Choosing a Labour Leader
Choosing a Labour Leader
Paul Thompson: Choosing a Labour Leader
With the Eurozone in crisis, the coalition still a novelty, and the axe being taken to public spending, it is not surprising that the Labour leadership contest has taken something of a back seat. That?s not a bad thing. A lengthy debate about strategy, policy, and organization is needed, and the media is inherently drawn to personality and power (in this instance to the sibling rivalry between the Miliband brothers).
When the commentariat has given the contest any attention, the coverage has been largely dismissive or negative. For example, the normally sympathetic David Aaronovitch complained that ?In the past fortnight?no Labour leadership candidate has uttered anything remotely worth hearing?. They seem irked by the fact that there is a feeling of relief at the limited scale of defeat in the Labour camp rather than gloom and public anguish.
It?s true that there has been a lot of ritualistic noise from the contenders about ?listening? and ?reconnecting,? but I?m not so pessimistic. There is no complacency and little sign of the fatal error of believing that if we regroup, refresh, and wait for the coalition to fail or fall, Labour will get its turn. Most importantly, the three main contenders?David and Ed Miliband, and Ed Balls?seem to realize that the New Labour game is up. Even the most prominent, David Miliband, is now using the term ?Next Labour.? From his utterances so far, the continuity Blairite candidate would appear to be Andy Burnham, the ex-health minister. He?s not going to win and may not even get on the ballot.
These ?mainstream? candidates have made similar observations in relatively similar language: referring to lost idealism; the need to rebuild grassroots organization; the damage done by the Iraq war and a range of other policies to the progressive alliance between low income and professional voters that is the core of Labour?s support; the need to reclaim the civil liberties and political reform agenda; the need for a more critical attitude to inequality, markets, and the City. A certain amount of frustration arises from these statements. All of this has been blindingly obvious for a long time. Why didn?t they say something or support those of us who did? However, in politics, as in life, it?s better late than never. Unless this kind of reassessment is made, Labour cannot turn the page with the public or its own disillusioned supporters. As influential MP Jon Cruddas and Jonathon Rutherford note, ?The future of Labour will be shaped by how we judge our incumbency.?
Where does this leave the two (hard) left contenders?John McDonnell and Diane Abbott?both from the Socialist Campaign Group? Well, they can and do say that they actually did vote against the Iraq war. Typically, they are better at saying what they are against than for, and McDonnell confuses leading a party and a pressure group in saying that the new the priority is to ?lead resistance to the cuts.? Abbott has the advantage in that she can rightly play the diversity card. But at the moment, their chances of reaching the minimum number of MP nominations to get on the ballot (thirty-three) look slim. As of today (3 June), Abbott had five nominations and McDonnell seven. This is not surprising. The Campaign Group has a measly twelve members and three of them have nominated other candidates. It would be better to have one or both on the ballot to allow the widest debate, to avoid the ?male and mainstream? accusation and to allow their claims to represent the membership be tested (they don?t). All and sundry have called on MPs to ?loan? their nominations to the three currently requiring them. Good idea, and there is some momentum behind Abbott, but don?t hold your breath.
All this highlights the fact that a leadership contest isn?t necessarily the best way to debate the future direction of a party. You are not just choosing the person who you most agree with, but the person you think can appeal most to the public. With the new centrality of televised debate, this has become even more important. But then the s/election process runs the risk of becoming a political variant of Pop Idol. A leadership election is, however, what we?ve got, and the Party has to make the best of it. The real contest will start from 9 June, once we know who is on the ballot. I hope to set out some of the key questions in future blog posts.
