Labour Conference 2010: Resist the cuts

Sunday 26th September, 19:00-21:00, Friends Meeting House

In a fringe event organised by the Labour Representation Committee, Tony Benn heralded Ed Miliband’s leadership victory as symbolising a “radical change in people’s attitude to politics” whilst John McDonnell MP warned that “New Labour hasn’t disappeared, it’s gone underground”.

There is a palpable sense of optimism on the left of the Labour Party, but this is tempered with exasperation at the lack of internal democracy. National Executive Committee member Christine Shawcroft described party structures as a “weapon used against its members” whilst Jeremy Corbyn MP attacked the “grossly unfair” way in which the party chooses its leader. Many on the left clearly feel disenfranchised following McDonnell’s failure to get on the leadership ballot and there is a growing thirst for a return to one member one vote selection. Furthermore, there is a real appetite for restoring democracy to conference, Constituency Labour Parties and the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The overriding message of the LRC was unequivocal – public cuts are unnecessary and will attack the poorest and most vulnerable in society. McDonnell championed resistance in partnership with the trade union movement and applauded their experience of organising and campaigning. He emphasised the need to promote realistic alternatives to ConDem cuts – such as the Robin Hood Tax or a Land Evaluation Tax. As McDonnell said:

Ed Miliband’s election is a golden opportunity for the left to get socialist ideas across... for the Labour Party to get elected at the next election they need to promote an alternative to government and that means opposing cuts.

The left therefore needs a robust and coherent programme to promote socialist policies. McDonnell highlighted the need to train a new generation of left-wing activists and “repopulate local government with socialist candidates”. Furthermore, the left needs to work closely with left-wing think-tanks such as Compass whilst also developing an independent socialist think-tank to produce policy recommendations and intellectual analysis. McDonnell cited the Left Economics Advisory Panel as an embryonic incarnation of a socialist think-tank.

Beyond this, the left needs to find new and innovative ways to publicise its arguments, campaigns and suggestions. McDonnell decried that the left couldn’t get an article in the Guardian even if they “kidnapped the editor and nailed his scrotum to the desk” and called for a left media network to promote an alternative vision.

Much of the rhetoric and arguments employed by the LRC are familiar, but McDonnell’s call for a socialist think-tank and a non-sectarian left media strategy represent a real and refreshing attempt to reinvent socialism for the 21st century. The left needs to look at how the recession has changed from being a critique of capitalism to a critique of public expenditure – but it will only succeed if it is intellectually robust and able to publicise its message.

Monday @ Conference

The long queues at security this morning reflected the excitement over how David Miliband would react to his leadership loss. He was also speaking about internationalism (billed as Britain’s place in the world, not foreign policy) along with Douglas Alexander (former Secretary of State for International Development) and Bob Ainsworth (former Defence Secretary). The proceedings and what they said can be read elsewhere. What I’d like to highlight here is the real motivational speeches of the conferences, which were delivered by Waihnin Pwint Thon, the daughter of a political prisoner in Burma, and Alan Ritchie and Gerry Doherty, General Secretaries of CATT and TSSA, respectively.

A brilliant film by Amnesty International preceeded Thon’s personal account of her father’s own imprisonment. This speech really brought to focus what the standing ovations should be for. They should not be reserved for failed leadership attempts or speeches of self-flattery, but brave campaigning around politically dangerous issues, and it was a sharp reminder that we should always be grateful (and not take for granted) our right of free speech.

One way we should use our free speech is to uncover the undemocratic structures within conference proceedings that limits the number of composites discussed on the conference floor. As described by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, "in the Priorities Ballot, CLPs are allowed to pick four priority issues for debate, and the Trade Unions also pick four. To maximise the number of important subjects that are debated the four subjects the CLPs choose should be different to the four subjects the trade unions choose. The trade unions’ four priority issues will automatically get on to the agenda, so CLPs should not waste their votes on the same topics, but vote for four different issues. That will ensure that at least some of the topics CLPs consider important will be discussed."

Unfortunately, this is not widely known, and as a result there were only five of the potential eight priority issues discussed at conference today. Even when someone asked a Labour official what issues the unions were voting for, a straight answer was not given.

Politicians were also not giving straight answers to questions put forward by union delegates about strikes around low-pay and T&C changes to public sector contracts. Our Labour MPs looked like they were on a daytime chat show, sat on red sofas, and skirting around questions.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great things about conference. They just tend to happen outside of the “security island” where normal people are talking sense. If this honest politics was televised, there would be much more engagement with the Labour Party from normal people. But as usual, the revolution will not be televised.

