My Labour leadership ballot paper arrived this morning, so finally, after all the hoopla, it’s decision time. And very difficult it has been too. There’s the tough one, the working class one, the older brother, the younger brother and the black woman. Of course my one little vote isn’t going to make much difference, but I’ve always believed in taking voting seriously. So what to do?I thought about choosing on policy grounds. Here, I am overwhelmingly in agreement with Diane Abbott on issues such as the economy, Trident, higher taxes and Afghanistan. Above all, I agree with her on immigration, and my suspicion of Ed Balls on that issue means he goes to the bottom of my list, even though I suspect he is actually the best candidate on the economy. Ed Miliband comes over well on the environment, and Andy Burnham on health and social care. I find David Miliband to be the vaguest on specific policy promises, and that may be because, to his credit, he understands that policy isn’t entirely in the hands of a party leader. With the exception of Abbott, who does have a different world view, the other candidates’ policy statements are merely symbolic, to show us what they think Labour is for.
But if policy is really about fighting it out with the Shadow Cabinet, PLP, and way behind that the NEC and Conference, what about capacity for leadership? The new leader has to take on the Coalition, win the next election, and become a credible Prime Minister. Which candidate connects best with people and can communicate a message to the general public as well as retaining members’ support? It’s been interesting to see how well Abbott does here. Audiences appear to love her, but is this because they agree with her or because she’s on the telly? David Miliband is the only candidate who can make a decent speech. Ed Miliband comes over as sincere, Burnham as passionate, and Balls as a bit of a bruiser, a John Reid for his generation. All qualities a good leader needs, but unfortunately they do not all appear in the same candidate.
So by now I am in despair. Who should have my first preference? I really do not want to vote for David Miliband as the heir to Blair, but I think he’ll make the best Prime Minister of the five. I want Abbott to make a good showing but not to win, as I don’t feel confident that she can lead but her views need to be taken seriously. I want to vote for nice Ed but I think nasty Ed might do a better job. And then there’s the overlooked Burnham, who is the only candidate who seems to realise that most Party members don’t live in London, and some don’t even live in England.
And there’s the key. Andy Burnham was the only candidate who bothered to come to Northern Ireland. He spent hours answering our questions, and most importantly he supported Labour members’ wish to stand in elections here, subject of course to NEC approval. After all, what good is it to us here if the new leader introduces lots of fab policies, increases membership, strengthens organisation and finances, and makes decision-making more democratic, if in NI we continue to depend on other parties in the devolved policy areas such as education, health and housing? Yes, if Labour win the next election there will be fewer cuts, but we won’t have a say on how the block grant is spent. Grass roots change in NI requires Labour to be involved, and that’s why my first choice will be Andy Burnham. Followed by Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband, David Miliband and Ed Balls.
Now I just need to start on the NEC........
15 comments:
I've been Labour since I was a nipper, the health of the party throughout the country is of concern to me as is the future direction of the UK, which continues to play an important role in this world and of course Europe.
I feel that the NI argument will be resolved to local members satisfaction regardless of who becomes leader; I see it as a question of when rather than if. As far as I know none of the candidates have actually said no to us putting up candidates?
I think our party locally should be more concerned about whether it is sufficiently organised and battle-ready for any type of election at the moment or if we have enough time left to mount a serious challenge to any of the elected parties come next year . I have very big doubts about that, in fact I'm unconvinced, but that particular argument is probably best left for another time! :-)
Hi Peter - I wouldn't be as optimistic as you, having been through all this once before with Irish Labour, but I hope you are right. I interpret the silence from the other candidates as indifference rather than silent encouragement. But completely with you when it comes to being battle ready!
Hello Jenny. Newsnight on Thursday (I think!) gave the candidates three minutes to put their case to a group of party voters. Burnham came out a clear winner in terms of style and presentation, yet the same voters who were impressed with him wondered if he was tough enough to fill the position and be a match for Cameron. So clear distinction between idealism and real politik there.
I agree with your choice...but I'm not voting as none of the candidates are going to do anything beyond sticking a go faster stripe on Nu Labour. So I let my membership lapse.
There's not one of them who has ever really had to struggle or worry about the bills or their future. Abbott in may ways is the worst as she preaches yet sends her child to private school. She's never been a minister for good reasons!And they are not political.
The Brothers...really...Balls is a hypocrite which just leaves Andy. And frankly if you drew a Venn diagram for each candidate, Andy would just overlap the rest as well.
We need a left wing party, but until the ideas in the Spirit Level begin to percolate down, we aren't going to get it.
Academic - I didn't see Newsnight but thought the reported reaction was interesting, as indeed was the opinion poll putting Ed Miliband as winner. Still all to play for, obviously.
Anonymous - I do sympathise with your frustration about not having a left wing party, but the reality is we need a mass party to get the Tories and the LibDems out in GB (and the DUP and SF out here) and that means a broader appeal. But not voting for them because they've never had to worry about paying a bill is daft and perhaps not even true, unlike David Cameron and his ilk.
