(The Channel 4 debate)
I was very impressed with Rebecca Long-Bailey. I think she sounds every bit a leader. What I'd seen of her previously made me instinctively like her. I think I said on here after Christmas that I thought she had the "likeability" factor. However, I didn't really know too much about her. Plus I've seen people describe her as "dim". (There's also the famous nickname "Rebecca Wrong-Daily", which is snappy, but something which I always assumed was more just a clever pun than any real true appraisal of her.)
Given this I was curious to see her under the spotlight. I was also interested to see the other two candidates Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer (Emily Thornberry was also in the first debate before she was knocked out - but she's fairly familiar to most people anyway).
I already had a fair idea of what Starmer was about. From watching the debates I get the impression that he's trying very hard to match RLB in appealing to the predominantly leftist Labour members - which is of course what he needs to do to become leader. However, he'd obviously want to take the Labour Party in quite a different direction if he wins. So his appeals don't feel heartfelt. Whereas for Long-Bailey she's naturally in her element.
I'm also fairly familiar with Lisa Nandy from watching politics over the last few years. Though slightly less so than with Starmer. I tried very hard to listen to what both her and Starmer were saying. To give them a fair hearing so to speak, but they're so clearly from the "establishment" side of the Labour Party, and I just can't get past that. It's just something I don't think is good for the country.
The general narrative is that Corbynites are out of touch and that the anti-Corbyn side of Labour are more centrist and have a broader appeal. However, I really don't see it like that. I think the other side are even more out of touch. Economically they're more centrist yes, but on almost every other issue they're on a very different wavelength to the general public. Europe especially so. Plus they just don't connect emotionally on issues like "austerity" the way the Corbyn side do - which is something that most of the general public feel (they just don't agree that Labour are the way to fix it at the moment).
So at least with Corbynism there is an element of real zeitgeist. Though it's clearly quite barmy in many ways it does at least feel like something "of our time". Whereas the Blairite centrism talked of by the political and media class is something that's now twenty years out of date. No one is really feeling it. If people were then Change UK wouldn't have disappeared without a trace.
Anyway, given my own views, it was only really Long-Bailey I was interested in seeing. Had she disappointed I would've been able to completely strip myself of any care for the Labour Party whatsoever. The fact that she didn't though means there's still a glimmer of light. Some of her views (and the Labour Party's views in general) are way too off for my liking. Radical commitment to open borders - with zero regard for, or even acknowledgement of, any downside is something I could never support in practice. Likewise the endless identity politics and much of the excessive statism. She is very young though (only 40) and with four years of a hopefully successful Cummings-led government and Brexit she might have the opportunity to grow into a viable alternative if and when the steam runs out of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment