A brief series where, for my own amusement (and possibly ensuring I never work for the Labour Party again), I set out the case against each of the Leadership candidates. The eleventh commandment of internal elections is “Never speak ill of a fellow party member”. It gets broken just as regularly as the other ten, but I shall try to be constructive, not merely critical.
I planned to make the entirety of this post a link to the result of the 1983 General Election.
Thinking about this, I realised I’d be letting my own rejection of Diane Abbott’s agenda stop me from saying anything interesting.
The truth is, Diane Abbott is not running to be leader of the Labour Party.
She has the support of approximately 15 MPs, is only on the ballot paper because David Miliband’s campaign team wanted her there and has the support of few constituencies and even fewer unions. This is not a recipe for victory. I have a greater chance of being Labour leader in my lifetime than Diane Abbott does.
The fiction that Diane is running for leader is one that has to be maintained by both her campaign and the media. To do otherwise would make her candidacy impossible to explain in hustings and interviews.
I'm lucky, I don’t have to pretend.
What Diane Abbott is really running for has many names, but no official title. It’s the mantle of Nye, the leadership of the left, the Benn inheritence.
The ambition is to be the face and figurehead of a resurgent, campaigning left inside the Labour party, helping to break the grip the centre and right of Labour have had on the party since the conversion of Neil Kinnock to the path of moderation.
If you’re considering voting for Diane, my guess is that this prospect sounds pretty attractive.
So the case against supporting her has to be that she’d be a diasaster in that role.
The next few years are a major opportunity for the Labour left.
Labour has just lost office thanks to a crisis in capitalism and the failure of the Labour centre-right to respond to that crisis it in an electorate pleasing way.
As a result, we have a government which will run an anti-public services, anti-social spending, anti-housing benefit and welfare agenda, while pursuing policies that will, at the very best, slow the decline in unemployment.
For the first time in a generation, the left could have a coherent intellectual and electoral argument. If the face of the left is Diane Abbott, that argument will be less likely to be seriously.
First, Diane Abbott is grounded in the discredited and failed eighties left. She’s never really managed to graduate from that particular fight. The left needs a leader who isn’t defined by years of irrelevance.
Second, the left needs converts. Diane Abbott is not someone who’ll make many friends inside the Labour Party. She’s been an MP for over twenty years, and many of her colleagues, left or right, dislike her on both a personal and political level.
Third, she’s easily badged as a hypocrite.
Fourth, she’s a dreadful media performer under anything more than light scrutiny. She’s good with the faithful, and gives a good (sometimes even brilliant) speech, but she is abrasive, evasive and hectoring in a tough press interview.
Finally, for the left, the challenge of the next few years is primarily an economic one. The left needs answers on jobs, deficits, pensions, benefits, pay and housing. Diane Abbott offers little other than sloganising on these issues. Compare and contrast Livingstone on housing, or John McDonnell on taxation of the super rich.
There is a major chance for the left of the Labour party to grow, if it wants it.
The old right and New Labour inheritors are divided, a little bemused and comparatively organisationally weak (though Labour first is doing the hard work well, as ever) , while the centre is willing to please the party and listen to it’s concerns.
With the right leaders, the left could well provide intellectual and organisation inspiration to the wider movement.
Diane Abott is the wrong leader for that role. In fact, the best thing the left of the Labour Party could do is consign the likes of Abbott, Corbyn and McDonnell to the past, honoured and praised but ultimately ignored.
Instead they should focus on developing a new generation of strong voices for whom the chance to stridently oppose the government, challenge their own party to be more radical and win applause from party members will be attractive. Most of these won’t be in Westminster – they could be council leaders, or trade unionists, or simply fluent, passionate activists.
The challenge for the left isn’t winning this leadership election, it’s becoming strong enough to ensure that in conference, NEC and shadow cabinet, it’s people and ideas are taken seriously.
So if you really want a stronger left in the party, why not vote for Ed Miliband, who’ll at least listen to you, and might concede ground on party democracy and policy that is important to you.
Alternatively, be cynical and vote for David Miliband, so you can look forward to the Bevanite backlash his politics will create.
Please, though, don’t let Diane be the leader of the left. She’ll ruin it for you.
Hopi Sen also blogs here.
By
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
My comments here are as a lay member of the public(to politics)and a loyal supporter to Labour; although severely tested by the decision to go to war in Iraq.
