Whom shall I vote for (Part 2)

As nominations have now closed, and actual voting will soon begin, it is time to make my mind up.  Here is my latest thinking - and the conclusion I have reached.

I had hoped that the various “hustings”, especially the BBC tv version, would clarify where the various candidates stood on the issues that interest me.  Unfortunately, these events have not been very helpful, partly because the candidates mostly tended all to give the same answers, and partly because the right questions were not asked (or, if they were, they were not reported). 

These are the criteria that I think are important.

Principle or expediency

A fundamental question, which applies to the Party as a whole and not just the Leader, is whether the Party should simply seek to please the voters by advocating policies that will be popular, or whether it should try to persuade the voters to support the Party’s policies – even if they are initially not very popular. This is at the heart of the debate about why Labour lost, and whether the Party has to reoccupy the “centre ground” (wherever that is).  I didn’t join the Labour Party simply in order to be in power but in order to use that power to change the world.  If in order to win power you have to advocate policies you don’t believe in (and then implement them), then there is no point in being in power.

So an important criterion for the Leadership election is to what extent the candidates stick to their principles, and to what extent they would sacrifice principles to expediency.

Character and record

It goes without saying that the Leader should be of good character – i.e. not be a fraud or serial liar (like some political leaders we could name).  None of the candidates gives concern on this score, but there is an issue of consistency.  People are entitled to change their mind (especially if the facts change, as the great man said), and their views may evolve, but if the youthful left wing firebrand becomes a middle aged conservative, one must question their judgement and reliability.   

Policy spectrum

The Leader does not decide Party policy, but he/she is very influential and can effectively block policies they disagree with (Callaghan did this).  So it is important to know where candidates stand on basic left/right issues.  I would not support a candidate who would revert to Blairism or repudiate the whole of the Corbyn legacy.

Constitutional reform

For me this is a critical – indeed the most important - issue.  I want to see our next Leader commit to fundamental constitutional reform, including proportional representation for Westminster elections.

Labour Party reform

I have always believed that the Party should be controlled by its members.  However, until the 2014 Collins Review, the Constitution was carefully written to ensure that the Party hierarchy was able to outmanoeuvre the grass roots activists and prevent them from imposing policies or selecting candidates that they didn’t agree with.  The adoption of “one member one vote” (OMOV) for the Party Leader in 2014 has partially changed this, but it needs to go further.  In particular, we need automatic open selections for Parliamentary candidates, as well as reform of the constitution of the NEC.

Brexit

Although this is now a dead issue, the record of the candidates during the recent debate is a test of the judgement and basic values of the candidates.  I would struggle to support a candidate who voted for Remain in the referendum but failed to oppose Brexit in Parliament – e.g. by not supporting a second referendum. 

Response to Jewish Labour Movement (JLM)

While all reasonable efforts should be made to accommodate any legitimate concerns of the JLM, this should not extend to outsourcing the Party’s disciplinary processes.  If there are inadequacies or unnecessary delays, these should be dealt with, but we cannot have a situation where non-members of the Labour Party are deciding who can be a member of the Party.  It should also be clarified that Israel’s legal “right to exist” only refers to the pre-1967 borders.

So how do the candidates measure up?  

(At this point I would comment that it is very disappointing that the Party has not circulated full details of the candidates, including CV and personal statement.  The Party does this for NEC elections, and CLPs do it for Parliamentary selections – so why do Leadership candidates have to make their own arrangements (at considerable cost)?  As a result, I know very little about some of the Deputy candidates – other than what I have picked up from media coverage, Wikipedia and googling their names.

Rebecca Long Bailey

Working class Catholic background.  Studied politics and sociology at Manchester, then converted to qualify as a solicitor.  Worked for various law firms before being elected for Salford.  Generally left wing views.  Did a good job on the “Green Deal”, but possibly naive in defending everything in the 2019 Manifesto.  Supports open selection of Parliamentary candidates.  Favours House of Lords reform (not abolition) but nothing on electoral reform.  Voted for lifting the ban on abortion in NI.  Signed up to JLM demands on reforming Party’s disciplinary process and claimed to be a Zionist. Ambivalent on Brexit.  Opposed Labour campaigning for Remain in any second referendum.

