It was a surreal experience.
I was waiting to board my flight to Dublin from Bristol Airport. As I stood facing a small group of stag night
lads dressed in drag my fiancé Anna kept feeding me the results of the UK
General Election 2015 as they came in. The
prognosis wasn’t good but at that time the Conservatives did not have a
controlling majority. By the time we
landed in Dublin they had. The holocaust
of Lib Dem MPs included many familiar faces from my time canvassing and
attending Lib Dem conferences. Even the
hardworking constituency Steve Webb was chucked out of Thornbury for some young
faced cookie cutter self-made businessman Tory.
I still remember the sheepish look on Steve’s face when after he
accidentally stood in some drying concrete on the front patio of a person’s
door he was about to knock on. The
person wasn’t happy but he at least resisted the urge to have a go at Steve or
report this anecdote to some Fleet Street rag like The Sun. Very swiftly after the results came the
stream of resignations. Lib Dem Nick
Clegg, seemingly suffering from the curse of immortality having kept his seat
against the odds, fell on his sword.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage resigned allegedly honouring an earlier pledge
he made, only to apparently have his resign bounce like a bad cheque off the
UKIP Executive. And then there was the
long suffering Ed Miliband who in a pretty moving and humble speech also
stepped down. I couldn’t help thinking
that poor old Ed took it all a bit too hard on the chin in owning all of the
responsibility for Labour’s defeat. To
be sure the buck has to stop at the leader, but the Labour Party is by no means
a one man band and as such the responsibility for the defeat should be
collectively shared. After all it’s not
UKIP.
I am a long suffering Lib Dem supporter and as such I am
fully used to the knives coming out to stab the former leader when the carcass
of their leadership is barely cold on the slab, but even I was amazed by the
brazenness of the Night of the Long Knives that followed Ed’s fall. Many of the leadership candidates didn’t wait
long till the “I told you so” quotes started to come out, most notably from the
front runners in the Labour leadership.
Their reaction to the inevitable ‘why the bloody hell didn’t you say or do
anything if it was so obvious you would lose oh oracle?’ is followed by the
inevitable protestations about having to maintain party unity. OK, there is some truth to this. To be frank the public are as brutal as they
are hypocritical on this point. I would
personally argue that truth should trump consistency, but sadly I cannot speak
for all voters. But arguably sooner or
later those leadership candidates who were close to Miliband or even worse
closer to Brown will have to answer some difficult questions, more on this
later. The rest of this article will be
about first of all assessing the Labour leadership candidates, their policy
points and how desirable I see them as future party leaders and possibly future
PMs. The last part will be a general assessment
of where the Labour Party should go from here in my opinion.
Andy Burnham seems to hail from a notably Old Labour
tradition. Much of his background is
from the Trade Unions and he comes from a working class family in the Labour
heartlands of Liverpool. Burnham is also
one of the most experienced candidates in terms of work in government as a
former Health Minister. It should be
noted though that his Ministerial tenure has notable skeletons in it’s closets. For one under Burnham’s tenure the Mid
Staffordshire Hospital scandal broke out, which he responded with a closed
government inquiry. Pushing for a full
public inquiry later on is likely one of David Cameron’s good ideas, a very
rare example to be sure. How much
Burnham can be blamed for the scandal itself is limited to be sure, but the
handling of such scandals has a tendency to make people measure someone up as a
leader. What is also notable is that
during his tenure Labour pressed on with it’s Public Finance Initiative’s
(PFIs) which are basically private contracts for specific jobs within the
NHS. Recent Tory reforms have generated
a lot of public wariness about such limited privatisation initiatives. Not only has PFI schemes in the NHS displayed
varying levels of effectiveness they have in many places not only warped
accountability but also lead to a lot of public money being spent, often with
limited returns in value. As for Burnham
personally if I am honest I am as yet not particularly impressed by his recent
media performances and statements. To
start with the positives he has in fairness raised the concept of spreading
economic reform outside of London to the ‘regions’. The only problem I have with that is that
‘regions’ often turns into just taking care of certain hyped cities or regions
in the north (yes I am looking at you Manchester) that are regularly mentioned
in the media or to one of the devolved nations.
Meanwhile the west country gets ignored while in the wake of the Lib Dem
collapse it’s council and MP seats get colonised by the Tories for the long
haul. To be sure the north in many
places needs a lot of attention, but not at the expense of other places. I did appreciate his mention of rent to buy
schemes which are basically initiatives where renters can eventually buy their
homes. Such support for these schemes is
well overdue from politicians who are continuously obsessed with those of us
who are trying to get mortgages.
Meanwhile those of us for whom getting a mortgage is a long way off we
feel shunned like an ugly sister left in the shade. Picking up on the whole northern angle
Burnham does unfortunately have a cringeworthy way of displaying himself as an
everyman northerner who “goes to the pub”.
Alright Burnham good for you. But
here is the thing, I don’t give a damn.
