Leadership conundrums

WTF is going on with the Labour Party? While Ed's seat at Labour central was still warm, the first of the 'contenders' leapt out of the blocks on the ‘b of the bang’. 'Indecent haste' doesn't even seem to do it justice.

The campaign for the leadership has been sullied already by the appearance of The Blairites and New Labour acolytes who have been omnipresent on tv and in the press over the past few weeks. There has been no comprehensive analysis of why Labour lost so comprehensively, but  the message seems to be that it was the Ed Factor and the party’s move “too far to the left” under Miliband. They argue (consistently and in a very 'on message' style) , the party didn't 'reach out' to 'aspirational'* voters. It was, in this narrative, the middle class voters that made the difference. How do they know this? The simple answer is that they don’t. They’re making it up. I know that because as I’ve said, there has been no comprehensive analysis of what went wrong.

So the ‘problem’ was represented as ‘Ed is a lefty and a rubbish leader to boot’. My own view is that the problem was the sniping and dirty tactics that went on behind the scenes and the response should have been to run the nay sayers out of the party to let Ed get on with the job.

So the outcome is that we’re now in the throes of a leadership campaign that is as disappointing and dull as it’s possible to be. In the 3 weeks since the election, we’ve had hats thrown in and pulled out of the ring, social media campaigns and the hopefuls parading themselves in the mainstream media. There’s a palpable sense of dread emerging as people watch how the campaign is unfolding.

I know that this sounds really, really cynical but it looks to me as if the policy geeks at HQ are throwing out names to see which one gets the most 'bites' and then they're going to run with that name as the ‘Next Leader of Labour'.  

Faces of potential leaders are popping up all over the place with descriptions of what their 'special gifts' are. What disturbs me though is that some of those touted as front runners have not really been vocal advocates of labour principles.

The other thing that disturbs me is that there seem to be orchestrated campaigns that have been simmering for years – long before Ed even got started on his election campaign. A bit of me wonders if Ed’s years as leader were scuppered by people within the party, starting on the day that he was elected, as a punishment for ‘stabbing his brother in the back’. Putting it another way, was he punished for refusing to back down in favour of The Anointed One?

Anyway. Contenders.

It's like a fkn beauty parade. More Rose of Tralee than Miss World, admittedly. In this contest, looking good in the swimwear isn’t enough, the leadership hopefuls need to have a party piece too. The party piece need not be related to policies or principles or anything as base as that – having some perceived advantage over ChickenDave at PMQ or 'looking the part' seem to be the main criteria. Some of the early contenders didn’t actually say they wanted to join the race – they were thrown into it by anonymous campaigners.

Chuka Ummuna (unsurprisingly) nominated himself in a video, and with a speech that must have been in preparation before voting had started. In the few hours since the election results destroyed our dreams for another five years, Chuka magically happened upon half of the candidates who stood in marginal seats. He came up with the astounding revelation that 'middle class voters went tory and working class voters went UKIP'. His election strategy, political analysis and policy proposals were strangely absent.

Nice suit though.

Then he pulled out citing "an unwillingness to be subjected to uncomfortable scrutiny". This must have been a disappointment to Tony because he was touting Chuka as leadership material as early as December 2014. 'A friend' said that the "former PM sees Mr Umunna as a "natural heir" to his New Labour legacy"

Then the anonymous campaigns started.

Dan Jarvis has a 'death stare' apparently. That’s quite a gift but I am not sure what use it would be for a party leader. I’d never heard of him at all and then his name started appearing all over social media pages as the best possible candidate. The argument was that he has no ties with the previous Labour government, he has 'done something’ outside parliament (he is a former Paratrooper) and represents a Northern constituency. Therefore, the argument continues, he is untainted, has ‘qualities’ and will appeal to the voters.

Not so much untainted as invisible though. It matters not that he doesn't appear to have spoken on any national platform about anything.   

A naturally suspicious character, I couldn’t believe that people researched the whole Parliamentary Labour Party and narrowed it down to a relative newcomer with a limited profile. Google is your friend in these tricky situations. So I googled Dan Jarvis and, much to my surprise, I found that Dan’s name has been on a few lips since way back in 2012. Over the years, The Telegraph, The Spectator, Total Politics' Caroline Crampton, Bruce Anderson  (on ConservativeHome) and the New Statesman were all tipping him as the person to replace Ed Miliband, with some implying that he is the natural successor to Tony Blair. Note that the suggestion here is that a ‘natural successor to Tony Blair’ is just what the party needs. A bit odd to be planning the next leader before the newly elected leader has a chance to get his feet under the table and throughout his tenure as leader. Dan Hodges had some interesting observations about Dan Jarvis's elevation to the Leadership. 