Labour Conference 2010: Campaign for Labour Party Democracy Rally

In a lively and well-attended Campaign for Labour Party Democracy rally Ken Livingstone heralded Ed Miliband’s victory as “the end of New Labour” and challenged the Labour left to win the economic debate within the party. Livingstone pledged to run his mayoral campaign “as a referendum that says ‘no more cuts’” and secure the mandate to protect public services and jobs within London.

Michael Meacher MP declared that David Milband had the support of both the New Labour establishment and New Labour money “but we still beat the bastards”. Meacher challenged the idea propagated by the media that Ed Miliband is beholden to the unions by citing his brother’s 147, 000 union votes in comparison to Ed’s 175, 000. Furthermore, Meacher contended that a trade union movement incorporating over 7 million people was much more representative and democratic than any of the mainstream political parties.

The CLPD – buoyed by having 19 candidates elected to the National Policy forum – laid down the gauntlet to Ed Miliband to secure a democratic party proud of its union link and prepared to trust its members. The broad left pledged to support and unite around Miliband but, at the same time, make demands and expand the area of debate. Kelvin Hopkins MP applauded Diane Abbott’s leadership campaign and praised her for “shifting the platform of debate to the left” by raising issues such as Trident and the re-nationalisation of the railways. Hopkins criticised “the Nuremburg rally style leadership” of New Labour and urged Ed Miliband to re-connect and re-engage with the party.

Chair of the NEC Ann Black criticised the leadership’s gerrymandering of selection processes as the CLPD called for conference to regain policy control. Mohammed Azam declared that widening engagement within the party can help attract black, minority and ethnic candidates – not to mention LGBT activists. Azam argued that only by engaging BME groups and responding to their needs can the Labour Party defeat the far right. Hence, widening the sphere of party democracy is not just about grassroot influence on policy and leadership accountability, it has wider implications on the fight against the BNP and EDL.

Hopkins and Meacher attacked ConDem economic policy and predicted that cutting state spending would increase the deficit as higher unemployment would result in a higher benefit bill and a fall in tax revenue. Both argued that Labour’s economic strategy should focus on taxing the rich and expanding the economy through investment. Meacher highlighted the 8000 people on the waiting list for council housing in Oldham and contended that the state is obligated to act when the private sector cannot provide for citizens.

Much of the rhetoric focussed on typical leftist bugbears with the private finance initiative dismissed as “a shameful episode” but Compass Youth Officer Kat Smith urged the left to learn from New Labour’s mastery of presentation in order to forward its aims. The CLPD are clearly optimistic about the future of the Labour Party, but the consensus that “New Labour is dead” may prove premature. New Labour may be terminally ill but it isn’t dead yet – and sometimes wounded animals have the worst bite. The Labour left will only succeed if it remains united, proactive and continues to articulate a credible alternative to monetarism.

Labour Leadership: Blair’s Leninist Legacy

Tony Blair will go down in history as the marmite Prime Minister. He will be canonised by many as the only Labour leader to win three general elections, but for many more his legacy leaves a bad taste in the mouth – the taste of betrayal, disdain and missed opportunity.

The spectre of New Labour threatens to overshadow the leadership contest. Five million voters have abandoned Labour since 1997 and many Blairite policies – such as top-up fees, foundation hospitals, creeping privatisation, Iraq and the flagrant disregard for civil liberties – haunt the minds of the electorate. But it is not just the Blarite policies which threaten to undermine Labour’s renaissance, it is the structure of power which New Labour fostered. Indeed, was it not for the democratic deficit within the party, many of these policy choices could have been avoided.

For decades many people on the left of the party have campaigned against the “democratic deficit” within Labour. Under New Labour that deficit became deep depression. Tony Benn’s biography, A Political Life, gives a frightening insight into the inner workings of the New Labour machine. Central to Blair’s mission was a desire to move away from the trade unions and cast Labour as ‘the natural party of business’. In an ironic echo of Leninist democratic centralism, Blair needed to concentrate the policy-making process in order to secure his economic agenda. Indeed, a leaked document drafted by Blair’s advisor Philip Gould called for ‘a unitary command structure leading straight to the leader’ with the leader as ‘the sole ultimate source of authority’. It could almost be an Orwell novel.