I wouldn’t care if you went home and donned your pipe, dressing gown and
slippers and went to bed at 8pm. If you
had some ideas worth mentioning and you seem to be a well balanced leader, you
could be a spotty and overweight stereotype of a comic book nerd for all I
care. I am sick to my back teeth of politicians
acting like they are ‘normal’. This is
mostly in reaction to comments made by the public, so their response is to act
like they are someone they are not. My
response in his position would be to say “yeah I am a strange guy, deal with
it.” Rant over. So far so bland for Burnham. My main concern is unsubtle whispers from
Unite’s General Secretary Len McCluskey that indicate that Burnham is the
‘right’ leader of the Labour Party. With
respect to Len he should shut up or he will give another excuse for Cameron to
rant on about McCluskey being the puppet master of the Labour Party. If elected Burnham will have to prove he is
his own man, and once or twice that may involve telling old Len a few things he
does not want to here.
What can one say about Yvette Cooper? Well for one she has a fair amount of
experience in cabinet and shadow cabinet, but to my mind no notable
achievements to credit her with. She has
kept up sniping fire on Home Secretary Theresa May, but considering how
incompetent she has been in her portfolio that looks like fish in a barrel to
me. If it wasn’t for Cameron’s
obstinate, at times frankly arrogant and stupid, tendency to hang on to his
ministers no matter how much trouble they cause May would have left long
ago. For another Yvette Cooper is a
woman. Surprised? No, me neither. But for some reason she saw fit to mention
this during a leaders debate when asked to make her pitch for the top job. To my mind this was a very ill judged move
since she is not the only woman running, and her rival seems to have a more
compelling case than she does. Yvette
recently made the case that Labour has to be more “pro business”. Be that as it may she in a classic Yvette Cooper
way made the pitch in such a way as though she had been a pro business underdog
all along, something her record doesn’t back up. While she is not as bullish as her husband Ed
Balls she has a tendency to all too often to display the self-important, vindictive
and hypocritical side of Labour. In
debates on the programme Question Time she displays a remarkable tendency to
answer questions without answering them at all, but seems content to stick a
few customary barbs at the Tories anyway.
This is the Punch and Judy politics that is making people do stupid
things like not vote or vote UKIP, simply put I want to see such cheap politics
punished severely. The thing is half the
time these dirty tactics boomerang right back at her. Take for example the claim she made that some
of her rivals had “swallowed” the Tory manifesto too much. She never claimed who had done this but
everyone knew it was directed at Liz Kendall.
Demonising the Tories without direct policy arguments being used didn’t
work before, why does she think this will demolish Liz’s campaign? If anything it will elicit more interest in
her campaign. Overall Yvette has done
nothing to make me shake my old suspicions of her. I may be being hard on her, but I wish she
would give me a reason not to be.
The wild card in the deck of candidates is of course Jeremy
Corbyn. Corbyn is a dying breed in the
Labour Party who a part of me can’t help but root for. It is remarkable how old Labour warhorses
like him still have their seats. That
they still have them seems to be among many things due to the strong and honest
convictions they have and their dedication to their constituency. During the awful election of 2015 Old Labour
MP Dennis Skinner aka the Beast of Bolsover increased his majority by 20%. Such figures are a call back to Tony Benn a
man, and I say this as someone who isn’t a socialist, who I believe could have
made socialism work. Corbyn seems to go
through the usual Old Labour tickboxes.
He is a member of Stop the War, is in favour of nationalising the banks
and is thoroughly against austerity. But
one of the things I first noticed about him is the directness of his delivery. He has a rare and refreshing sense of no
nonsense about him which I and I imagine a lot of other people admire in a
politician. And yet people like Corbyn
seem frozen in time. It is almost as
though him and his late friend Tony Benn went to sleep in the 80s and didn’t
witness their leader Michael Foot going down in flames. Don’t get me wrong I do not fully trust the
Blairites for falling into line with Thatcher’s legacy just a little too
readily. But when I hear people like
Corbyn speak I get the unmistakable feeling that a part of him or perhaps all
of him respects ideological purity over truth.
One example of this is a video I saw in which Corbyn gave a speech to
the Anti War movement. In the video he
described the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah as “social reformers.” I think in the end Corbyn is better served
either in the cabinet as a balance against the Blairites or within the party as
a backbencher doing the same thing.
Either way it seems to be a shame to allow an honest and
hardworking if misguided soul like
Corbyn be ignored.
The last candidate is also the most controversial; Liz
Kendall. Now I have had my eye on Liz
for some time. Usually the Labour Party
send some hack on Question Time like Rachel Reeves or, even higher on the
hack-metre, Yvette Cooper. But now and
then Liz has made an appearance on the show and what I have seen of her impressed
me. For the most part she nailed
questions instead of tip toeing around them with fluffy and meaningless
rhetoric like Cooper. She also subtly
but firmly puts down Dimblebys’ casual sexism as well as that by occasional
sexist Cabinet Ministers, such as Hammond who insisted on calling her
‘Rachel’. In any case starting as she
has mean’t to carry on Liz has not minced her words when talking about Labour’s
defeat calling it a !catastrophe”, which it bloody was. Cooper et al by contrast seem to show a faded
disappointment like they have just missed a bus or a train. The programme that Liz seems to be outlined
looks notably Blairite, that is very centist.
Free schools are here to stay she says.
