonnell probably wouldn't run due to age and physical fitness. Plus there will be a lot of pressure to ensure that the next leader is a woman, so he will probably row in behind Long-Bailey, who is his protege. For that same reason, Starmer is only an outside bet.

The new nomination rules are so restrictive we'll probably have three candidates on the ballot-one of them could be a right winger, but even if that is Cooper, the party membership is still probably too left wing to vote for her.

Interesting and the way my generation is going we could see Long Bailey win in a general
 
Hmm interesting, what made you change your mind about Corbyn if you don't mind me asking?
A combination of factors. Even in 2015, I wasn't particularly starry eyed about Corbyn. I was always more on the soft left than the hard left. My attitude was more that the party had become so stale and afraid to articulate what it actually believed (as shown in the vote on the welfare bill) that it needed something to jolt it out of its malaise. If Corbyn turned out to be a good capable of winning an election, then that would be great, but if not, then I reasoned he would at least be able to shift the political debate (on the economy especially) to the left before being replaced by someone more competent than him but more radical than the other three candidates in 2015.

In the first year or so of his leadership, I became disillusioned by how bad he was at party management and getting his message across, as well as the cult of personality that seemed to have grown up around him, and the whole anti-semitism thing. If there was one point when I decided I could no longer support him, it was when he handed a peerage to Shami Chakrabarti after just having had her conduct a supposedly independent inquiry into anti-semitism within Labour. Funnily enough, Brexit wasn't really an issue at all-although I was a remainer.

Aside from a second referendum, my views were pretty much in line with Owen Smith's 2016 platform anyway-and I almost certainly would have voted for him if he ran in 2015, plus I felt that we were screwed electorally if we kept Corbyn, so it was a no brainer to vote for Smith. I wouldn't say I regret voting for Corbyn the first time-he has done a lot to challenge the consensus on the economy in particular in ways that I don't think any of the other candidates would be brave enough to do- but I did underestimate just how attached some of his supporters in the party would become to him, and just how much of a problem anti-semitism would grow into.
 
Last edited:
A combination of factors. Even in 2015, I wasn't particularly starry eyed about Corbyn. I was always more on the soft left than the hard left. My attitude was more that the party had become so stale and afraid to articulate what it actually believed (as shown in the vote on the welfare bill) that it needed something to jolt it out of its malaise. If Corbyn turned out to be a good capable of winning an election, then that would be great, but if not, then I reasoned he would at least be able to shift the political debate (on the economy especially) to the left before being replaced by someone more competent than him but more radical than the other three candidates in 2015.

In the first year or so of his leadership, I became disillusioned by how bad he was at party management and getting his message across, as well as the cult of personality that seemed to have grown up around him, as well as the whole anti-semitism thing. If there was one point when I decided I could no longer support him, it was when he handed a peerage to Shami Chakrabarti after just having had her conduct a supposedly independent inquiry into anti-semitism within Labour. Funnily enough, Brexit wasn't really an issue at all-although I was a remainer.

Aside from a second referendum, my views were pretty much in line with Owen Smith's 2016 platform anyway-and I almost certainly would have voted for him if he ran in 2015, plus I felt that we were screwed electorally if we kept Corbyn, so it was a no brainer to vote for Smith. I wouldn't say I regret voting for Corbyn the first time-he has done a lot to challenge the consensus on the economy in particular in ways that I don't think any of the other candidates would be brave enough to do- but I did underestimate just how attached some of his supporters in the party would become to him, and just how much of a problem anti-semitism would grow into.

Interesting, who would you vote for now if there was a leadership election?
 
Interesting, who would you vote for now if there was a leadership election?
If the candidates were the ones I listed above, I would probably start off as undecided. All are probably better than Corbyn, but I still have reservations about all of them. I probably wouldn't vote for Cooper or another right winger, but I would keep an open mind.

Until recently Lisa Nandy would have been my ideal leader, but I think her Brexit stance would probably not fit with where our voters are at right now. I also like the idea of Hilary Benn, but even if he decided to run, the members wont vote for him.
 
If the candidates were the ones I listed above, I would probably start off as undecided. All are probably better than Corbyn, but I still have reservations about all of them. I probably wouldn't vote for Cooper or another right winger, but I would keep an open mind.

Until recently Lisa Nandy would have been my ideal leader, but I think her Brexit stance would probably not fit with where our voters are at right now. I also like the idea of Hilary Benn, but even if he decided to run, the members wont vote for him.

