This leadership contest has barely begun – and it’s got me riled already

By Sebastian Michnowicz

A leadership contest is an exciting time for any party. For Labour, it is also an extremely important time as we choose somebody that we not only want to lead the party, but ultimately the country. In the face of defeat, it’s a chance to turn over a new leaf. At risk of brutally slaughtering the metaphor, in this contest the range of leaves to choose from and the time we have to study them, before choosing one to turn over has been curtailed by the system in place. This can only be to our detriment and before we even know who will be on the ballot paper, there have been two big disappointments.

The first one came with the news that the ballot would be carried out late in the summer, with the new leader unveiled at party conference. Despite Gordon Brown’s wish that a new leader be put in place quickly, we need the time, now that we are in opposition, to take a long, hard look at our Party and work out where we went wrong and decide the future we want, how to achieve it and re-connect with the millions of voters that have deserted Labour since 1997.

Harriet Harman has, since becoming Deputy Leader in 2007, proven she is more than capable of holding the fort – any doubt of that surely went in her response to the Queen’s Speech – and I can’t see why she couldn’t serve in her present role until after conference, where the party would have the opportunity to hear the case of every candidate, debate the policies they were putting forward and make a properly informed decision.

The media, of course, would be the first to point out that this was approximately the manner in which David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party. But it worked for them, didn’t it? Having made little progress under William Hague, then Iain Duncan-Smith and then looking nothing less than mortally doomed under Michael Howard, it was only after a comprehensive study of what was on offer that they chose a man, with a mere four years experience of being an MP, who turned their party’s fortune around.

The other disappointment is the lack of candidates because of the restrictive nature of the nominations system in place. Introduced in the 1980s, its purpose was to keep entryist MPs and the so-called ‘loony left’ from getting the top job. I think it is safe to say that particular problem is now behind us and in view of this, the system has become hackneyed and too exclusive.

Just look at what is on offer: without meaning to sound diminishing to any of the candidates, four are essentially new Labour carbon copies of each other, with, so far, precious little to tell them apart; two are staunch left-wingers who, by virtue of both of them standing, are likely to split their potential nomination base to the extent that neither of them will be able to secure a place in the contest.

How many MPs were considering running for the post, but didn’t because they knew they wouldn’t be able to secure the requisite number of nominations? While some would have had little chance of winning, every one of them would have had something worthwhile to contribute to the debate we need to get us back on the road to power.

At the time of writing, David Miliband has secured the nominations of 21 MPs more than is needed to secure his place in the contest. Ed Miliband has an excess of 12, while Andy Burnham is 16 short, John McDonnell 27 short, Ed Balls needs another 6 and Diane Abbot needs 32. With the present system in place and with 258 MPs, it wouldn’t be possible for more than seven candidates to run, assuming each mustered only the necessary number of nominations. As it stands, 33 MPs have nominated a candidate that already has sufficient nominations to take part in the contest. If this number exceeds 60, then at least one of the remaining candidates will definitely be out of the race. In the interests of wider debate, and collectively discovering what needs to be done to get us back on track, perhaps it’s time to ask MPs to vote tactically.

It’s highly unlikely, but in theory, what’s to stop one candidate from securing the entire support of the PLP in a future contest? What room for debate would there be then? Of course, it’s too late to change anything in the present leadership race, but we must remember that the Labour Party exists for its members, and not the other way around. Once our new leader is in place, we must make it a priority to reform the system by which we nominate leadership candidates and not leave our choice of candidates to the mercy of the PLP.