Some cuts will have to be accepted she says, which while I partly agree
with her on this I am still a bit nervous about whether she and I see eye to
eye on where they should fall. For
instance not many political figures have had the courage to call for state
pensions and associated benefits to be reformed and means tested, for fear of
losing the grey vote. Her approach
instinctively tries to woo the soft UKIP and Tory voters an general undecided
who for the most part went to the latter during the election. To my mind going after the latter two is a
lot more important than going after the former since I sense UKIP will collapse
into factional bickering soon after they have lost an EU referendum which will
take place before the 2020 election. Who
knows maybe the refugees from that disaster will drift to the Tories and reopen
wounds that have not healed since the Maastricht Treaty? One can dream. Speaking of Europe Liz seems to be wanting to
play an intriguing game of harrying on the Tories to get a solid deal before
any referendum. Such a move may increase
pressure between the Tory cabinet and back benches, but it does beg the
question how this would ultimately effect Labour’s positioning with regards to
the EU referendum (ie would a weak deal lead to Labour campaigning for ‘No’?) I still need a lot of clarity on Liz’s plans
before she gets my endorsement (which I am sure is very sought after by
her). She recently seems to have shored
up her left flank by pushing for the minimum wage to be raised to the liveable
wage, which is long overdue in my perspective.
She has also specifically pledged to overturn any anti union laws that
the Tories introduce, which in these days of electoral revenge in the face of
broken pledges won’t be easy to back down from.
She also backs keeping Defence spending at 2% of GDP which I thoroughly
agree with, although I would prefer more tough talk on Russia and IS. You may gather from this that my instincts
are leaning towards Liz as my candidate.
Things may turn out that way, but whoever takes over the leadership of
the Labour Party has big shoes to fill.
I remember watching the TV when the results came in back in
1997. I was too young to understand the
implications of the win, but I got caught up in the excitement bordering on
ecstasy all the same. What happened
since then? PFI contracts. Two shags Prescott. Millennium Dome fiasco. Mandelson Scandals. Cash for honours. Greasing Bernie Eccleston’s palm. Detention
without trial. Torture Flights. Record spending. Hubristic boasting about curing capitalism
from it’s ills. And then there was the
Iraq War, which with me the jury is still out.
But alongside this we have the many good elements of those 13 years
including the Good Friday Agreement, stopping ethnic cleansing in the former
Yugoslavia, the minimum wage and support for former nurses going back to
work. To be sure memories of New Labour
are mixed at best so the question remains if we go back it’s legacy as Liz
Kendall seems to be leaning towards, what should we take away from it? More importantly what should we leave behind
in the past? To my mind the Labour Party while keeping it’s eye on the centre
ground needs to look back on it’s past with more pride, not embarrassment. Too many times I have talked to Blairites who
talk about the Corbyn’s of this world like they are their drunk uncle’s who one
can find lurking at the back of the room during a wedding. Like it or not they allowed Labour to get
where it is and it’s identity today does owe something to them, even if their
stake on it is more tenuous than it used to be.
While I recognise New Labour/Blairism’s advantages I am worried that
it’s most devoted followers are not aware or willfully ignorant of it’s
limits. PFI schemes in particular are
starting to look more like an embarrassing legacy. Sooner or later too there will have to be a
reckoning between Labour and it’s earlier worshiping for the money lenders in
the temple of the City of London.
Holding those vested interests to account is not the same as advocating
socialism and Blairites should not run away from tough but constructive
regulation for fear of scaring away a few voters here and there to the
Tories. Our economy cannot indefinitely
rely on this one lucrative though fragile sector, the reckoning needs to be
faced and not postponed again. It is not
enough for the followers of New Labour to think they can mimic Tory policies
indefinitely. Sooner or later genuine innovation
will have to take hold and the private sector won't hold all of the answers.
As for me I have a big decision to make. Do I stick with the shattered remains of the
Lib Dems or do I cross the aisle to the Labour Party? This is not an easy decision for me. I have invested a lot of time with the Lib
Dems, and met a lot of good people who I cannot bring myself to think ill
of. Despite the smearing (and it is for
the most part smearing) by Labour and other people with an axe to grind against
the Lib Dems after the coalition, I still believe they went into this arrangement
for the most part with the best of intentions.
Being incredibly naïve is not the same as wanting to cause harm and this
view of mine won’t change regardless of the outcome of my decision regarding my
political allegiance. On the other hand
I can’t ignore that the Lib Dems have been hit hard and won’t be back on it’s
feet for many years if at all. That is
too long for the people who will be effected by the policies of this
government. I feel a need to be in the
main fight and not knipping at the heals.
I have no illusions about Labour’s faults. The party is far too arrogant, centralised
and machine like by far. It is too willing to trade off precious civil
liberties for the cause of security. The
recent clampdown on peaceful protesting started under Blair and has got worse
under the Tories. And yet I feel like
after many things my party supported in the coalition a need to atone for
hardship caused by among other things this ill conceived and unethical crusade
known as welfare reform under Ian Duncan Smith.
Something will have to give. I
will make this decision with a heavy heart shortly.
No comments:
Post a Comment