We need to know more of what our leadership candidates really believe

By Gareth Siddorn

The leadership election is beginning to slowly edge in the direction of a genuine debate.

Some of the differences between the candidates are highlighted by what they choose to focus on, which policies of the past thirteen years they seek to emphasise and which they try to distance themselves from. We are starting to see who they are when not in government and when the spotlight is on them as individuals. This is also opening up a conversation about how the candidates see the relationship between different parts of the movement and how they think it should work.

The areas that the candidates are talking about are now broadening and, thankfully, deepening a little. I am far from convinced that a simple focus on immigration is sufficient. Yes, we need to look again at why immigration works in the way it does in this county, and what we need to do to mitigate its negative impacts. And we need to support those most exposed (both immigrants and existing communities alike). But immigration alone did not lose us the election and can distract from other policy areas. The immigration debate also exemplifies where this campaign has so far fallen short.

We are learning about the ‘who’, in terms of candidates, and beginning to navigate through the ‘what’ of policies – but we are no closer to understanding the ‘why’. Why left-of-centre values? Why Labour? And why, to return to the previous example, do they believe what they believe about the role of immigration in our society and how does that connect to other issues? What is motivating where these candidates are coming from and to where they will return to when times get hard? The contemporary mainstream political culture is often accused of being overly personality-focussed and managerial and there is a risk that our leadership contest may go the same way if we sidestep issues of ideology, conviction and belief.

Mentioning roots and personal philosophy is usually seen as the starting paragraph of a speech – the warm-up before the main content. Our candidates can obviously not propose detailed policies but they can make it clearer as to why they think what they think. Otherwise we will be lacking an understanding of the core principles of the person and unable to make an informed decision about whom we wish to be our leader and hopefully the next Prime Minister.

I am not used to being a floating voter but, like thousands of other members, this is where I currently find myself. There has been a rush by many to immediately fall in line behind their preferred candidate but we must move past old allegiances and resist fighting yesterday’s battles.

We are electing a future leader and so there are a range of issues that need to be factored in to all of our decisions. This is not a call for the contest to turn in on itself or become self-indulgent. However, the contest does need a further dimension. It needs to become ideological. It needs to address the history and shared values of our movement. It needs to become shamelessly philosophical.