I agree with what you say about a need for a resurgence of the left of centre;(to me these are Labour values, and why I've always voted Labour.)I feel like I've been waiting for too long to have my party back....it's almost unrecognisable.
Also, that a failure/absence of this element to challenge the "crisis of capitalism" during New Labour years?
I am totally frustrated by NL's move to the centre ground/right;
it may explain why the ground was partially laid for the Con/Dems to do what they are doing to public services and the "welfare state?"
So I'm certainly not resting all my hopes on candidates like Diane or any other member for that matter.
What I'd like to envisage is a united front of all wings of the party, and especially including the left and the unions as having a prominent voice.
My ideal would have been Jon Cruddas; but there are many talented backbenchers too which don't seem to have had a look in?
Thankyou, Jo.
Disagree. Nobody was asking anyone to sacrifice their child, this is overly dramatic we are not asking her to place his son on a sacrifical alter.
The question is about ones faith in ones own party and ones own self in Parliament. The simple fact remains that Diane by her actions made it very clear she had no faith in the school system that the majority rely on being run under a the previous Labour Government. I do not blame her after seeing the Minister in question on Newsnight, I would not let my children near him or any school he was running.
The real question is that had the Labour Government got it right on education would Diane then send her child to public/state school?
I think the reality is Diane recognises the probabilities that if your goes to an ordinary school your child has no chance whatsoever with the exception of extreme fluke of getting anywhere in the establishment.
Ironically the odds of success for we mere ordinaries and our children is much less than it ever was as a consequence of the Labour Governmnet.
Diane was being pragmatic and it was not a question of her idealogical positioning as an MP she was powerless to affect the decision making process of the executive with whom she was frequently in conflict as it was.
The reality is that her ideas on schools were pretty much irrelevant as irrelevant as yours or mine.
She simply wanted her son to have the best chances in a situation she had no control or influence over.
When you have a closed executive on a Council or Parliament the non-executive members are simply voting fodder and have no say.
Diane I am sure would have loved to have seen her local state school and it's problems sorted out and for the children attending to have as much chance of going to a top University one day as any other. But that is not the way it is, is it?
13 years of Labour in Power has ultimately failed to address this and we still do not live in anything like a meritocracy.
Labour and Conservatism in Parliament are now focused on the privalaged before and beyond anyone else, commencing with themselves which has been proved by their actions and polices time, time and time again.
Not sure if this is directed at me or T.Williams.
I totally agree that politicians shouldn't sacrifice their childrens future to further their own aims.
In Diane's case, it seems to me that for a left winger to hold this against her means they end up backing someone else they don't want more. So a tad illogical.
For someone on the right, it strikes me that they should percieve that behind the rhetoric there is a pragmatic side.
As for the folks currently either part of, or aspiring to be part of the executive in the future. I agree with you.
It seems to me that currently the only people able to hold them to account, and only when they disagree with each other, are the European institutions, or the devolved ones. It should be the electorate.
Although I don't agree with the politics of either, Ken is a different animal who has a great deal of experience of actually administrating (i.e. doing things), which means he is the only heavyweight left standing on the left. But, because he's shrewder than her, he's passed on this one.
I don't think this is about just one person leading the party; it's also about drawing together all talents and diverse views; not just the "NL" faction.
She is also a very experienced MP, and a canny media commentator.
I think she has wide appeal well outside of the Westminster bubble, and that could potentially bode well with the electorate.
Teamed up with someone like Ed M or other more prominent figures; she could add "substance" and appear human like the rest of us...
Just saying!
Jo
So: 1. Diane, 2. Ed Milibrother, 3 -- oh, anyone really. So long as it's 5. Ed Balls. (Sorry, Ed.)
Oh, and PS: How despicable and cowardly it would have been if she had sacrificed what she believed to be the best thing for her son -- regardless of whether she was right, which no-one can know better than her -- on the shabby altar of her political career and the party's PC thought police! She did the brave thing and should have earned our respect for doing it.
The crux of the matter is that Abbott exercised an option in respect to her own flesh and blood that she wanted and still wants to deny to others.
This IS arch hypocrisy.
It DOESN'T deserve respect.
She has stated many times the choices for education in her local borough at the time were dreadful.
Her personal reasons were that she didn't want her son exposed to a "gang culture" at that time.
Which parent wouldn't find the best choice available if they had the means?
Yes- it is a privelege- but one doesn't sacrifice their children for political beliefs.
She now says things are much improved;(is it Hackney?)Therefore she may have made a different choice.
Life just isn't simple.As parents we have to find the best we can for our kids.
