The winner will be a brother, not a sister
Bubble — By Daran Hill on June 29, 2010 7:00 am
Spot the winner
THE way a leadership campaign is won defines a leadership. When Margaret Thatcher ousted Ted Heath in the most guileful and purposeful campaign of modern times, it set the course of her leadership. When John Major pipped Heseltine and Hurd, it was the triumph of the quiet pragmatism that defined his years.
There is also a clue in the numbers game. If a candidate wins an early ballot only to lose, it spells a divided party. Note Michael Foot’s 83 to Dennis Healey’s 118 MPs in the 1980 Labour leadership selection. By the final ballot, with Silkin and Shore eliminated, Foot had 139 to Healey’s 129. Hardly a conclusive win and the consequences contributed to the darkest days of the Labour Party.
Similarly, in 2001 Iain Duncan Smith won the Conservative membership ballot with a clear majority over Ken Clarke, but at a Parliamentary level the party was in bits. In the third and final ballot to decide which candidates got to the ballot paper, Clarke secured 59 nominations, Duncan Smith 54 and Portillo 53. Two years later the quiet man was ousted, despite turning up the volume.
It can be worse if contests seem, shall we say, a little unbalanced. The absence of Gordon Brown from the context in 1994 won by Tony Blair defined the next decade. Similarly, Brown’s coronation in 2007 was remarkable for being the first contest in a modern political party when the victor emerged unopposed. As the last three years have demonstrated, such victories can seem more than a little hollow and insubstantial – and create big future problems.
Looking at these selected historical parallels, Labour should be more than a little worried at the way their own current leadership election is playing out. The first problem the party faces is that the offering is very imbalanced. The Burnham that isn’t Eleanor can’t win and won’t win. The other Ed – who bears no relation to the character of the same name who served Gordon Brown loyally – may be making headlines, but they are for the wrong reasons. And the one who’s there because she looks different has based her whole non-campaign on that two-dimensional platform. It is no accident that all three of them got 33 nominations apiece from the Parliamentary Labour Party: exactly the required number to make it to the ballot paper. This speaks volumes, and implies that many of their nominees won’t go as far as actually voting for them. And neither will significant numbers of the wider Labour Party. There may be five candidates on the ballot paper but three of them are as paper as the ballot forms themselves.
The brothers Miliband are the real deal and the contest is between them. Ed got 63 MPs to nominate him and David secured 81. Bearing in mind the electoral college approach of the election, as Carwyn Jones proved in December, a commanding lead among parliamentarians is hard to beat. Constituency Labour Parties have now started nominating their preferred candidates and, quelle surprise, they are generally choosing between the brothers. So are the trade unions. There is a momentum as clear here as the contest Carwyn won in Wales.
But despite the vigour that the Milibands are bringing (and I make no apology for viewing the context through their prism), the Labour Party is not yet energised and, even worse for them, the contest has not in any way captured the imagination of the country. It is always difficult for a party moving into opposition to choose a new leader. Remembering the Conservatives in 1997, their own decision to back Hague was made when the country was far more interested in Blair. And so is the case now. The battle of the brothers seems like a curio, while the dynamics of Cleggeron are far more engaging.
To energise this dreary campaign, some risks need to be taken. To my mind, Harriet Harman should have stayed as interim leader for longer and the party conference in the Autumn should have been properly integrated into the election process. That was the masterstroke devised by Michael Howard to choose his successor in 2005. That Conservative Conference was the most robust and challenging for years as all of the candidates were given the chance to perform and prove with ideas and charisma that they could best lead their party. David Cameron triumphed, David Davis crashed. The rest is history.
Cameron was born of a risk and that has characterised his leadership and the way it has been viewed. As I wrote at the beginning, the way a leadership campaign is won defines a leadership. And this campaign is so lacking in risk and energy that unless things change whoever wins will join Lansbury, Foot, Kinnock and Smith as Labour leaders of the opposition and never Prime Ministers.
The campaign now moves into a new phase as the hustings begin. There is one in Cardiff next weekend and others will be held across the UK. The hope being pinned on these is significant and Labour’s official line is that:
“The Labour Party will work with a range of organisations to ensure regional balance and encourage affiliates and third party organisations to organise workplace hustings involving members and supporters. We will explore new media hustings to ensure the public are able to take part in the process.”
