When we really need a contest, I fear another succession

By Jason McCrossan

The decision on who should lead the Labour Party must not be rushed, as many have said.

Over the past week we have witnessed one former cabinet minister after another step aside from the leadership contest: Johnson, Harman, Cooper. Jon Cruddas has searched his conscience and decided thatthe party leadership is not for him. He does not have what it takes, he says. No doubt others feel the same about their own roles.

It is unfortunate that, in the case of some former cabinet ministers, their rapid announcements not to contest the leadership bore the appearance of premeditated collusion – something worked out long before the polls had closed and Gordon’s Brown’s fate was sealed. One can imagine the Cluedo-esque scenes that took place in the final months – but with one significant difference: this particular game involved all the suspects, huddled around a dark candle lit library, each brandishing a weapon, asking not so much “who did it?”, but “who’ll do it?”. Then, in the end, it was left to the electorate to present the dagger – which Gordon dutifully fell upon (admittedly after a bit of cajoling).

What I can’t understand is why so many Labour MPs have turned into shrinking violets. Why now? What happened to the bravado so many showed last summer? Maybe thirteen years of governing really have taken their toll on some of the ex-cabinet. Maybe the challenge of a possible five years in opposition, followed by the potential leap to become head of a future government, is too much for some?

I worry, because there is now a danger that the leadership of the party is won on purely amicable grounds, on wholly fraternal grounds. There’s the danger that this ‘contest’ is decided without a fight, without some blood being let, without dissenting voices on friendly terms. There is a danger that the debating will be carried out over a cordial cup of tea and a gaggle of winks and smiles.

Anyone who suggests that it is dangerous for us to search our sole – to dig deep into the party, to debate the issues and, yes, to argue and disagree – because it would split the party, do so because they fear answering the difficult questions that removed us from office. They so so because they don’t really want to engage, possibly because they think they know the answers.

I say, let us jumble together with the candidates in hustings and halls. Let us not shy away from awkward moments or difficult questions amongst ourselves. Let us draw strength from the fact that we are not fighting each other – we are fighting indifference and apathy. We should take comfort that we debate as equals, as friends and as a family. Not as enemies.

It is a difficult process and there are difficult questions to be asked. And those that ask the difficult questions must be prepared to accept thorny solutions. Those that want our vote must demonstrate that they are prepared to roll up their sleeves and talk to us.

But to have this debate, we need time, and leadership contenders from all across the party. We should have women, gay and minority candidates. We need those from the left and the right of the party. We need people who would stand because they have something to say about Labour’s future.

As it stands, I fear another succession. I fear that the party – the grassroots – will be left excluded once more from shaping and forming our direction. We are in danger of spending the next five years with a sparkly new car – but one which is running on empty. We’re in danger of producing a polished lump of coal – but we have the ability to produce a diamond.