Lisa Nandy

From Manchester political family, half Asian.  Studied politics at Newcastle, and worked in political and voluntary jobs close to Parliament.  Hammersmith Councillor. Said “we must listen to our (former) voters", presumably meaning  we must trim our policies to accommodate their socially conservative attitudes (e.g. stopping migration from Eastern Europe).  Opposed to open selection of Labour candidates.  Was campaign manager for Owen Smith in 2016 leadership election.  Refused to serve on shadow Cabinet under Corbyn.  Supported by JLM and claims to be a Zionist, while also supporting Palestinian rights (contradiction here?).  Although she voted for Remain, she opposed second Brexit referendum. Opposes PR for Westminster elections.

Keir Starmer

Working class parents, studied law at Leeds and Oxford.  Impressive CV, including civil rights barrister and DPP for 5 years.  Claims to be “unity candidate” and avoids criticising either Corbynite or Blairite policies.  However, not very clear where he stands on the L – R continuum.  Resigned from Shadow cabinet following PLP’s vote of no confidence in Corbyn. Strong Remainer, responsible for Labour’s “renegotiate and second referendum” policy in the general election, but advocated Labour campaigning for Remain.  Ambivalent on LP reform, esp open selections (probably would be swayed by MPs’ opposition).  Supports constitutional reform, including “federal” UK, but not committed to PR (says he would consult Party).

Deputy candidates

Angela Rayner.  Impressive CV – from 16 year old single mother to Unison regional officer to Labour MP.  Shadow Education minister – but no detail on policy.  Supported Corbyn in 2016 leadership election.

Ian Murray has made it very clear that he thinks Labour lost the election because its policies and its leader were too left wing, and the Party should therefore revert to “centrist” policies. I disagree with this approach and won’t support him. 

Richard Burgon.  From Leeds, Irish Catholic heritage, studied Eng Lit at Cambridge, then qualified as solicitor specialising in employment law.  Proposed Corbyn for leadership in 2015.  Voted against 2015 Welfare Bill and against bombing Syria. Shadow Justice Secretary. Supports Palestinian rights and refused to endorse all the JLM’s demands (esp outsourcing disciplinary process).  Favours greater democracy within the LP (but not clear whether this includes PR).  

Dawn Butler. From East London, Jamaican heritage. Worked as GMB equalities officer.  Inconsistent, stop-start political career.  Supported Burnham in 2015 leadership election, but joined Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, then resigned after voting against triggering Article 50. Later rejoined shadow cabinet as Equalities spokesperson.  Flaky (alleged, but not denied) record on Parliamentary expenses, support from Obama, strange views on Militant and trans issues.  But has made strong statement supporting constitutional reform, especially PR for Westminster elections.

Rosena Allin-Khan. Polish/Pakistani muslim heritage. Studied chemistry at Brunel university then medicine at Cambridge.  Worked as hospital doctor and then in A+E. Wandsworth Councillor. Impressive CV but no detail on her political views.

I have tried to summarise all this in a chart below (target is 5):

Obviously it would be facile to try to add points across (anyway you can’t add question marks) but I find the process helpful in focussing my thoughts.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, all this analysis does not lead to a clear conclusion.

None of the candidates for either post is ideal¹.  The choice really depends on what are the most important criteria.  For me this must be constitutional reform (including PR), but none of the Leadership candidates has unequivocally supported it.  Keir Starmer has given the most promising reply, and although he has not given a definite commitment, I have hopes that he will be able to overrule the PLP objections and get it included in the next manifesto.

Rebecca Long-Bailey scores well on Party reform (where Starmer is ambivalent), so she must be my second choice.

As far as the Deputy Leadership candidates are concerned, apart from Ian Murray, I think any of them would do a reasonable job (bearing in mind that it is not that important a post, as the Leader will allocate the portfolios).  Dawn Butler is the only candidate who has fully supported constitutional reform, so although I have reservations about her record and character, I will vote for her as my first choice.  Thereafter I think the preference order is Burgon, Rayner, Allin-Khan and Murray.

¹If only the PLP had nominated Clive Lewis, we might have had a candidate who fulfils all the requirements. He supported constitutional reform, including PR, automatic open selections, voted for Remain and for a second referendum, resigned from the Shadow Cabinet rather than vote to trigger Article 50, has a good record as an Afghan War veteran.  It is very disappointing that the PLP failed to nominate him - perhaps because he is too independent a thinker.  Sad.

  
©  2020  Robin Paice