As a result, virtually every aspect of Labour policy-making was made top-down: constituency powers were substituted for ‘the dictatorship of the focus groups’, leadership prescribed shortlists for parliamentary candidates, party conference became a leadership rally and the National Policy Forum was established to buttress the party leadership from unwanted policy suggestions. As Tony Benn wrote:

I’m told that no cabinet minister has put in a paper since the 1997 election. What happens is the cabinet meets for twenty minutes or so, during which the PM or the Chancellor tells the ministers what their decisions are...

... It is not simply that the dialogue within the Parliamentary Labour Party has gone, or even that the dialogue between the government and the party has gone, but also that the dialogue within the cabinet has gone. In effect the checks and balances of the parliamentary system have all but disappeared, to be replaced by a presidential system.

Collective responsibility within cabinet was replaced by collective passivity and in its place emerged unelected and unaccountable bodies such as the Number 10 Policy Making Unit.

Blair’s willingness to do away with internal democracy and court big business may have endeared him to the establishment, but it also brings into question the legitimacy of our democracy. As the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm said in Age of Extremes, “The most convenient world for multinational organisations is one populated by dwarf states or no states at all”. In short, pander to big business and they, not the people, become the kingmakers.

Many of the leaderships candidates have sought to revise their Blairite collusion – particularly on the subject of Iraq – but none of the contenders (with the exception of Diane Abbott) have questioned internal policy-making or championed increased democracy. Abbott makes a powerful point by highlighting the similarities between her opponents but this is reflective of the narrow field from which they were drawn.

Engaging with grassroots and Future Leaders is all well and good but unless the politicisation of membership challenges centralised power structures then the party will become an electoral anachronism. Without the mutually responsive link between the leader and CLPs the party will remain aloof, distant and alienated. Without the input of working people Labour loses its raison d’être.

All the leadership contenders have undergone a fast-track political apprenticeship over the last few months. Their political rite-of-passage must not be forsaken, however, with power centralised around the new leader. The Labour Party must become a broad coalition of talent with a unified aim to defeat the government. Labour supporters must join with groups like the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Grassroots Labour to fight for a party that listens, not just to its members, but to the public. The Labour Party needs an accountable leadership that responds to movements from below rather than giving orders from above. With any luck, next time there’s a leadership contest, all sides of the party will be represented and everyone’s vote will count.

Government's Plan to 'Divide and Rule' TUC

Francis Maude’s appearance on the Today Programme – timed to coincide with the TUC conference in Manchester – is another example of the Tories’ ‘divide and rule’ strategy. Maude declared that the TUC and government should “form a real partnership” and promised that “we’re not going back to the days where there’s a complete stand-off between the trade unions and the government”. It sounded like an enticing olive branch from the Cabinet Minister – but look closer and the rotting branch is riddled with woodworm.

The Tories have already tried to ‘divide and rule’ the public sector by rolling out cuts across government departments. Public sector action is undermined by a combination of hope and fear: hoping that your job will be protected and fearing that if you fight for your job then you’ll be the first to go. All this is exacerbated by the obscenely high number of people on short-term contracts. In my local Jobcentre Plus, 60% of frontline staff are on fixed –term contracts. No-one has been given any indication that their contract will be extended – but as long as the uncertain prospect of renewal exists, people are incentivised to carry on regardless. Before they know it, it’s too late.

Maude’s revelation is a tactical masterstroke by the government. Firstly, it is a cynical attempt at making the Tories appear more reasonable than the unions. Evoking stark images of the 1980s – particularly when the Tories were to blame for most of the mess – is misanthropic scaremongering at its worst. Secondly, it is a carefully timed pre-emptive strike to undermine trade union solidarity. The trade unions remain restricted by Thatcherite legislation which prevents sympathy strikes, but today the TUC backed a proposal to co-ordinate future action.

In order to defeat the government, however, it is imperative that the campaign courts public sympathy. The latest government move is a shrewd attempt to fragment the trade union movement and demonise potential strikes. The TUC and anti-cuts movement must be equally shrewd in their response. The fight against government cuts requires physical mobilisation – co-ordinating trade unions, voluntary organisations and community groups simultaneously – but most of all it requires intellectual mobilisation in order to generate public support.

Protest itself is not enough because the conservative establishment will react against it. In order to win both the intellectual battle and public opinion, we must champion a realistic alternative to the government’s cutting agenda. We need to show that cuts aren’t simply unjust, they are deeply illogical and represent an inefficient way of dealing with the deficit. If we really are “all in this together” then we need to demonstrate how taxing banks and hedge funds won’t just help deal with the deficit, it will create a more egalitarian society.

