Does Labour have some 20/20 vision?

The Guardian

LabourList’s Sienna Rodgers took to The Guardian to make sure that the anointed successor of outgoing Jeremy Corbyn was not seen as the only candidate.

The party, she said, has options, even if its membership, often well to the left of the general public, looks set to go for Mr Corbyn’s chosen one: Rebecca Long-Bailey

Ms Long-Bailey has been described as the “continuity Corbyn” candidate. But Rodgers thinks that is a mistake “ which frustrates those allies who think she would be her own person as leader. But it also means she doesn’t have to worry about pitching carefully to the left in the way that others must do”.

Ms Rodgers believes Keir Starmer - another likely candidate - “needs to convince members above all that he does not represent a reincarnation of New Labour”.

She added: “This contest is no foregone conclusion.” Lesser known candidates will emerge, she said. “One of those people is Clive Lewis. His pitch has prioritised electoral reform, party democratisation and an end to political triangulation, particularly on immigration. All signs point to him trying to outflank other candidates from the left.”

She concluded: “Long-Bailey is expected to be gaining at least the endorsements of Unite and Momentum, which can both offer huge financial and organisational support. Every other candidate will need to spend time convincing MPs, unions and members that they don’t want to tear up the Corbyn project. Someone like Jess Phillips would need a serious membership drive to get anywhere. But no single candidate can be assured of winning yet – Labour’s leadership race remains wide open.

Evening Standard

Anne McElvoy in London’s local paper reflected on Labour’s performance in her native Durham to understand the crash of the workers’ party.

Local MP Laura Pidcock, the outgoing local MP, was a high-profile defender of the Corbyn project, she explained. “’It’s like, the more famous they were for being on his side, the less people voted for them,’ as a Labour stalwart in the region put it to me this week. In that remark lurks the uncomfortable truth Labour needs to face head on.

“It can briefly wrap itself in the thick winter comfort blanket of blame — citing Brexit (too much or too little of it in Labour’s offer), the wicked newspapers, the broadcasters, the ‘wreckers’ on the Right of the party or Lib Dems daring to vote for an alternative.”

Ms McElcvoy wonders who in Labour will now champion the northern heartlands.

She said: As it stands, the cry for a quick leadership contest means the existing party membership will call the shots. This benefits those who come with the official blessing of the previous papacy.” She is talking about Lon-Bailey.

Ms McElvoy concluded. “Together, they inherit failure from a wing of the party which is perpetually disappointed with the working class for failing to live up to a prescribed view of how it should behave — and who it should vote for.

“My advice as the new generation of hopefuls surveys the red heartlands turned into “swing states”: do not start your journey back from the doldrums by telling the voters that you know better than them as to why they chose to send you packing.”

The Times

Labour is not the only institution in turmoil. How we debate cam be as important as who wins.

Over in The Times, Kenny Farquharson has advice for anyone on getting in to dispute. He wants us all to get better at disagreeing.

He wrote: “Whereas before someone with a different view was merely mistaken they are now stupid, malicious and morally deficient.”

We no longer treat opponents as if they are acting in good faith, he said. “ One of the most thoughtful people exploring this is Douglas Alexander, the former shadow foreign secretary.”

Mr Farquharson cites wise words from Mr Alexander: “Don’t aim for the middle ground. Splitting the difference isn’t the answer when you fundamentally disagree. Instead work hard to find the common ground — experiences, passions, hopes — you nonetheless share.”