I have always supported our local schools; but if the choice was well below par, I'd be forced to look elsewhere.
I think the key is: put total priority and resources into education for the benefit of all.It's still patchy in places; but it could get a lot more so with free schools etc.
Well said Jo.
Diane comes out of this much better than say someone like John Gummer force feeding his daughter a burger when he must have known the evidence of the dangers of BSE meant he was risking her health.
Or Viscount Stansgate renouncing his title when he had a son to inherit it from him.
It didn't stop the ex-Viscount being a standard bearer of the left.
Jo.
Somehow I don't think he'll do that because he isn't as bad as I've just painted him on so many other things ;)
All that nonsense about being forced to send her son to a private school to prevent him becoming a "gang member" is absolute rot and should be recognised as such by any semi-intelligent person. How can any sane person possibly accept as factual a cartload of horse manure like that? As an aside is Diane Abbott implying that some or all of the other boys and girls in her area are destined to end up as criminalised gang members because they can't go "private" and have to attend one of those revolting state schools she considered to be so utterly unworthy of her own flesh and blood? If so what does all this say about how state schools have prospered and evolved during the last thirteen years of New Labour government and the twenty-three years she served as Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington?
Diane Abbott is an entirely ridiculous unprincipled person.
The fact anyone would actually vote for this lady in a contest for the Labour Leadership says a lot about the membership of the Labour Party, why it lost the last election, and why it looks set to be out of power for many years. Possibly forever. You Labour types really do amaze me sometimes!
I'm assuming she can speak for her own experiences, whether believed or not?
The fact is- she was and is living in a deprived area of the East end of London. She was a single parent, but had the means to find the best available school for her son.
What parent wouldn't?
MP's are human beings like the rest of us.
And as for all the other stuff you've thrown in; I find incredibly rude and patronizing.
However John I think you will find that the only sin that a Labour politician will never be forgiven on this site is agreeing or god forbid working with a Tory politician.
It seems to me that the Labour Party has gone mad in its grief after losing the last election so comprehensively and so badly. According to Labour it's a bad thing that David Cameron went to Eaton College and that most of the government's front bench were privately educated. Judging by past jibes made against the Prime Minister by poor old Gordon Brown (remember him?) and his motley crew of cronies Mr and Mrs Cameron did a terrible thing when they sent Master David to such an exclusive public school. On the other hand when Diane Abbott betrays everything she purportedly stands for in respect to class and education by sending her own son to a private fee-paying school that particular lady isn't behaving "hypocritically" but is acting "courageously" by putting the future "life chances" for her child ahead of her own avowed moral cause and principles.
I've got to say that Ms. Abbott's explanation vis-a-vis having to send her boy to a private school to prevent him from becoming a "gangsta" is one of the funniest, most ridiculous and weakest excuses I've ever heard used by anyone, anywhere, about anything. It really is hilarious. Certainly he explanation beats the "a dog eat my exercise book" excuse I tried to use, when I was ten(!), to try to wriggle out of a penalty for not doing my homework the evening before!
Surely a political leader should be one of the best, most accomplished, charismatic and inspirational individuals available from within a political party to fill a role that crucial? Is Diane Abbott really one of the best that the Labour Party has to offer? Having achieved catastrophe under the half-human Gordon Brown why would anyone want to repeat the same experience again by voting for the utterly hopeless and discredited Diane Abbott? The only thing I can say in favour of her is that she makes me laugh!
I agree with your comments on what a "political leader should be," John- but please tell me, where this applies to anyone working at Westminster or the current culture?
My ideal of a politican disappeared long ago.
On a general note, I also get the impression the Tories/rightwing tabloids are rather resistant to the idea of Diane A, Ed B, and possibly Ed M. Wonder why that could be?
She hasn't committed a crime, merely made the best educational choice for her son whilst living in a socially deprived neigborhood.It's not ideal, but as has been said earlier, MP's as humans would act like any other parent.
Maybe that in itself took some courage.
I note that other MP's are not so villified for their personal lives.
As Ralph says, there are much bigger issues to be focusing on.
Nah,
I could not care less where Cameron sends his children to school.
Totally irrelevant. Bigger problems to think about ;)
I'm not going to vote for Diane, but she has always been very open as to why she made the decision, and given that her son is now 18, it was made well before the improvement in some of the schools in that area. The very polarised nature of inner London isn't helpful, though, and that was one very good reason for having the old ILEA which could take an overview and treat inner London as what it effectively is - a single geographical entity with a huge range of people
agreeing with so much of what you say.