I will laugh hysterically if Diane Abbot gets the leadership! At least it will make matters interesting if the LP get saddled with her! In terms of best leader Burnham or Balls stand out if judged purely on ability to lead. They do possess a modicum of common sense which is rare these days in all parties.
Hold the hysteria, Paul, she won't. But it's interesting how the emphasis has changed slightly over the past week or so, away from David Miliband as a shoe-in. I suspect we can thank the voting system, as people have had to think about a series of preferences rather than just one vote. Hence they have been weighing up Burnham and Balls more seriously.
Am I correct in thinking though that in terms of policy you favour Diane Abbot? Yet you do acknowledge that she would not get elected and would not cut the mustard as a LP leader? I'm not trying to wind you up Jenny but isn't that sort of an indictment of such policies?
Not at all - and I know you ask me in good faith, Paul! Anyone standing for election to anything has to have the confidence of the majority, and in the Labour Party they do not share Diane's political views. But as I said in the post, a decent showing will help the new leader to treat the Labour Left with respect. It's a circle that can be squared with a preferential voting system, as I have done.
So you allude to a decent showing meaning the left will have an influence. Yet how would a left leaning LP do at the polls? The lessons from 1983 will never be learnt by ideologues of course but are you a new labourite by comparison? I am an ideologue of course jus from a different perspective.
Labour lost the 1983 election because the party stuck to its principles but failed to get the message across in the face of the slick, corporate PR employed by the Tories. The party lost it in 1992 because it tried to match the Tory PR strategy, again at the expense of its core message. It wasn't the Sun wot won it. Labour lost it.
That's what makes this current leadership election so interesting. Andy Burnham is impressing the grassroots with his down-to-earth style and strong core message that appeals to the Labour Party grass roots. Alas, Labour is after Middle England and there's no room there for Andy Burnham. And you know what? I so hope I'm proved wrong.
I don't think the comparison is with the 1983 election. Although I didn't understand this at the time, the big problem for Labour at that time was far Left infiltration from well organised Trotskyist groups who drove away ordinary members who just wanted to see a better society. Now, the problem is timidity in the face of the cuts that are coming. The TU movement is also led very differently nowadays. I think I'm more of an ideologue now than I was in 1983, not least because I now have some idea of what it means. So, Paul, I think a Left leaning LP will do well but people need ot belive the changes being proposed are practical.
So I don't entirely agree with AA that 1983 was lost to spin - but 1992 is a more worrying parallel. And AA you will be right on Middle England - just at a time when Middle England is about to get hammered and might just conceivably vote for a more radical option.
I remember 83 and 92 very well, the latter being very active in South London much to the annoyance of my then Yank bosses!
In 83 noone could sensibly vote for a party which was going to leave the EU and less we forget Ulster within 30 days. Infiltrated by the far left who arrogantly believed Labour voters were docile chumps who couldn't read but would vote whatever, the SDP had arisen to give a home to the centre left and hence effectively throttle Labour. It was goo riddance to the trendy Trots et al. I became very active or the next decade confronting and marginalising them. This happened throughout the country and laid the framework for New Labour.
We honestly thought in 92 there would be a breakthrough. Most of the policies were on track, there was a consensus that the Tories were out of touch. But it didn't gel. I knew coworkers who wanted to vote Labour but were panicking over the abolition of mortgage relief. It disappeared anyway, but in 92 with unemployment rising, interest rates going out of control people couldn't face up to more costs. Once the doubts set in then the vote suddenly withered away. Kinnock's disastrous conference only focused the sudden disenchantment.
Jenny the comparison with 1983 is of course hypothetical but nonetheless pretty valid. If the LP lurches to the far left (particularly with a intellectually and morally devoid leader like Abbot) they will get thrashed at the polls. Of course the 'New labour' types such as David Miliband are not great either. This is the guy who has publicly stated amongst other things that Israel was wrong to defend themselves against Hezbollah in 2006 but Britain was somehow right in 2003 to depose Saddam. The guy could not even spell hypocrisy. I'm not a Labour voter, but it would strike me as a good idea to have a sensible leader. Such options are limited.
I can't see Middle England opting for a radical left party. For one thing LP support there is not particularly strong (unlike the north). They will be hurt by the cuts but the private sector is and always has been stronger there. If anything they'll go right.
Sorry for delay in replying, guys, I've been away for a few days.
Anon- I remember canvassing in 1992 and having the same feeling you described, and it felt awaful when we didn't quite make it.
Paul - as I said, it's a question of balance. No chance of the far left gaining majority support, admittedly, but having them there to keep us on our toes is good, I think. Power corrupts, after all. And we just don't know which way Middle England will jump - the thing that might stop a rightward move is the disgust with the banks. But that may not be enough.
Post a Comment