Least worst or best? Who should I choose for leader?

By Mark Tointon

I am losing count of the number of times I have read the phrase ‘least worst option’ in relation to most (or even all) of the candidates from whom those of us eligible to vote will make our own choice for the next leader of the Labour Party.

Are you a glass half-empty kind of person, or is yours usually half-full? If, like me, you are a perennial optimist, the phrase ‘least worst’ probably frustrates. It strikes me that those who reach for it regularly are either political pundits short on creative writing skills, or those members of the party electorate who pay too much attention to those same pundits.

On a continuum of human goodness, the least worst person in the world would be the epitome of decency, the embodiment of all our idealistic aspirations and a shoo-in for sainthood; they would be the best of the best. We have a leadership election continuum of five and individual goodness isn’t likely to be the deciding factor. Clarity of thought, pragmatism and tank-armour-quality skin are probably more desirable earthly characteristics when pinned down in the spotlight of present-day political theatre.

It would have been good to see more people putting their names forward before the nominations closed in order to widen the debate. I voted for Harriet Harman in one of the earlier LabourList surveys in the vain hope that, if a few others had as well, a small blip on the results bar chart might have in some small way helped encourage the Deputy Leader of the party to stand. Ms Harman has subsequently performed well in her role as Acting Leader, although it is unlikely that she would have got my vote had she stood.

Alas, the unsurprising reality is that the breadth and depth of subsequent debate has largely been dictated by a media more interested in stoking internecine conflict, rather than by the leadership candidates themselves or those eligible to vote for them, despite their best efforts (and the worst efforts of not-worthy-of-peerage Mandleson, bless his self-interested, egotistical, money-and-headline-grabbing little cotton socks). Thank goodness for blogs, forums and comments boards, which provide opportunities for genuine debate.

When I have discussed politics and general elections with friends who are undecided, I have directed them to websites like “who should you vote for ?“, which have hopefully given them a more rigorous and objective method of deciding how they should vote, rather than relying on reading partisan journalism, listening to subjective analysis … or being persuaded by me (I value my friends too much to attempt coercion).

Now I find myself in the same predicament: for whom should I vote when the time comes? Who is my ‘best’ choice? It would be arrogant and selfish of me to vote for a new leader solely on the basis of my own ideology, since the Labour party is, itself, a broad ‘coalition’ of political ideologies (and my apologies for using the C word). The reality is that the beliefs of the successful candidate will only be truly congruent with those of a relatively small group of people. However, what that person has to be able to do is present to a wider audience a renewed consensual vision and promote policies that can deliver on this vision. They have to be the figurehead for a new-found solidarity.

To help me in my deliberations, I have drafted some criteria of my own, against which I am assessing the respective merits of each candidate:

1. Someone genuinely principled (who admits mistakes and demonstrates that they are willing learn from them – a little genuine humility is in order here).

2. Someone who aspires to building a radical team, which collectively strives to re-connect everyone who wants to believe in Labour again, such that we can re-build a truly democratic left-of-centre political movement.

3. Someone who has genuinely and demonstrably cared at least as much about their most disadvantaged constituents as they do about themselves, at both a practical and at a political level (because, if you haven’t looked after people on your own ‘patch’ as an MP, how can you possibly aspire to looking after a whole country as PM?).

I particularly want to hear more about #2 from each candidate, since one aspect of this process that has frustrated me so far is the complete focus on the quality of individual candidates, ignoring the fact that these people can’t do it all on their own and that we will be very reliant on them displaying sound judgement selecting those who will work with them in key roles. I wonder how many of them are willing to stick their neck out before we vote and tell us who they would choose for those roles?

In particular, I would like to know who they would choose in (a) an ‘operational’ role, tasked with democratising the party and re-connecting with lost supporters and (b) a ‘strategic’ role, leading the review of vision and values and subsequent reform of policy.

I suspect my bar is set too high for most candidates. Nevertheless, I shall rank them all in respect of each of my three criteria, correlate my results and vote accordingly. In the event of a tie, my last criterion will be the differentiator.

As a footnote, I find myself surprised by the degree of correlation between my criteria and “faith, hope and charity”, perhaps particularly because I am an atheist and these emanate from religious texts; also, that my choice of differentiating criterion correlates with “… but the greatest of these is charity”. Maybe there are some universal truths after all?