Thread by @shaunjlawson

Now then, the Labour leadership contest. Some early thoughts will follow in this thread. Hopefully it's not too much of a random stream of consciousness - but everywhere I look, I see problems.

Let's start with Rebecca Long-Bailey and Ian Lavery. Both have fine, very different sorts of qualities. Both are powerful advocates for the kind of politics many Labour members believe in. But neither would make any kind of good leader.

RLB will, I absolutely promise you, instantly be rechristened 'Rebecca Wrong Daily' by the media if she wins. She's not experienced enough; she's not an impressive speaker; and she comes across as completely humourless. That was a major issue for Corbyn too.

A crucial point I'll return to at various points throughout this thread is: most of the public is not political. It doesn't pay much attention to detail. But it does form very fast impressions of new party leaders; impressions which are very hard to shift.

The impression it formed of Corbyn from the outset of his leadership was: not in charge of his party, no experience in this kind of role... and above all, incompetent. It never fully shifted from this position. He did so well in 2017 because it formed the same impression of May.

And even then, Corbyn never went ahead of May on who the public preferred as PM; and always trailed on economic competence too. At the centre of Labour's search has to be: who can win over the public on these two questions?

But that is complicated by the following. The answer is not and cannot be a 'Blairite' or a 'centrist' - because the problems facing the UK are much too great for piecemeal solutions to provide any kind of answers.

Further: how does anyone suppose a centrist leader would have the activist base and resources necessary to challenge? Labour is a people powered movement. People are not going to power a movement whose message is "things are really shit. Vote for us to make them a bit less shit".

The trouble with both RLB and Lavery though, is if either were leader, much of the public - who remember, aren't political and don't really do detail - would look at Labour and say "just more of the same? You lot never learn a bloody thing".

Moving on, we come to Clive Lewis. I don't think Lewis is running as a serious contender. He's running to prompt debate and discussion. I welcome that; it's a fundamentally good thing.

And I would especially welcome it if he opens up the debate on the electoral system. It is inexcusable and indefensible that Labour does not publicly back proportional representation. More than that: it's an electoral suicide note. Lewis MUST get talking about it.

Now, I'm gonna give you an example of Labour's fundamental problem - and especially how it plays out with the mostly disinterested public.

When that public looks at Yvette Cooper, it mostly sees a competent, safe pair of hands. Nothing exciting or inspiring; just someone solid.

Does that public know that Cooper was the architect of the Work Capability Assessment? Nope. And even if it did, many people would say "but it was 10 years ago! Move on for heaven's sake".

It's just that so many of its many victims can't move on.

And that they can't move on is for reasons much of the public won't ever understand until it happens to them or a loved one too.

Yet so many of its victims are among my followers and in the Labour Party. Asking them to vote for someone who did this is monstrous.

Note: I don't think Yvette Cooper is a monster or anything like it. I think she has tremendous qualities and was magnificent on Brexit. But she made a terrible, awful mistake: a mistake which underscored just how badly Labour had lost its soul, or any sight of what it stood for.

Again though, the public sees a competent potential leader. People in the middle of the electorate are at odds with us on that: there's no two ways about it, even though the reasons for Labour members' disdain are so powerful and compelling.

Just as they're at odds with us on... Jess Phillips. Labour members won't like this one bit, but here's the thing about Jess. Many in the broader public - again, who don't pay close attention - like her. Really like her, even.

When the public looks at Jess, it sees someone authentic, earthy, who shoots from the hip and calls it as she sees it. And it is certainly the case that Johnson would have a huge problem patronising and condescending to her as he likes to with others.

And of course, it also sees someone who has been so critical of Corbyn's Labour so often, she's not compromised by being associated with it (unlike RLB or Lavery)... and ended up proven right. In a manner of speaking, at least.

But what it doesn't see is what so many of us see. And, please note, it might start seeing and taking note of if she became leader. That is: she's erratic, she's wildly unpredictable, she's a loose cannon, and far far FAR too often, she only seems interested in herself.

Further: when someone publicly undermines the Labour Party as often as she has, that's a continual slap in the face for its activists, volunteers, members, and all those who depend on us to get a Labour government. Above all, the poorest and most vulnerable.

That kind of behaviour cannot and should not be rewarded with the leadership of the Labour Party. Me me me politics? Leave that to the Tories and Lib Dems, thankyou. Simply put: she has no discipline at all.

But as I've mentioned, many among the broader public really like her. And those who do aren't 'selfish' or 'Blairites' or 'neolibs' or any other such nonsense. Most of those who like her want a Labour government too. Really, they do.

My own view is that as leader, she'd likely destroy herself by just being too much of a loose cannon all the time. My view is further: we have to get back in the race first, before we do anything more. We're miles off the pace: in voting share and in seats.

Which means that, before anything else, we have to offer basic, simple competence. An antidote to this mad period of all sorts of leaders - Brown, Miliband, May, Corbyn, Johnson - who the electorate either loathed or couldn't possibly take seriously.

And the person best placed to do that is Keir Starmer. Yet I say that while myself holding considerable reservations:

1. He's too southern; in fact, London-centric

2. He doesn't inspire or excite

3. He's forensic at the dispatch box... but also quite a wooden, dull speaker.

4. Like Lewis, he's compromised by having been a major architect of Labour's 2nd referendum suicide note.

Why am I prepared to overlook that? Because as I've said before, Labour has to start where most of its members and voters are. And THEN seek to take others with us.