And, goodness me, they need to. The next month or so of hustings are make or break for this contest. For the brothers it is time to take a few risks and to make their offerings clearer and more dynamic. When people come back from their summer hols, it will be too late. Summer just isn’t a good time for political engagement.
And it also doesn’t help the contest is being held against a backdrop of sport so distracting that even WalesHome.org has started a football blog rather than one on the Labour leadership election.
Tags: David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Labour, Labour leadership race, leadership
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
13 Comments
Daran,
I agree with your diagnosis and prognosis. I believe that the real future Labour leader is yet to emerge.
Diane Abbott will not recover from the uncontested grilling she received from Andrew Neil on last week’s edition of This Week. It will be interesting to see how the other candidates fare on Brillo’s sofa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5uMbMJ2EUQ
The others all suffer from being members (mostly senior ministers) of a government that has been rejected by the electorate. For a rebel, Burnham has shown little spirit. The rest have not cast off publicly the mantle of the past government for which they were jointly and severally responsible.
They all (except Diane Abbott) lack that essential but difficult to define attribute – presence. Image is also a problem. As William Hague could never shake off that picture of him wearing a baseball cap, will the first image of David that jumps into people’s minds be of a juvenile wearing a silly grin and waving a bent banana?
As you says, at present the Coalition holds centre stage, and while details emerge throughout the summer of the severity or otherwise of the cuts, then I fear the Labour leadership debate will be submerged as far as the October spending review. Also if either Ed or David is elected, he will not escape having to bear the mantle of blame that “these cuts are Labour’s inheritance.”
The UK needs a diligent, thoughtful and vigorous opposition, but Harriet Harman’s response to the budget was too shrill and predictable as it could have been written (and probably was) before the budget was revealed.
Labour will have to search deeper and wider (perhaps outside the HOC) for that new Leader. Sally Bercow did a good job on This Week – is she a starter for 10?
“The UK needs a diligent, thoughtful and vigorous opposition, but Harriet Harman’s response to the budget was too shrill and predictable as it could have been written (and probably was) before the budget was revealed.”
It is such a cheap shot to dismiss a woman’s contribution as shrill. I think Harman is doing a pretty good job.
Looking ahead, the next Labour leader has to articulate the fundamental importance of empowerment as the means to enable people to achieve the ends to which they aspire.
An enabling state should allow power to be transferred to the people so that they have the capability, the capacity and the resources to improve their life chances. They should be the architects, the authors of their own environment, achieving their outcomes through co-operation and voluntary exchange.
With the right balance between positive and negative liberty, and the power of a movement for change to inspire the people to transform their communities, a more equal, tolerant and prosperous society is eminently achievable.
This of course does not mean something else substituting for the state, such as the current Cameronian idea of “Big Society”, but rather the state as enabler building the capacity of the people to be the change agents themselves.
Just as RH Tawney called for the left to embrace freedom in “We Mean Freedom (1944)”, so tomorrow let Labour make liberty the means to achieving the ends, which are greater equality and fairness in society.
Those of us in the Labour Party are probably better placed to say whether or not we are energised, than Daran is. Whether you believe Di-Andy are paper candidates or not, its really not the point. Their presence brings greater diversity of ideas and debate, and that can only be good for the process. How members choose to vote, is a matter for the coming months.
While I agree with this Daran:
“It is always difficult for a party moving into opposition to choose a new leader. Remembering the Conservatives in 1997, their own decision to back Hague was made when the country was far more interested in Blair.”
This is really going too far..
“And so is the case now. The battle of the brothers seems like a curio, while the dynamics of Cleggeron are far more engaging.”
Really? Really? I don’t sense any great enthusiasm for Cameron (let alone Clegg) among people in Wales.
“Those of us in the Labour Party are probably better placed to say whether or not we are energised, than Daran is. ”
Fair point, Cerys. But very few Labour people are saying it to me. And I always poke my nose into other people’s business.
Re the Cameron/Clegg point, it’s not about enthusiasm, but interest. The dynamics of a new government, let alone a new coalition, are far more engaging/interesting.
That isn’t to say this will always be the case, but rather that the contest is failing to ignite at the moment. The hustings may change that.
Well yes the dynamics are interesting, I agree with you on that.
I have nothing against you poking your nose in (far from it, i think the debate is useful) but its worth remembering that people are far more likely to say to you Daran, “God, I’m pissed off” than, “Isn’t this Labour leadership jolly energising?”!