Ah interesting, a shame that, would be nice to see someone competing with the madness on the Tory side
 
If the candidates were the ones I listed above, I would probably start off as undecided. All are probably better than Corbyn, but I still have reservations about all of them. I probably wouldn't vote for Cooper or another right winger, but I would keep an open mind.
None of the candidates you listed are right-wing. Some of them are centre-left, but that's a different thing and you should be careful not to confuse them as calling Labour candidates, councillors and MP's right-wing is usually a tactic employed by those on the hard-left of the party to insult and dismiss those on the soft-left and centre-left.
 
None of the candidates you listed are right-wing. Some of them are centre-left, but that's a different thing and you should be careful not to confuse them as calling Labour candidates, councillors and MP's right-wing is usually a tactic employed by those on the hard-left of the party to insult and dismiss those on the soft-left and centre-left.
I meant right wing in the context of the Labour Party-not in the context of the political spectrum more generally. Just as Ken Clarke is on the left of the Conservative Party, but he is not left wing.

Using that as shorthand to refer to the more moderate faction of Labour in that way is not particularly controversial.
 
Last edited:
I meant right wing in the context of the Labour Party-not in the context of the political spectrum more generally. Referring to the more moderate faction of Labour in that way is not particularly controversial.
I can't think of many reasons why you'd want or need to use relative terms that only serve to deepen divisions within the Labour Party than the vast array of existing terms that don't, but I guess that perpetuating the normalisation of divisive language when referring to elected members of the party that you purport to support isn't going to have any electoral consequences, no siree bob.
 
I can't think of many reasons why you'd want or need to use relative terms that only serve to deepen divisions within the Labour Party than the vast array of existing terms that don't, but I guess that perpetuating the normalisation of divisive language when referring to elected members of the party that you purport to support isn't going to have any electoral consequences, no siree bob.
Given that this shorthand is freely used by commentators of all stripes (as this Spectator blog demonstrates), not to mention many of the moderates that I know in the Labour Party, I don't think it is at all divisive.
 
Given that this shorthand is freely used by commentators of all stripes (as this Spectator blog demonstrates), not to mention many of the moderates that I know in the Labour Party, I don't think it is at all divisive.
The term "right wing" isn't used in that article to describe any Labour politicians. That said, The traditionally conservative Spectator definitely isn't unknown for being subtly (and not so subtly) derogatory of Labour. The problem is that using the term "right wing" is incredibly loaded since it usually refers to a political position that rejects the egalitarian objectives that are so absolutely fundamental to left wing politics. It's just pointless to do unless you're deliberately trying to denigrate the left wing politician that you're using the term in connection with.
 
The term "right wing" isn't used in that article to describe any Labour politicians. That said, The traditionally conservative Spectator definitely isn't unknown for being subtly (and not so subtly) derogatory of Labour. The problem is that using the term "right wing" is incredibly loaded since it usually refers to a political position that rejects the egalitarian objectives that are so absolutely fundamental to left wing politics. It's just pointless to do unless you're deliberately trying to denigrate the left wing politician that you're using the term in connection with.
Organisations that are very clear toward the moderate wing of the party are defined as on the 'right'. If that is defined as a derogatory term, then surely if it is anything worse to apply it to groups within the party, rather than individual politicians, as you are implicitly saying that all of those members associated with them are on the right too. Also, whilst it isn't pro-Labour by any stretch, the Spectator is hardly likely to endorse the idea that being called right wing is an insult.

Of course it wouldn't be right for anyone to say that Yvette Cooper or anyone with similar views is on the right of British politics. But honestly, I think most people are mature enough to recognise that the political spectrum is relative, and that being on the right wing or left wing of a political party isn't the same as saying you're on the left or right of politics more generally. And if you reject that description, then how else do you describe different party factions?

You could just as easily say that talking of 'moderates' or 'the mainstream' is insulting in some way because it implies that that group isn't radical, or, conversely, that the other faction is too extreme. Likewise, 'Hard Left' also implies extremism, which is why so many Brexiteers have avoided adopting the term 'hard Brexit'. Factional words like 'Blairite' and 'Corbynista' are often too narrow to be totally accurate, and the latter could be said to be slightly patronising to the left because of its connotation with populist left regimes in Latin America such as Venezuela. So no terminology is going be totally accurate or pleasing to everyone.
 