If we do the opposite, we're completely swimming against a global demographic tide: which includes working class voters in very many countries becoming nativist, nationalist and right wing; while the liberal left is multi-coloured, young, socially liberal, mostly metropolitan.

But we have to walk before we can learn to run; we have to have some sort of base from which to build. And being a post-Remain party under a Remainer allows for that. We can win back working class voters when, not if, the Tories fail them.

Does him being a southerner matter? In how the media would caricature him, yes - but hold on a moment. We've just seen millions of northern working class voters vote for an Old Etonian toff. If the message is the right one, where someone's from isn't important.

I don't have high expectations of Starmer though. I think the leader we choose now is merely the leader who can get us back in contention. It'll take someone else - likely, someone totally different - to actually win in the end.

The only thing that could change that is if Brexit really is the ultimate, unmitigated shitshow. Which it might very well be. But even if it is, what's the most common psychological problem among so many humans, especially older ones? Admitting they got something big wrong.

Meaning it could take years and years before they do so, no matter how hard things get. Labour can stand for post-Remain values while continuing to court these voters. Sensitively. Without sneering, without disdain; understanding what led them to vote Leave in the first place.

That plenty on my timeline continue to hope against hope that Corbyn stands again only underscores the paucity of choice here. Should he stand again? Absolutely, categorically not. He's given everything he has; he deserves a complete break from it all now. Anything else is cruel.

Who do I think will win? Contrary to media drivel - with the exception of the excellent Stephen Bush, the media has never even tried to understand Labour members, let alone portray them fairly - I think Starmer will win fairly convincingly. RLB isn't popular enough to stop him.

Angela Rayner might've been, and Laura Pidcock certainly WOULD have been... but y'know. If ifs and buts were candy 'n' nuts, we'd all have a very merry Christmas.

But I'll leave you with a final thought. It's something we all need to chew on: hard though it is to digest.

I loathe this politicians as celebrities age as much as anyone else. I can't bear that we now have a racist narcissist compulsive liar as PM; I find the dumbing down of political discourse not just regrettable, but flat out dangerous.

But when the public looked at Corbyn (and, for that matter, May, Miliband, or Brown), it didn't just observe incompetence. It saw people who didn't know to play the game. With Corbyn in his own league on that.

And you can blame the media for that, and I'd agree. And you can argue that principle should always be valued over expediency, and I'd agree there too.

But here's the thing. What good did Corbyn focusing on, say, Palestine actually do for either Britons or Palestinians? None.

I think his work on this issue over very many years is admirable... but it also opened up a can of worms for his enemies to exploit. And then some.

Playing the game means: don't give them the ammunition. Especially on something over which YOU HAVE NO REAL INFLUENCE.

Nobody's going to vote for any party which seems, at times, more interested in international injustices than domestic ones. Labour is a UK party. It exists, first and foremost, to try and help the UK and its people.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't care about the world. Everything about our world is interconnected; socialism doesn't have borders, solidarity is not just a word.

But for heaven's sake: don't prioritise an international issue which will only harm your chances of winning.

In a completely different way, someone else did that, with disastrous consequences. Tony Blair.

Playing the game means understanding the voters' priorities. Focusing on those, however simplistically at times.

What possible use is it to a family struggling to make ends meet and keep a roof over their heads when the only party which can help them is instead discussing... Venezuela? As far as most of the electorate goes, we sound like a sixth form talking shop.

Good heavens: we can still care about these issues - and many more besides, all over the world - without letting them take over our plans to help British people, or our aim to run the economy successfully. Without letting these issues define us (or rather, be used to define us).

At present, far too many British people honestly believe that Labour is not on their side and hates most things about the UK. That's a quite colossal problem for any major political party to overcome. And is the opposite of how the electorate viewed Labour in 1945.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is right, in a sense, to talk about patriotism. Only in a sense though: because I don't think she's thought it through properly, though she might prove me wrong on that.

Bottom line? We'll never get a Labour PM again unless they're considered patriotic.

Is it hard? You bet. Way too much British and English nationalism is associated with white nationalism; way too much of it is anathema to so much of the metropolitan multi-ethnic liberal left.

But all of us - every single one of us - need a place we can call home.

That's why moving home is the most stressful thing humans can experience. That's why Israel/Palestine is so intractable and causes so much constant anger. That's why the housing crisis is such a monumental disgrace.

All of us need a place we can call home.

And besides: nationalism (certainly, right wing nationalism) generally involves hatred of other countries. Patriotism, love of one's own country, is very different... and mostly healthy. Simple patriotism is, I think, why the World Cup is such a global phenomenon.

All this has often been a vexed issue for the left. Especially so given the confused identities so many Britons feel: do they consider themselves English? Scottish? British? Europeans? Citizens of the world? Etc etc etc.

But given we are living at a time in which insecurity is rampant, and so many feel their sense of identity is under threat for all sorts of reasons, when people think we're unpatriotic, that we don't love Britain, we have to listen. And prove to them that we do.

Not through Blue Labour type stuff; not through being anti-immigration. But focusing on clear, simple priorities and showing that we're a serious party which deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness under a competent, professional leader.

The rest of it? The more exciting stuff? That comes later. This is about establishing a basic platform again. Baby steps. Or, to repeat the phrase I referred to a while back:

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

One last thing. I want the overriding question of any candidate to be:

"Does this person have the best chance of winning the next election?"

And on policy and leadership, I want the priority for everyone in the Labour Party to be:

"Does this help us win the next election?"