Favourite? Insurgent? Maverick? What’s behind the labels?

By Mark Ferguson / @markfergusonuk

The New Statesman has interviewed all of the candidates for the leadership in their latest issue. Each candidate’s interview is under a headline that seeks to describe them and their role in the race. When you look closely at each candidate though, how accurate are the labels?

The Favourite
David Miliband is undisputably the favourite. He’s the bookies’ choice, he has the most support in the MPs’ section, he has the most money, and his organisation has brought him the most CLP nominations as we currently stand. If you were betting your house on a candidate, you’d have to put your money on David. It’s unlikely that anyone will be making such rash mortgage decisions though – so this contest isn’t a foregone conclusion (although the odds are in favour of a Miliband win of some description). David has all of the advantages at the moment. He should make it count. Yes, he’s the favourite, but it’s perhaps tighter than expected.
Label rating: 8/10

The Insurgent
The New Statesman have called Ed Miliband the insurgent, but I’m not so sure. I see where they’re coming from – he wasn’t expected to be so close behind his brother – but he has been a cabinet minister with a national profile, and represented Britain at a global summit. His campaign lacks the funds of the elder Miliband, but this isn’t an Obama style insurgency. He was expected to be in second place, and that’s currently where he stands. Insurgency potential, yes. Gaining ground, maybe. Insurgent? Perhaps not. At least not yet.
Label rating: 5/10

The Fighter
Ed Balls is undoubtedly a fighter. He has been fighting all his political life (if you believe what you read in the papers) and some would say he is fighting for his political life at the moment. He has shown real grit and determination over BSF and free schools, pulling Michael Gove into a drag-down bare knuckle fight that he wasn’t expecting and isn’t prepared for. Ed hasn’t come across, though, as a grizzled, angry boxer of a politician in this race. He’s actually surprised me by how funny, personable and friendly he can be with an audience. So he’s a fighter, that’s for sure – but he’s no bruiser.
Label rating: 9/10

The Outsider
Andy Burnham is Northern, and doesn’t consider himself to be part of the London dinner party circuit, or a moneyed elite. He may have mentioned that once or twice in the leadership contest. He probably reads the Guardian – but he doesn’t think our policies should be aimed solely at its readers. His campaign is based outside of Westminster, based instead in the North West where much of his support is clustered. Maybe it’s because I’m Northern myself, and I see a bit of myself in Burnham’s anti-elitist bluster, but I don’t think that’s enough to call him an outsider. We’re not talking about an anonymous or fresh-faced backbencher here – although his face has a certain freshness – we’re talking about a former health minister. It’s one of the major offices of state. And whilst the Westminster village might think it horribly outsider to run a campaign in an area of mass Labour support, it’s only outsider if you think Manchester is outside.
Label rating: 4/10

The Maverick
Diane Abbott says what she thinks. In fact she says what alot of Labour Party members think – that Trident, Iraq, PFIs and tuition fees can be filed under “bad ideas we shouldn’t repeat”. But saying what you think does not a maverick make. A maverick is someone who doesn’t conform to a type – who resists adherence to a group. Diane is a member of a group – it’s called the Campaign Group. Just because we don’t hear from the Labour Left as much as we used to shouldn’t lead us to believe that Diane’s views are particularly new, out there, or unique to her. A maverick is someone who might say or support something totally unexpected. With all due respect to Diane, anyone who knows her views and has followed her career won’t have been surprised by many of her policies. Pleased with them? Perhaps. Outraged? Maybe. Shocked? Where have you been for the past 23 years?
Label rating: 2/10 – see me.

(P.S – All due love and respect to the journalists and sub-editors of the New Statesman – believe me I know how hard it is to come up with headlines for articles without some smug git taking the mickey on the internet. Love your work. Honestly. Sarcasm has now ended.)