Thanks, Daran, for this typically thoughtful take on the Labour leadership campaign. I do, though, agree with Cerys’s response.
And I agree too with michaelt’s rebuttal of Financier’s frankly sexist point – ” Harriet Harman’s response to the budget was too shrill and predictable” (no-one would use the negative term ‘shrill’ of a man’s response). As for Financier’s point that Harman’s response to the budget was “written before the budget was revealed” – hell, ALL Oppositions’ Budget responses are written before the Budget is announced, then finalised during the course of the Chancellor’s speech.
I further take issue with Financier’s claim that “Labour will have to search deeper and wider (perhaps outside the HOC) for that new Leader”. Nonsense. Just this week we’ve seen evidence of Yvette Cooper’s forensic debating and leadership skills. Acting Leader Harman is eminently qualified. Alan Johnson, John McDonnell, John Cruddas – all are strong leadership material. As for Sally Bercow – she has a brilliant future ahead of her in the Labour Party. But residence in the Speaker’s House and a neat tweeting technique do not a leadership candidate make.
I’m looking forward to the Cardiff hustings meeting at the weekend!
Cerys wrote: “its worth remembering that people are far more likely to say to you Daran, “God, I’m pissed off” than, “Isn’t this Labour leadership jolly energising?”!”
Not sure about that. People from all parties generally try and spin and talk things up to me, rather than the other way. I haven’t detected much of that with this contest. As I say, it may change, and for Labour I hope it does or you’ve got problems.
” Harriet Harman’s response to the budget was too shrill and predictable”
True enough, same kind of thing was being said by people from England on Twitter when the Plaid AM Leanne Wood was on Question Time.
OK, back now from today’s Labour leadership hustings in Cardiff, and I’d like to revisit Daran’s point that “There may be five candidates on the ballot paper but three of them are as paper as the ballot forms themselves”. Well, I’ve heard and seen all five in the flesh now, and I can honestly say I’d be content if ANY of the five becomes Labour Leader. All today ably demonstrated their articulacy, passion and ambition, for the Labour Party and for achieving social justice in Britain.
That said, I do think that some of the candidates come across as stronger than others. I’m not going to name names and thereby give any hostages to fortune on this site. But here’s my humble, brief take on the field.
One prominent candidate, the most fluent and confident today, may suffer from the suspicion that they’re too content to bear the Blairite mantle – which, as Duncan Higgitt has implied elsewhere, carries much unwelcome baggage about too-light regulation and consequent bankers’ excesses (inter alia). Another candidate, in contrast, though bullish and proud of their Labour Movement roots, may be perceived as contaminated by Brownite divisiveness. The Party may just have breathed a sigh of relief that the Blair/Brown toxic feuding is done with, and may doubt any candidate too closely associated with one or other camp.
A third candidate may feel that their Northern roots exempt them from too-close association with the ‘policy-wonks’ label applied to other candidates – though this candidate too, like all five, is an Oxbridge graduate; and this candidate too, like another three, has prior experience limited to elite Labour policy wonking. It may be unclear to many Labour members what this candidate’s Unique Selling Proposition might be.
A fourth candidate at today’s hustings gleefully distinguished themselves from their rivals. NOT a wonk; NOT associated with New Labour ‘triangulation’ – indeed, proud to stand on a record of opposition to New Labour’s worst excesses (and yes, Duncan – there were worst excesses!). Some Party members may wonder whether basing your campaign on what you’ve opposed in Parliament; rather than what relevant experience you’ve gained in Parliament, and on your distinctive leadership offer: is quite enough.
The fifth leadership candidate is as closely associated with the last Labour Government as three of their rivals. And, like those three rivals, this candidate too has a background as a backroom bod in Downing Street prior to election as an MP. For me, what distinguishes this candidate from the field is their preparedness to admit the mistakes of the last Labour government (while remaining proud of its many achievements); and their enthusiasm for radical change, informed explicitly by socialist principle.
With all the above qualifications, I still believe that any of the five Labour leadership candidates is well placed to take the fight to the FibDem CamClegg coalition, and win the arguments. But I know who gets my first preference vote.
Gez,
Pleased to see that like me you will be backing Ed Miliband, and for those same reasons too!
Alex
Gez, thanks for your comments. Had expected a lot more of this sort of defence and insight
From the little I have seen/heard, I think Ed Milliband would be Labour’s best bet. That said, Labour’s best candidate never stood – Jon Cruddas.