Please support the Robin Hood Tax

Summary: Labour Leadership Special

Firstly, we’d like to say a big thank you to Claire, Stacey, Liza, Philip and Nick for their contributions to our Labour Leadership Special this week. Their fascinating insight has provided a really valuable source of debate and discussion.

Here’s a quick summary of the points and issues raised in each discussion:

• The exchange on Ed Miliband focused on his personality and opinion was divided as to his ability to relate to individuals and the electorate as a whole. It was argued that, of all the candidates, Ed was most easily able to combine electability with progressive values. People seemed attracted to Ed’s campaign for a Living Wage and many felt Ed was the most likely to attract votes from disaffected Lib-Dems.
  
  
• There was a general consensus that Ed Balls was a bullish and dogged politician, but opinion was divided as to his appropriacy to lead the Labour Party. Throughout the debate there was a clear respect for Balls’ economic nous, but many thought his aggressive style and presentation skills could make him an electoral liability. Regardless of the outcome of the leadership election, it is clear that Balls has established himself as a big beast of the party and has no doubt carved out a niche for himself as the Shadow Chancellor.
  
  
• David Miliband inspired the most controversial analysis of all the candidates. There was little dispute over David’s political and rhetorical aptitude, but he certainly elicited the most vehement dissent. Opponents focussed on David’s close association with New Labour and, in particular, the Iraq war. Many Labour supporters are uneasy at the prospect of the former Foreign Secretary leading the party and suspect him of covering up state torture. Having said this, David enjoyed the fiercest rebuttal from his champions and definitely had the most advocates of all the candidates. There is certainly extensive support in favour of David Miliband, but his victory threatens to divide the party.
  
  
• Philip’s advocacy of Diane Abbott was much more focused on policy than any of the other candidates. This helped differentiate her from the other four who are all closely linked to New Labour. For this reason, Diane Abbott could easily be characterised as the ‘opposition’ candidate – but her presence on the ballot undoubtedly broadens the area of debate. Although identified most strongly as the left-wing candidate, there was persistent concern regarding Diane’s decision to send her son to public school.
  
  
• Andy Burnham didn’t arouse as much discussion and debate as the other candidates and perhaps this suggests he lacks the profile to lead the party. Andy has acknowledged himself that he hasn’t received the same media attention as his rivals, but is this because he’s lead an uninspired campaign or is it because the media has been seduced by the experience of the other candidates? In response Andy has forged a grassroots campaign. He is a loyal politician and has conducted a robust fight against the privatisation of the NHS. As demonstrated by Newsnight’s focus group yesterday, he evidently impresses in person and can easily relate to individuals.
  
  

As a whole, the leadership race has focused on personality rather than policy. There is very little to separate the candidates on what they believe and how they have voted in the past (with the exception of Diane Abbott). The campaign itself has been relatively amicable and the lack of disagreement makes it very hard to differentiate between the candidates. The cordial and fraternal hustings promote the perception of a united party, but it would have benefited from a more combative polemic. It could also breathe new energy into the party. All contenders have made it clear that they want to build a new party, but it’s still unclear what this new party would look like. Only time will tell.

Now we’ve heard about all five rivals, what order are you going to place the candidates? Those brave enough to say, post below!

Andy Burnham: Labour Leadership Special

Andy Burnham is the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and was previously a Special Adviser on Culture, Media and Sport. Andy is a big fan of Everton FC – although Liverpool legend Jamie Carragher has contributed to his campaign fund.

Andy is being support by Nick Smart:

I think it's fair to say that at the start of this campaign, Andy was written off as something of an outsider with little prospect of becoming the next Labour leader. Yet within the space of 3 months, this situation has been turned on its head, and he's now a serious contender for the job. Why? Because as people up and down the country have had an opportunity to meet Andy and listen to his message, they've all come away with a shared realisation - he understands what people's lives are like, and he's 'one of us'.

Unlike other candidates, Andy wasn't born into politics, and it's through his own personal experiences that he has first-hand knowledge of how difficult it can be for kids without connections to get on in life. It’s because of this that Andy is pushing for policies such as making it compulsory for organisations to advertise work placements and internships, as well as fighting for every child’s right to go to university or into vocational training.

On a wider scale, Andy wants to help regular people who play by the rules but feel let-down by Labour in recent years. His manifesto, ‘Aspirational Socialism’, sets out his plans for levelling the playing field through policies such as scrapping stamp duty, creating a National Care Service, and the introduction of a National Credit Union administered through the Post Office network. I would encourage everybody with a vote to take a look at this manifesto before casting their ballot.

