The Observer view on Labour’s leadership race
|
Version 0 of 1. As Labour embarks on its quest to find a new leader, it is in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of 2010, when an inward-facing party, focusing on a drawn-out internal debate, lost all momentum as an opposition and allowed the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition to prosecute ruthlessly a narrative that Labour overspending had caused the financial crisis. Labour and Ed Miliband failed to point out that it was global banking that spectacularly crashed the economy. And so 2015 was an election Labour was forced to fight on its past. Voters quite reasonably went to the polls with the question of who they trusted with the economy at the front of their minds, a question Labour had resoundingly failed to answer. The party now faces a mammoth challenge: the need to respond to weaknesses on multiple electoral fronts. The election result asked many different questions of the party – and they don’t yet appear to know where to look for the answers. Some of the most thought-provoking beginnings of an analysis of what Labour needs to do next have come from the 2010 intake. Tristram Hunt represents an interesting combination of New and Blue Labour. Liz Kendall has made it clear that no hallowed positions are beyond consideration. Dan Jarvis has written about what Labour’s defeat means for the future of the party as a membership organisation. And Chuka Umunna was the first to declare Labour did not have enough to offer entrepreneurial wealth creators. Yet only one of these MPs – Kendall – looks set to make it through to the ballot paper. Personal factors have undoubtedly played a role in some candidates’ decision to withdraw from the race. But, as Hunt has made clear, so has the requirement to have at least 35 MP nominations. It quickly became apparent that with Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper commanding support from big chunks of the parliamentary party, there may only be room for one more candidate to take part. Miliband introduced significant and much-needed reforms of Labour’s leadership election rules: one-member, one-vote and opening up the election to voters who sign up to pay £3 to become a registered party supporter. But old-fashioned nomination rules – that candidates must be nominated by at least 15% of the parliamentary party to make it on to the ballot – mean the contest has the feel of a stitch-up before it has even started. Labour MPs face a calculation: should they back the candidate they think most likely to command the support of the membership for the sake of their future parliamentary career? Or the one they feel is most likely to appeal to the country? Incentivising leadership candidates to seek the patronage of as many MPs as quickly as possible was always unlikely to allow a range of candidates to get through, particularly as it seems the most seasoned contenders – Burnham and Cooper – may have been amassing support before the election. It has also led to a situation where senior shadow cabinet members are scrambling to trash Labour’s past five years. Last November, when this paper reported that 20 shadow minister were prepared to ditch their leader, these same MPs were suddenly less public and less vocal. Yes, there was plenty wrong with the last five years of Labour, but Miliband’s highlighting of inequality was not one of them. This issue is not going away and is increasingly being voiced by Conservatives, not least by Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s former adviser. Both Burnham and Cooper are talented politicians and serious contenders. But it is troubling for a party in need of serious renewal to have only one of its newer generation of MPs go through to the ballot. The previous contest should teach us that the perception of a rigged election is impossible to shake off. It would be better for them if they were to emerge as winners from a longer shortlist. For this contest, the rules are set. New MPs Jo Cox and Stephen Kinnock have called for Burnham and Cooper to release some of their excess nominations to allow other contenders to get through. Both are said to be considering it: we urge them to do so. If senior Labour figures are not willing to encourage debate and ideas about, and from within, their own party, then renewal will take even longer. At a time when the party is in dire need of intellectual force, it would reflect badly on Burnham and Cooper if they failed to take an opportunity to stimulate as robust a discussion as possible. For the longer term, the process needs further reform. The party should anonymise the nominations system so MPs feel able to nominate candidates they think have potential in the earliest stages of the contest, without jeopardising their own careers. And why not move further towards an open primary, dropping the charge people have to pay to register as a supporter and positively encourage those who are undecided but considering voting Labour to exercise their say? This would make future leadership elections more a test of who can appeal to the country rather than just the parliamentary party or the membership. Labour does not have the luxury of conducting leadership contests away from public scrutiny. Dangerous perceptions are already emerging about this contest. The way the party and the leading candidates respond will tell us a lot about whether either has even the slimmest chance of emerging from the electoral bunker into which they have sunk. |