Thread by @jonworth

Back when Ed Miliband became leader of the Labour Party, defeating his brother, something struck me: bright Labour Party friends of mine went for Ed rather than David "because they thought he was more controllable" - i.e. he would do what the members wanted

By all means quibble with this - I don't know if it were *true* and I don't know if David would have been better

But the idea that Labour needed a strong leadership figure was not something appealing to the membership

This is where I fear Keir Starmer's chances fall down

He is probably *too good*

Too clever. Too sharp. Too incisive. He'd actually lead. He'd scare people. He'd oblige people around him to perform. He's not got any skeletons in the cupboard as far as we know.

All of those are the very attributes that would make him excellent in the media, excellent in the Commons, and an excellent opponent to Johnson at the dispatch box.

Note this is no critique of Starmer's ideology - he strikes me as classically middle of the road Labour, and sure no Blairite

Corbynistas will try to label anyone not of their clique a Blairite, but that's due to intellectual laziness and groupthink more than objective reality

Having Corbyn - or then even Long Bailey or Rayner or Gardiner - as leader is comfortable. It's easier to diagnose the problems as being elsewhere (in the media, with the Brexit position, whatever) than face Labour's problems head on

If Labour wants to win the next election, having Starmer as leader is probably their best shot. Phillips would also stand a chance. Long Bailey, Rayner, Gardiner, Nandy won't manage. Not because of ideology, but because of character and not (as I see it) being leaders

I hope Labour proves me wrong. But I am not banking on it.

/ends