In fact you may have persuaded me to vote for Diane on principle alone.(I have been intending to vote for Ed M as first choice.)
So it may be:
1.Diane A; 2.Ed M; 3 and 4-David M and Andy B; 5.Ed B-
(although greatly impressed by role in opposition on education- really "socking it" to MG.)
I'm rather disappointed by the attitude expressed about Diane
across the media.
She is the least associated with the past administration, and machinations of NL. She also speaks her mind!
I base this view on conversations I've had with people locally, and family and friends. She comes up time and again as the favourite, amongst people who have a range of political or non political views. People have said to me they like her personality, warmth, and independence of mind.
She doesn't just tow the party line either.
It would be so refreshing to see her getting wider support.
I'm really sorry- but I think you're being very unfair towards Diane.
I do respect your opinion and personal preference, but believe views and perception are very different amongst the public.
Sorry I've got limited time today(and it's late;) but will try to add more over the next few days.
Thankyou- Jo.
Well, of course, you're entitled to a totally different opinion to mine - that's all my view is, an opinion, and although obviously i think I'm right, on something like this, it's impossible to be certain.
Though Iwould suggest that the limited polling evidence we have suggests that even the public do not find Diane an attractive candidate. Though it is, of couse very limited data.
I'll try to add more later next week if I can get the time; it's the school holidays!
Jo
Jo.
Impressive contribution Brian. Good on you fella and agreed on the policy aspect.
I will vote for Diane because, out of the options we are presented with, I think she would be the best leader. I will give my second preference to Ed Miliband because I think he would be second best. It's a rather surprising, simplistic approach, isn't it? But believe it or not, I suspect most people will take a similarly simple approach to where to cast their votes.
She wouldn't have been my first choice. I would have preferred McDonnell. She won't be 'THE leader of the left'; we will see a variety of people coming forward at this time, working alongside and in concert with the experienced organisers and thinkers like McDonnell, Corbyn and, indeed, Diane, Livingstone, etc.
I think you shall hear a lot more from people like Katy Clark in the coming years. There are plenty of young people currently outside of parliament who might well progress in a more democratic setting. And I believe Diane is the leader who would be most likely to bring us that more democratic setting, followed by Ed Miliband.
So - whether it's just for who I think would be the best leader (with the best policies) or whether it's who I think would produce the best environment for the growth of the left, I'm voting Diane Abbot 1, Ed Miliband 2.
So please can we have it for MPs? Yes it is not PR but a good step in the right direction
OK, if it's wrong, explain to me how Diane Abbott wins this election. Remember, she could not muster the support of even half the MPs needed to nominate - she is only on the ballot because the likes of David Miliband, Harriet Harman and Jack Straw nominated her.
The answer is, she can't. Diane is not stupid, and knows this, though obviously she can't admit it. I don't understand why anyone else would choose to ignore the obvious though.
The Campaign Group was decimated at the election: most of it retired, some were defeated. To be left with Kelvin Hopkins wittering on about "rolling back Thatcherism" as if we're still fighting the 1983 election is pitiful and pitiable.
Whether or not you choose to "ditch" them, or they ditch you (on the basis that the ones you mentioned have either been in parliament or trying to get there for getting on for 30 years apiece and will retire sooner or later) your wing of the party is dying off.
The rational response to that is from your wing of the party would be to look rationally at that problem and start identifying a new generation. Because for all the new talent that came into the party in May - many of them with views akin to the old Tribune group - you aren't replenishing.
Personally, the sooner those who seek to stand as Labour MPs and then spend their term voting against the policies they were elected on die out the better. I'd like to see a thinking left rather than a knee-jerk one, but you haven't got either at the moment.
I would also say that there appears to be a healthy number of centre-left MP's and I think they are more likely to be the future direction of the left. Certainly, Labour must make it clear that the mistakes of the New Labour years are in the past.
I think Ed Miliband is the person who realises that and I hope that he will benefit from the transfers he appears to be gaining from other candidates, and from the union votes when the recommendations are sent out nearer the election
I beg to differ, I believe if a party was in the GE with centre left policies which blamed the markets for the recession the vote count would have been large
We were TOO timid in our condemnation of the markets and I heard at the hustings two candidates who recognised this
one was Diane one was Ed M.
