Yesterday, nominations closed for the Labour Party
leadership and deputy leadership. The 5
candidates for each post now have to seek support from Constituency Labour
Parties and affiliates. This is my
initial assessment.
In the first place I am very disappointed that Clive Lewis
did not make it past the first stage. I
can only think that he must have personal issues with many of his colleagues,
as his record on constitutional reform, Labour Party reform, proportional
representation, the future of the monarchy, Brexit, university tuition fees and
much else would have made him a good candidate.
Possibly his support for open reselection of Labour MPs was what
alienated some of them. He also had the advantage
of being black and an army veteran, so it is to the discredit of the PLP that only four
of them were prepared to support him.
These are some of the issues that I think should determine
which candidate to vote for.
Constitutional reform
This is not a popular issue with the general public, but it
is fundamental to good government in the UK.
The Brexit debate exposed the inadequacy of the current British
constitution, and the First Past the Post voting system has now ensured that we
shall have a right wing Conservative government for 4½ years determined to
impose a hard Brexit despite opposition of 55% of the voters in the general
election.
As far as I know, none of the remaining candidates has a
clear position on this.
Labour Party reform
Despite the best efforts of Jeremy Corbyn key decisions on
policy and selection of candidates remains with the NEC, which itself is not
constituted on a democratic basis, and the role of ordinary members is
limited. I would like to see candidates
supporting reform of the NEC and automatic reselection of MPs.
Brexit
Although this is now a dead issue, the attitudes and conduct
of the candidates during the debate is still relevant. Did they do all they could to reverse the
referendum result – or did they acquiesce in it or even support it? How did they vote in the “indicative votes”
held last year? Did they vote for either
May’s or Johnson’s deals? Did they in
fact wittingly or unwittingly facilitate Brexit? This is a test of both their tactical
judgement and their underlying values.
There is a clear division here between Starmer and
Thornberry, who advocated a clear Remain position, and Nandy and Long-Bailey
who were either ambivalent or actually opposed a second referendum.
The manifesto and election campaign
What part did the candidates play in the horror show that
was the election campaign and the manifesto it was based on? Long-Bailey did well on “green” issues but
less well on defending the implausible promises made in the manifesto. She is also believed to be one of the
architects of the Brexit policy of renegotiating the deal (without declaring
whether she would support it) and putting it to a referendum. Nandy indicated that she would actually support
a deal that met certain requirements (i.e. soft Brexit). Despite being prominent frontbenchers Starmer
and Thornberry were sidelined during the campaign.
Left or Right? Or Unity?
All the candidates have indicated that the election defeat
does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater – code for
not abandoning the more popular policies in the manifesto (reversing austerity,
renationalising railways and public utilities, restoring local government,
investment in infrastructure and tackling climate change). At the same time some have said we should not
“trash the last Labour government”. We
need more detail from each candidate on what all this actually means. How did they vote on the Iraq War?
Those who claim to be the Unity candidate need to explain
how they would try to reconcile the conflicting views and how they would accommodate
the spokespersons of these views in their shadow cabinet.
Personal qualities
The character and record of the candidates is also
crucial. Starmer has a big advantage in
having proved himself in a big job (though he has been criticised for not
investigating the role of the Metropolitan Police in the “undercover policing”
scandal), whereas all the others had relatively undistinguished careers before
becoming full time politicians.
Thornberry has a reputation for being posh and snobbish (married to a
peer, that white vanman tweet) – probably unfair. Long-Bailey is not entirely convincing in
television interviews, esp on Brexit, where she seemed to be trying to defend a
carefully crafted compromise that she didn’t really believe in. Phillips manages to attract media attention
by making outspoken comments without having thought it through. Perhaps the
responsibility of office might cause her to moderate her language? Nandy seems very earnest, but does she have
the right values?
Current pecking order
So, taking all this into account, and assuming that all the candidates mange to get the necessary support from CLPs and affiliates, I am minded at present to
vote for the candidates in the following order:
Leader
1.
Starmer
2= Long-Bailey and Thornberry
4. Nandy
5. Phillips
Deputy Leader
1.
Rayner
2.
Allin Khan
3.
Butler
4.
Burgon
5.
Murray
No doubt all this will change when the campaign proper gets
under way and we find out more about them. We shall see.
© 2020
Robin Paice
No comments:
Post a Comment