I voted for Corbyn in 2015-although I did not in 2016 and would not do so now. I didn't dislike Cooper, but I felt that she was overrated as a leadership candidate. The professional political class did like her-which is why her chances always seemed to be overestimated, but I never felt that she offered anything which ordinary party members could get excited about-and that's generally what wins internal party elections.

There are only two scenarios I can think of that would see Cooper win in 2015; one where Corbyn doesn't get on the ballot at all; and another where he does, but somehow he fails to win-the only way I can see this happening is if the electoral college remains in place-which is very easy to make happen, Eric Joyce doesn't go drinking one night, and there would be no Falkirk scandal. By the time nominations closed IOTL, with the four candidates on the ballot, Corbyn was always going to win.

Even if the electoral college was still around though, the winner would have likely been Burnham, not Cooper, so you need an additional PoD to get her past Burnham and then beat Corbyn in the run off.

If Corbyn did not stand, he's still a backbench nobody, if he does and fails to win, then he becomes a hugely prominent figure in the party, particularly as the narrative would be that the PLP stole the election from the left-the party would then enter a different sort of civil war-more akin to the early 1980s with a moderate leadership against a left wing insurgency-maybe Corbyn would estabilish himself as a latter day Tony Benn type figure, or maybe he would stand aside for someone from the younger generation like Long-Bailey or Lewis in time.

One thing I am certain of is that Cooper would never offer Corbyn a job in her shadow cabinet, let alone agree to run on some sort of joint ticket-she was profoundly opposed to Corbyn's politics, and that's why she refused to sit in his shadow cabinet-if she did a deal with him, you'd likely see a mass exodus of her parliamentary support for Kendall and Burnham, and her campaign would deflate massively, even if the electoral college was not there.

In terms of how things would go with Cooper as leader, it's easy to sit here with the current dumpster fire that is Labour and talk about how much better things would be had someone other than Corbyn won out in 2015, but I don't think things would anywhere near as good as some people imagine. There was a reason he wiped the floor with Cooper and the other two- they were each of them dull, technocratic, and utterly lacking in any kind of vision. Even if one of them somehow won, that problem would not go away-they would fail to inspire the electorate in much the same way they failed to inspire the membership. This is not a left or right thing- although Blair was a centrist, he also managed to seem fairly radical in many ways-and Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall, all failed to do that.

Obviously, there is a big question over what would happen with Brexit-Cooper would campaign more strongly for Remain than Corbyn did, so maybe that is just enough to tip the balance toward Remain-or maybe not. It's difficult to quantify how much of an effect opposition leaders have on these sorts of things.

If Remain wins, I imagine the next election would come in 2020, Labour would be polling competitively with the Tories for much of the parliament, but there would be the same a sense of a malaise that there was under Miliband as they struggle to get a decisive lead, whilst UKIP rise in the polls at the same time. The Greens would also probably be polling better at this stage as well.

If Brexit still happens, then I think Labour is also equally screwed-remember Cooper's line has been broadly similar to Corbyn's-she's not a second referendum supporter. Like Corbyn, she would try and fail to hold the party together by taking a middle road, but probably end up disillusioning both sides in the process. The Brexiteers would go off to support the Tories or BP, and the Remainers would go off to support the Lib Dems or the Greens-who would probably do even better than in the first scenario by rallying left wing remainers who have stuck by Corbyn IOTL-you could even see a handful of defections from some Labour left wingers-depending on how strong there faction is within Labour in this scenario.

I still think there wouldn't be the kind of surge in support for May or any other new Tory PM that we saw OTL-which means no snap election-so the Tories would still have a majority, but in all probability not a large enough one to get the deal passed. So in many ways, we could be in a very similar position to where we are now-a Labour Party that is trying and failing to be all things to all people-except on the economy as well as Brexit-and we have four or maybe even five parties polling within ten points of each other.
I agree with much of what you say.
For me the key point is that Corbyn is genuine.He truly believes in what he says...a conviction politician!
After so many managerialists who have utterly failed to improve the lot of the vast majority of the people of the UK....let's have someone who truly believes it can be done.
To Corbyn, Brexit is a sideshow. He is actually a Leaver because that would allow him to reshape the UK as a Socialist economy.
You may not agree with Corbyn...but, by god, he's genuine and got principles. Would that we had more like him...on both sides....we might actually get back to real meaningful politics!
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Since both individuals are still currently politicians, Brexit is still front page political news this looks to be current politics.

Closed per posted policy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top