As the only Labour leadership candidate with a spark of
personality and emotional verve has pulled out, I’m inclined to switch off until
another tiresome Labour leadership contest is over. Jess Phillips last week exited
a race that ever since Blair was chosen as party leader in 1994 has been
marketed by the Party as about putting power in the hands of the
members. Yet Phillips departed not because she had failed to convince Labour
Party members, or the wider public, but because she knew she couldn’t be
confident of the support of enough Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) (or the
support of two big trade unions) to ensure that she’d get through to the next
round. It is only when these hurdles are jumped by candidates that the much
vaunted ‘one member, one vote’ process will actually kick in and the real leadership
election will start as ordinary members get to decide for themselves who to
vote for.
Well, them and registered party ‘supporters’, a cheapo membership scheme introduced, in his perverse wisdom, by Ed Miliband for
those people who (understandably) can’t endure going to members’ meetings. And
among these ‘Labour supporters’ who in April will be determining who the next Labour
Prime Minister might be, will be those who bought themselves a vote by
registering as supporters as recently as mid-January. All’s fair then.
The absurdities of Labour’s leadership electoral system are a
reflection of its spatchcock compromise between Labour’s historical roots as a
parliamentary-orientated party paid for by organised labour, and the bizarre contemporary influence of US
primaries. This has produced a corrupt charade where all party members are potential
voters but some voters aren’t party members (and some of these have simply paid
£25 to vote). Success in the election depends on garnering the
backing of enough MPs and then the approval of enough CLP meetings or, proving
that in the Labour Party the past is always present, a couple of trade union
barons.
The actual leadership election this April was always going
to include the candidate who wrote Labour’s least successful manifesto since
George Lansbury’s poor performance paved the way for the takeover of the party in
1935 by that masterfully bland public school boy, Mr Clement Attlee. Rebecca
Long Bailey’s skilled authorship of Labour’s most recent ‘longest suicide note in
its history’ was facilitated by the man who had already blessed her
prospective leadership. In December Mr Corbyn’s reverse Midas touch meant that party
volunteers like me had to knock on doors with an unsellable message from an unconscionable leader. Long Bailey is
likely to be among the final two thanks to the imprimatur of the man who led
Labour to a defeat markedly worse in seat terms than Michael Foot’s in 1983.
Like the other, current, front runner, Sir Keir Starmer, Rebecca has been in parliament for all of five years. If I am not mistaken, this is the same depth of parliamentary experience enjoyed by Lisa Nandy too. Emily Thornberry though has been traipsing round the Westminster corridors for an incredible decade. Gosh. Better perhaps than Corbyn who’s been there since 1983 but who not only lacks ministerial experience – like every single Labour leadership candidate this time round – but hasn’t even previously shadowed the government minister for office stationery.
Sir Keir Starmer was anointed at birth with the name of Labour’s second most popular leader, and is eager to emphasise that he too has a (relatively) proletarian background in order to offset the knighthood he secured for an indifferent performance as the head of Public Prosecutions.
Like the other, current, front runner, Sir Keir Starmer, Rebecca has been in parliament for all of five years. If I am not mistaken, this is the same depth of parliamentary experience enjoyed by Lisa Nandy too. Emily Thornberry though has been traipsing round the Westminster corridors for an incredible decade. Gosh. Better perhaps than Corbyn who’s been there since 1983 but who not only lacks ministerial experience – like every single Labour leadership candidate this time round – but hasn’t even previously shadowed the government minister for office stationery.
Sir Keir Starmer was anointed at birth with the name of Labour’s second most popular leader, and is eager to emphasise that he too has a (relatively) proletarian background in order to offset the knighthood he secured for an indifferent performance as the head of Public Prosecutions.
Thornberry’s disadvantaged Oxford graduate and high-paid lawyer routine probably won’t
impress. Lisa Nandy genuinely understands that Labour’s disconnect with
its onetime (white) working-class base is almost terminal, but this message is too difficult for the party’s liberal middle class chauvinists to process. Therefore it’ll
be down to either Starmer or Long Bailey to bore the electorate over the next
five years.
Long Bailey’s seismically dull campaign launch - head down, droning
on from a tiresome text - suggests that she will only inspire those for
whom having a politically ‘correct’ (i.e. leftist) message is what matters. Not
the fact that it’s delivered, like the current leadership incumbent, with all the charisma, style and authority of a
deputy borough council leader.
She told the Party that being a working-class
woman means that she’s doubly-disadvantaged. This cynical little routine comes from yet another former lawyer, but one who thinks that
the way to reach the working-class is affecting to sound like them.
So we’ll
presumably end up with Keir Starmer. A onetime student Trotskyist with little
hope of reaching those parts of the country that began being lost by
Labour more than 40 years ago and which now vote Johnson. Still, the brave
knight will be good at the dispatch box cut and thrust. And that’s what will
convince on the door step, isn't it?
Labour will never get out of this mess until it restores the election of the leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party solely to Labour politicians elected to Parliament. Historically this method didn't always produce the most plausible leaders to contest a national election. However it usually had the virtue of producing someone who not only understood what contesting a national election entailed, but who could authoritatively articulate an inclusive message to the whole of the nation.