Thread by @shaunjlawson

There's also another reason why I agree with Starmer on antisemitism. It comes down to good politics... and bad politics.

No event prompted the huge change in the Labour Party in 2015 more than the Welfare Reform Bill. Corbyn won the leadership as a direct result.

But what's still so little understood even now is that the vast majority of those MPs who abstained didn't do so because they agreed with the cuts. They did so because of a reasoned amendment.

When a party's in opposition, it can do one of two things:

1. Register its opposition to something - but the government will win, so it achieves nothing

2. Amend legislation and hope to take a few on the government benches with them: achieving something better than the original

The problem is that most of the public does not understand the concept. And nor did much of the Labour membership.

In his brilliant speech, John McDonnell actually highlighted precisely that. "The people out there don't care about reasoned amendments" (or words to that effect)

What McDonnell demonstrated at that moment were genuine political antennae. In politics, as in life, you have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. All those MPs that day made the wrong choice. A disastrous choice.

So disastrous that even now, 5 years later, many of my followers instantly rule out from the leadership anyone who abstained that day. But what they don't realise is that most of the abstentions were for good, practical reasons.

When I got home and saw what had happened that day, I went nuts... even though I knew it was because of the reasoned amendment. And the reason I went nuts was simple:

It was absolutely APPALLING politics. Appalling as in embarrassingly, excruciatingly bad.

I knew the SNP would have an absolute field day with it, which they did.

I knew much of the membership would be disgusted, which they were.

And worst of all: I knew it would propagate the Tory narrative on welfare. Which it did.

And all that despite most Labour MPs abstaining not for bad reasons, but healthy ones. It's just that almost none of them could understand politics to save their lives. You have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

But it's not just the Labour right who were astonishingly bad at politics all too often. The Labour left have been too: nowhere more so than on antisemitism. Specifically: on Israel/Palestine.

When a leader spends so much time discussing foreign issues which:

1. Are of no relevance to most of the electorate
2. Will invite anger and fury from people we need to vote for us
3. He has no influence over in any case

That is bad politics. Stupid politics, even.

And I say that despite Israel/Palestine meaning an absolute shedload to me, and despite the number of times I've spoken out against a mostly false narrative. You have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

In the end, despite a lifetime's campaigning on the issue, Corbyn achieved... nothing. And received an unmitigated amount of grief too. For what? Who did we help? No-one. Who did we alienate? Plenty. I thought politics was about winning voters over, not pushing them away?

That we, as a party, went to such lengths over a conflict which is thousands of bloody miles away is, frankly, mad. And all at a time people at home need a Labour government frantically. Our failure means that some of them will pay with their lives.

Good politics and bad politics. When Rebecca Long-Bailey gives the most unpopular Leader of the Opposition since records began "ten out of ten", that's both an honest answer... and bad politics. Because the public will hoot at it and it'll follow her around, for years.

Good politics and bad politics. When Keir Starmer responds to the same question with the contempt it deserves - "I'm not about to rank people and Jeremy is a friend" - that's good politics. Because it shuts the question down in a statesmanlike way.

All leaders, especially of the opposition, above all with our media, need to be on the look-out at all times. Don't give them the ammunition! That requires tremendous skill and a strategic approach.

By contrast, what was Corbyn's strategy? Just repeating what he believed in.

And that was admirable in so many ways. Honest, authentic, you name it. But it was also dumb. He didn't know how to play the game. And if you don't know how to play the game, you lose.

Is that sad? You bet. So many brilliant people are lost to politics because so much of it is about marketing, advertising, soundbites.

But it's only by getting that approach right that we can actually make a difference on the things that truly matter.

Which, yes, probably does mean slogans. It works for the Tories. It worked for Labour in 1997 too: remember the pledge cards? Easy to remember, easy to understand, didn't over-promise.

And it means tapping into people's emotions too. But not their anger; their compassion.

Even before Iraq, Blair was loathed within much of the Labour Party. I always felt at least a bit of that was because he was so incredibly good at playing the game; he had such sharp antennae. We mistrusted that - rightly so in many ways - because well, where were his principles?

But like Blair (until Iraq, that is), like Clinton (until Monica, that is) and like Obama, we do need someone with those sorts of skills. Someone who's so good with the media that they actually wow it; someone who seems like such a leader that they control the narrative.

But note: that DOES NOT MEAN that they also have centrist policies. That's where both Blair and Obama were long term failures... and where they don't get it at all now. We need radical policies, not wishy washy ones; the problems we face are too great for anything else.

Not only that - but a centrist leader with centrist policies has no chance at all of energising anyone really. Least of all young people: the greatest, most politically aware generation in human history, who KNOW what a bust this system is, and KNOW that we need drastic change.

Whisper it, but I think Starmer gets that. I think he's trying to forge an alliance between the centre and the left. And that's the only way this party will ever get anywhere: because we all have to be together. We cannot descend into factionalism. Only the Tories win if we do.

Good politics and bad politics.

- Blair blew it with Iraq.
- Centrists blew it with the Welfare Reform Bill.
- Corbyn blew it with Israel/Palestine.

Whoever ends up as leader cannot make a similar blunder. And saying "I think Labour's done well on antisemitism" would be exactly such a blunder - which would follow them around throughout their leadership, and infuriate and alienate far, far too many.

Is it worth doing that when so many people depend on us for a Labour government which can finally HELP them?

No - it bloody well is not.