Throughout the campaign, I've had the opportunity to meet other people who are backing Andy, and it's increasingly clear that he's drawing support from across all sides of the Labour Party. He's very much a unity candidate and I believe he has the necessary attributes to take the party forward and win back the 5 million disaffected voters we've lost since 1997. In Andy's own words, he's neither New Labour nor Old Labour, but True Labour.

Do you agree with Nick? Does Andy have the profile and personality to lead the Labour Party? Will his Northern heritage appeal to Middle England? And how serious are his socialist credentials? Let us know what you think below.

Diane Abbott: Labour Leadership Special

Diane Abbott has the most parliamentary experience of all the leadership candidates. She has been an MP since 1987 and, before that, was a Labour councillor. She is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group and voted against the Labour government on issues such as the Iraq War, foundation hospitals, replacing Trident and tuition fees.

Diane is being supported by Philip Matusavage:

New Labour lost the 2010 election, having suffered the worst haemorrhaging of voters of any party in modern times. Yet much of the Labour Party has been telling us that we need more of the same. Four of the five leadership candidates are inextricably linked with the New Labour era which the public comprehensively rejected.

Only one candidate had the political wisdom and principle to actively oppose the Labour government when it was wrong. Much is made of Diane Abbott’s opposition to, for example, Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties and rightly so. However, of most importance is her passionate belief in a society which serves the many, not the few. Diane has always rejected the false distinction between the Labour ‘core vote’ and the ‘middle class’. However people are identified, she recognises that a government that works to reduce inequality and advance liberty is one which improves the whole of society.

Diane’s views are very much centre-left, and many of them (such as the renationalisation of the railways or ending Trident) are hugely popular across the country. She has also demonstrated, on issues such as Crossrail and 90-day detention, that she was willing to work with government in order to try and find compromises.

Diane is an outstanding, experienced and charismatic politician who, alone out of the candidates, has the ability to connect with ‘ordinary voters’ while making intellectual arguments against the coalition cuts. She cannot be faulted when it comes to New Labour’s failures, and her background makes her uniquely placed to be able to wrong-foot and challenge David Cameron. Much is made of what a ‘credible leader’ looks like. In 2010, the only credible leader is Diane Abbott.

Do you agree with Philip? Does the fact Diane sent her son to private school undermine her left-wing credentials? Does her lack of ministerial experience make her an unsuitable leadership contender? Or does her disassociation with New Labour strengthen her campaign? Let us know what you think below.

Tomorrow we’ll be looking at Andy Burnham.

David Miliband: Labour Leadership Special

David Miliband has the most substantial ministerial experience of all the leadership hopefuls. The Shadow Foreign Secretary was previously the Head of the Number 10 Policy Making Unit and has frequently been identified as the New Labour candidate. David has been the favourite throughout the campaign and received the most supporting nominations from MPs.

David is being supported by 38 year old single Mum Liza Harding:

I decided to support David after seeing him on BBC Question Time. I'd never seen a politician as sharp and articulate. Throughout the campaign, David has offered vision for a broader Labour Party. We need to reach out to everyone - young, old, those of various incomes, the unemployed, the sick, all races, religions, left, centre, disillusioned Lib Dems, those never been interested in politics before. David can and WILL relate to all - with the exception of the Tories whose ideology and “values” he hates.

David's biggest campaign throughout the leadership contest is the Movement For Change. 1000 Future Leaders are being trained – myself included – on community organising techniques. This is an excellent opportunity to go back to the grassroots and reinforce relationships. The Movement For Change has gained momentum and there is no stopping it. There's already real commitment from members of the public up and down the country. David's not leader yet, but he's already showing great promise by empowering people not just at the top, but from the roots upwards.

With David Miliband I see a united yet diverse Labour Party – that is where our strength lies. We need credible long-term solutions to the problems we face today and our first hurdle is getting back into Government. David has the brains, focus, compassion, commitment and experience to get us there – and the Tories clearly fear him.

David is not just the now, he is the future. He is exactly what the Labour Party needs. It’s vital we get this decision right not just for our Party, but for our country.

Do you agree with Liza? Is David’s Movement For Change an honest attempt to democratise the party? Is he the heir to Blair? Does the fact he failed to challenge Brown’s premiership suggest he lacks the backbone to lead? Let us know what you think below.

Tomorrow we’ll be looking at Diane Abbott.

