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!