You are reading a single comment by @JamesQGM and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
JamesQGM
I'm generally sympathetic to Starmer in both policy and strategy, and I think his arguable overcorrection to the centre is (almost) entirely justified by the 2019 GE results. So don't mistake what I'm about to say for ideological or factional disagreement. Because to me what's more important is principle, and the principle should apply to everyone.
But the process of parachuting ideological allies into safe seats is very rarely done with good governance in mind. It's done to create allies for the leader of the party, to make their life easier when they want to get stuff done, votes passed, etc. You could argue that's the same thing - I'm sure that's what the leader would argue - but it isn't, not really, and I'll explain why in a moment. That was the case when Corbyn did it, and it's the case now Starmer is doing it.
And the problem when leaders consider ideological allyship - before whether or not a person is the best candidate for the job - is that you end up giving seats to liabilities. And those liabilities end up damaging the party, and party unity, and our reputation, sooner or later.
Luke Akehurst is on the opposite side of the party to Claudia Webb, but they're both liabilities who would never have been chosen had factionalism not been front and centre in the process. Neither belong anywhere near a safe seat. Both betray bad judgement (imo) and their behaviour amounts to more of a risk for the party than the value of the allyship to the leadership. This is the key problem with factionalism, and every Labour leader has it, to one extent or the other. Some are better at it than others, that's all.