Comment is Free Hustings: How do they match up?

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

All six leadership contenders have written for Comment is Free today, each pitching their case for why they think they should be leader of the Labour Party.

It’s probably still too early for such a series to really have meaning, much less influence on the outcome. There are still 9 days before the nominations close, and aside from a few thoughts on immigration and welfare, none of the candidates have really hit their stride yet or tackled the big issues with any depth. I’d like to see each candidate look more seriously at the financial crisis, and how they would each redefine and diversify our post-recesssionary economy. Some touch on that most important issue today, but when it comes to the real debate, I think that should be even more central.

For what it’s worth, though, here are some thoughts on the candidates’ Guardian pieces (all 6 can be found here):

Diane Abbott worries that, with the nominations due to close in 9 days and the contest currently dominated by a small group, Labour’s big moment for renewal will become little more than a “summer-long version of Britain’s Got Talent.” Moving on from the process of party democracy, Abbott also criticises ID cards and how Labour never spoke enough about the success of the Human Rights Act:

“We have done ourselves irreparable damage by abandoning our long-standing commitment to civil liberties and human rights. Our new leader needs to recognise that.”

And turning the immigration argument on its head, Abbot says:

“We must stop implying that immigration lost us the last election…The truth is that complaints about immigration are a proxy for concerns about housing, jobs, low wages and job insecurity. We need to engage in the difficult task of addressing the real reasons for working-class discontent. Turning immigrants into scapegoats is the easy option.

Ed Balls starts by talking about people’s concerns: families, communities, housing, immigration, wages, tuition fees. And, through his own background, he writes about the need for Labour to build a new coalition:

“I was born in Norwich. I grew up in the Midlands. I fought – and won – in a tough Yorkshire constituency. It’s in places like that, in constituencies across the country, where we need to win again.”

Seeking to distinguish himself as a campaigner, rather than just a thinker, Balls also writes:

“We need a leader who can translate theory and ideas into real policies and lead through campaigning – not as a pressure group agitator but genuinely offering an alternative programme for government. We must find the right language for our policies and show that we “get it”. We will not win the next election in seminars, party forums or university halls.”

Andy Burnham‘s piece is probably the most personal of the six. Burnham writes about his own reasons for standing, placed in the context of why he thinks he can lead the Labour Party:

“That fight has to start by reconnecting our party with its members and our supporters. During the election campaign, I met many people who told me that they felt that Labour was no longer on their side. These were people who had voted Labour all their lives, yet felt disenfranchised by a party which seemed to have stopped listening.”

Burnham also addresses crime and anti-social behaviour head-on, stressing three times:

“I will not tolerate that abuse nor their continued disrespect for neighbours. I will be announcing tough policies to deal with the minority who are intent on wrecking their communities. They cannot be allowed to succeed.”

John McDonnell launches a strong critique of the failings of New Labour from the outset, writing:

“The party of equality and freedom allowed our society to remain disfigured by inequality, civil liberties came under regular assault…Despite the billions of pounds poured into education and the NHS, the party that founded the welfare state was dismantling it with successive waves of privatisation, while the party of peace had launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was hooked on Trident renewal.”

McDonnell says Labour needs a fundamental reversal away from neo-liberalism, and should again become a grassroots social movement driven by the “pragmatic idealism of our supporters”. He also advocates a Robin Hood tax.

David Miliband‘s is the shortest of the Comment is Free hustings, and scattered with buzzwords: change, reform, progress, movement. But, like Burnham, Miliband does also place his candidacy in the context of how far the Labour Party has come, and where it should go next:

“That is what I have done in every job I have held in politics, from the invention of the Building Schools for the Future programme, to creating the climate change bill, to helping Pakistan and Bangladesh back to civilian rule.”

And he makes a strong pitch based on his perceived strengths:

“The new leader needs to fire the imagination of the party and the public, bring together our many talents, be a credible prime minister, and win the battle of ideas. That is what I would do as leader of the Labour party.”

Ed Miliband returns to the themes on which he launched his leadership bid three weeks ago, and the values and sense of mission that he would seek to bring to the party:

“As we rebuild we must ensure that our values shine through: a belief in equality, that everybody deserves a fair chance in life, and that the gap between rich and poor matters; a commitment to the dignity of work that is properly rewarded; a belief in fairness, based on responsibility, at the top and throughout society, as well as need; a commitment to values beyond work, like environmental sustainability, time, love and compassion.”

Like his elder brother David, Ed Miliband seeks to play to his strengths: that he is approachable, and accessible to the party and wider labour movement.

Each of the pitches summarises the first stage of sparring; but each now needs to be developed into coherent campaigning, and the honest and open interaction and debate between the candidates themselves and the party that each seeks to lead. In that sense, the Guardian’s own leader today rings truest:

“The Brown coronation was disastrous as it anointed a man without requiring him to define himself. All the leading candidates say they want to renew their party. How better to prove it than to lend their surplus nominations to Mr McDonnell, Ms Abbott and for that matter to the New Labour populist Andy Burnham? If renewal means anything, it is surely a truly open race.”