Lessons from 07: The song remains the same

By Joe Caluori / @croslandite

The Labour Leadership election has yet to catch fire, despite some sparky exchanges in the early hustings, and the candidates are clearly still struggling to differentiate themselves from the pack. Even Diane Abbott seems to lack the shock-factor we were promised if she made it onto the ballot.

In a crowded field, the candidates need distinctiveness, but their messages and language are stymied by the same political constipation that dogged the Deputy Leadership election in 2007. Using ‘renewal-speak’ words like ‘change’, ‘engage’, ‘listen’ and ‘renew’ are prioritised to the point which the campaign has contracted to reforming the approach and process of politics without honest discussion of the content of their future policy agenda.

There was a rationale for this in 2007 – the election was for a deputy, not a leader, and it was clear the policy agenda would come from elswhere (or so we all thought). In addition, after 10 years of New Labour’s political machine in Government there was a real appetite for a new, more open approach.

Now in 2010, we want to see the detail of a bold new policy agenda that will take us back into Government, but on any contentious issue (see Trident, Iraq), the message is: ‘we need a debate, we need a debate’. Okay, fine, so have the debate – and stop continuously telling us it’s about to begin.

Secondly, on the Party membership and wider movement the mantra is: ‘we need to listen, we need to engage’. Well listen to whom? And engage with them about what? The Labour movement do not have one monolithic standpoint on every issue, on which the previous leadership callously turned its back. We all disagree on major issues, and there are a range of views in every Branch, let alone the whole movement. Tell us where you stand on the key issues and then if we agree with you on enough of them then you’ll have our vote.

Thirdly, on proposals to reform the Party’s decision making structures and give the NPF an influence over policy making which is more than marginal…well ok, that’s what most of us want. Even those of us who have worked at, or around, HQ and the NEC are tired of the opacity with which power and influence are exercised. Even the most ardent New Labour revanchists would concede that Millbank style command and control no longer seems such a good idea when the doors to the key meetings have been slammed in your face. However, we have heard all this before; twice in fact – so the organic Cava will have to remain on ice until the necessary rule changes are passed by Annual Conference.

Finally, yes – it’s nice to have proximity with candidates through online discussions and house meetings, but let’s be honest, it won’t continue when they’re PM. It had better not anyway. If an emergency crops up, do you want decisive action on Gaza to be delayed until you’ve replied to a direct message on Twitter from a newly minted Labour Prime Minister?

I understand that candidates are worried about leaving hostages to fortune, but this is an important moment for us. Let Cameron dredge up campaign quotes at PMQs hastily copied and pasted from candidates’ websites by sweaty Tory google-monkeys – we’ll have a genuine frank and open debate about policy.

Candidates will stand out from the pack by clearly telling us how they’ll turf out the ConDem Government at the next General Election, and what policies they’ll bring forward as the next Labour Prime Minister. Ultimately we’ll be satisfied with our new Leader making decisions that we can live with (and indeed celebrate) if we elected them knowing full well what they stand for, and where they are leading us.