I completely agree with everything else you have said !
the best model for me has always been a left sided policy that understood people's ambition
I Disagree with this post , You say she a hypocrite , But arnt all mps hypocrites ? what makes her mor of hypocrite than the others ?
Sorry , This is a post from the the New Labour lot that think the problem was the messenger , It wasnt it was the message . She has more crediblity than the former cabnat minsters (who are now saying they didnt really agree with the former leader) . Are we as a party afraid to have a womon leader ? Is it still Jobs for the boys ?
Danny
Depends on the particular issue in Cabinet lol.
But yes the school issue will haunt Diane though I do not know anyone who thinks she will win.
We have an acting female leader at the moment and we had Margaret Beckett historically too. I do not think anyone I know is afraid of a female leader in principle.
In terms of the leadership contest you are correct most of them have been very hypocritical in their deliberate positioning.
But yes, I am afraid it is more than likely jobs for the boys. The contenders seem to be more akin to Civil Service aspirants than politicans.
But that is ok politics left the PLP ages ago in favour of "modern" fast tracking and opportunism. You do not need a policy position to qualify now just ambition and total subservience to the whip.
Even now we are embarressed further as we witness disagreements in Cabinet between the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor over the costing of Trident.
They may well disagree but at least the public can see some democracy and this will make GB's and TB's Cabinets appear repressive thus giving ammunition to the idea of a "new politics".
We are being out-maneuvured completely by our opponents who are sticking to their idelogy, the ideology of Conservatism and the Right whilst appearing to be more democratic and open.
Cameron really, really wants that landslide in the next one and if he can rebuild the public trust that New Labour has only disdain for, then he will have it. People love humble politicians they abhor arrogant ones.
If Cameron can maintain it......
Eh? There was plenty of Labour Cabinet disagreement, especially under Blair - just google for {Labour "Cabinet split"}. I don't think the public ever welcomed it as a sign of a healthy democratic process.
I stand corrected. I concede the point. However in terms of the position of the leaders (ex-Cabinet) on issues now and then it goes to show then what their actual positions were.
Thanks Thomas for putting me right.
Hope you are well
I agree with what you say , Robust debate is what cabnat isabout . The period of "sofa goverment" got us into this mess ,Instead of grandstanding and spinning ( av referendum ) , Stick to princeables, If we had stuck to labour policys instead of new labour policy the party would not be in this mess , I think Diane would be a good leader for the party and would appeal to all voters , If America can elect a black president , Can our country elect a Black female Prime minster?
Danny
I think the problem lies with power and money Ricki which basically meant they took their own policies and cashed them in lol.
We had a heck of a time getting a Welshman elected and so I have no idea on black Prime Ministers lol!
The Left incidently is nothing to be ashamed of or embarressed about many of the "ridiculous" polices they advocated pretty much ended up coming to pass ironically, such as public ownership of the banks. How ironic....
As for me I embrace the Left and the Central position and as Hazico points out time and again, that is pretty much what people vote for.
It is about money Ricki but it is also about quality of life and many people would like to make money and have some of the quality too.
Quality life as in good Council Services, safe neighbourhoods free of intimidation and a clean environment for today and the future. They also want direction and a little vision so that they can understand what politicians are planning or intend to plan for the future.
So it is really easy to see why so many people are jarred off with MP's who were, quite frankly, more concerned with lining their own pockets and did not even recognise there were any problems at all.
The good news is that the public hung Parliament, they did it as a collective without any central organisation and punished the Party's for their lack of reason, policy and their lack of ethics.
A very brave and interesting article. I think you should have used the Millibands as comparatives without actually asking people to vote one way or the other.
Very good though Hopi and as I said very brave. To have important debates we have to challenge things in such a manner sometimes and I think you have done that well.
You airily dismiss the likes of McDonnell as 'part of the past' - when he's more outward looking and forward thinking than most MPs on all wings of the party - yet offer nothing, policywise, and no one, personally, as a better alternative. And the fact remains that the centre and right are the ones who lack the analytical tools to make sense of the post-2008 economic reality and post-2010 political reality (see Ed Balls lambasting Tory education policies, rightly, but without acknowledging his own role in preparing the ground for this type of policy; or Miliband D pitching for the "we wish it was still 1997" vote. Abbott's not the ideal candidate but her voting record at least shows some sounder judgment than the other candidates.
I do agree, though, that the leadership is in many ways less important than refreshing and re-energising the whole democracy of the party, from candidate selection to how conference is run. And I'd like to hear more from the candidates on this, beyond tokenistic party chair elections.