So Dan’s campaign was launched without a single word from the man himself with a concerted effort on social media to promote him as a contender. Dan ruled himself out fairly quickly, for personal reasons. His withdrawal from a race that he was never in hasn't stopped near hysteria in some quarters about his 'leadership qualities' which apparently he must have because he was a soldier. He probably does have leadership qualities and he sounds like a thoroughly decent man. Given Dan Hodge's claims, I wondered if he 'withdrew' because he wasn't prepared to be used as a 'spoiler candidate' (or dead cat. If that's the case, perhaps 'integrity' should have been on the list of his attributes). 

The next anonymous campaign out of the blocks was Keir for Leader. Sir Keir Starmer, the high profile, popular and talented former DPP, was elected as MP for Holborn and St Pancras a mere 7 days earlier. The campaign founder "a disenchanted Labour supporter", said “I just have a belief that he [Starmer] wants the job but isn’t prepared to say so.” That's quite a statement... how do you develop such a belief without actually speaking to the person that you're talking about? The campaign, got off to a flying start, attracting national media attention within a few days of its launch.  Even the bookies reported interest. In fact, the Keir for Leader campaign sounded a wee bit like the earlier Dan Jarvis Campaign. 

While Sir Keir's Starmer's talents are beyond question, we know nothing about his aspirations for the labour party. Is he a dyed in the wool socialist or of the New Labour persuasion? How would he transform the Labour Party's fortunes? Does he even think that the party's fortunes need to be transformed? 

It seems a bit odd to me that another ‘unknown’ (in the parliamentary sense) manages to get national media attention, without even declaring an interest. Have you ever , as an ordinary person, tried to get a story in the national media? It’s not easy. A network of contacts seems to be the key. 

The ‘Keir for Leader’ campaign commanded a spamlike influence on social media to the point where people who like him and might have given the idea the benefit of the doubt, began to get weary of the sound of his name. 

Sir Keir thanked the anonymous campaigners for their interest and also withdrew from a race that he had never entered. That didn't stop his supporters though and they're still campaigning. Watch this space - I think there is more of this story to come.

Then there was the spectre of ‘The Return of David’. It hasn’t really gathered much steam so far but there has been much discussion, particularly on social media,  about how David’s return would galvanise the party and the electorate. It might galvanise a lot of us into other parties.

Then, all of a sudden there was a flurry of activity and the ‘big hitters’ threw their hats in the ring. Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Mary Creagh and Liz Kendall all launched their campaigns and to be honest, it’s hard to distinguish between them. Well, to be fair, Andy is a man. Aside from that, it’s hard to distinguish between them. If I was to sum up their collective contribution to the debate it would be ‘aspiration’. I’ve no idea what they mean by that but they keep saying it so it must be important. More of that another time.

Now as I said, I am a naturally suspicious character so it all seems a bit odd to me. As far back as 2011, we have commentators joining the rush to replace Ed as leader. In December 2014, we have influential Labour members discussing names and, while not actually condemning Ed, they were certainly using their influence to destabilise his leadership. You’ll probably remember that Alan Johnson was also rumoured (by the usual suspects) to have been approached to stand for the leadership way back in September 2014, although he also quickly ruled himself out.

I think what I am trying to say is that there was a drip drip drip of negativity around Ed’s leadership. While the campaigns didn’t amount to anything inside the Labour party in terms of a change of leadership, they did sow the seeds of doubt about Ed. The negativity emanating from within the party did enough to create the image of a man who couldn’t even command the respect of his own side. 

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it has been anything other than an organised campaign and that the campaign has been led by some of the New Labour old guard. It’s also hard to avoid the conclusion that losing the 2015 was an acceptable, maybe even desirable, outcome in a longer game - to reinstate New Labour at the helm of the party.

Each time a name floats to the surface, ‘friends’ of Tony and Peter seem to be implicated. As we know from the New Labour years, there are no accidents when it comes to communicating with the press.

It all seems slimy, dirty and underhand to me.

The leadership campaign so far hasn’t gripped the nation. I don’t see anyone getting excited. There’s nothing radical in any of the candidates – they all seem to be standing on platforms that were written by committees who aren’t really behind them. I suspect that before the nominations close, we’ll have a ‘surprise’ candidate. That person will be a surprise to us but not to the people who have been beavering away behind the scenes for 4 years. I don't think that the new leader, if they're not blessed by the Blairites, will have an easy ride. If we don't get their hero elected this time, watch out for a new campaign in a few years. Maybe one featuring Dan Jarvis and Sir Keir Starmer.

*watch out for more ‘aspiration’ later