Ed Balls: Labour Leadership Special

Ed Balls is the Shadow Secretary of State for Education and previously served as an economic advisor to Gordon Brown. Balls is closely associated with the Brownite wing of the Party and, unlike most of his rivals, he has championed decreasing deficit reduction to below the level proposed by Alistair Darling.

Ed is being supported by serial Tweeter Stacey McNamara:

I’m backing Ed Balls because of his unparalleled economic knowledge and experience. Ed has taken the fight to the coalition in a way that no other candidate has. He has tabled dozens of questions to Michael Gove and taken the Tories apart on the Children, Schools and Families Bill. He has campaigned doggedly against their half-baked plans for “free schools” and the VAT rise. But he’s not just talking about protecting the most vulnerable in our society, he’s getting stuck in to the fight.

Furthermore, Ed is clearly on the side of the unions. They are the heart of our movement and Ed is the candidate with the most straightforward appreciation of that.

Whether you are from a council estate, a student struggling to pay tuition fees, a member of Young Labour wanting to get more involved, a parent concerned at potential closures to Sure Start centres, an old lady worried about the closure of her local Post Office or a working class person worried about the VAT rises, we need a leader who has the strength and the fight to stand up for our policies in opposition and one day carry them through into government. We need a leader the Tories are scared of. That leader is Ed Balls.

Do you agree with Stacey? Is Ed too closely associated with Gordon Brown? Is his bullish vehemence in opposition appropriate for the role of Prime Minister? Or does his economic expertise make him more suited to the role of Shadow Chancellor? Let us know what you think below.

Tomorrow we’ll be looking at David Miliband.

Ed Miliband: Labour Leadership Special

Ed Miliband wrote Labour's 2010 election manifesto and is the son of renowned Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband. The previous Secretary of State for Energy and Climate is being backed by former Labour leader Neil Kinnock and is being endorsed by various trade unions including UNISON, GMB and UNITE.

Ed is being supported by prolific blogger and Chair of Birmingham Fabian Society Claire Spencer:

In many ways, the leadership candidates are homogenous – four are 40-something males and all are Oxbridge graduates, with overlapping stances on the biggest issues. This means that whoever we do elect needs to be able to empathise with those in the Labour movement who have had different paths through life, and most importantly, those who have not had their advantages. Ed Miliband has that empathy, and it comes across as warmth, appreciation and understanding. “Ed speaks human”, the campaign said in its early days – but just as important to me is that “humans enjoy speaking with Ed”, and that they will be listened to and valued.

Furthermore, he is determined that, come the next leadership race, the line-up will look very different. His pledge for gender parity in the Shadow Cabinet, the trust instilled in him by the trade unions (including Unite, Unison and GMB), and his ideas on improving party democracy will make the party more representative of the movement, which will have a positive effect at the top.

Also important to me are his priorities – his unwavering focus on equality, dignity and fairness. Making the Living Wage a central plank of his campaign demonstrated that he cares about life outside work, and that he is determined to create a world where people who work hard to support family and friends can afford to spend time with them. But he also cares that they can work, and that Britain becomes a place that nurtures industry (particularly based around green technology) and continues to equip people with skills and knowledge via higher and further education. I want to live in that Britain, which is why I’m supporting Ed Miliband for Labour leader.

Do you agree with Claire? Is Ed the candidate who can unite the party? Does he have the gravitas to be Prime Minister? Or are his policies too left-wing? Let us know what you think below.

Tomorrow we’ll be looking at Ed Balls.

A Week of Guest Blogs: Labour Leadership Special

The Labour Party has not had an open and democratic leadership debate since 1994, but the current contest is seen as an opportunity for the Party to refresh its message, re-engage with grassroots and reach out to lost voters. Last Wednesday, ballot papers went out to all Labour Party members to cast their vote. But the largest leadership contest this country has ever seen won’t just be decided by Labour Party activists. The process itself involves Labour MPs, MEPs and councillors, grassroots activists, affiliated organisations, socialist societies and trade unions.

The outcome of the leadership contest will determine the future direction of the Labour Party. Will they lurch back to New Labour sectarianism or swing to the left? Either way, this is one of the most important political decisions of our time. Whoever wins could be Prime Minister within a year, or spend years in the political wilderness.

Eyes on Power is dedicating this week to discussing and debating the leadership election. Each day we’ll be looking at a different candidate and hearing from one of their ardent supporters. We won’t be providing analysis ourselves, but hope that it will inspire debate and provide further insight to floating voters. First up tomorrow is Ed Miliband.