The end of nominations is just the beginning of the debate on the future of our party

By Stella Creasy MP / @StellaCreasy

The process by which we select the next Labour leader is far from perfect; it asks us as the PLP not to say who the shortlist should be but instead judge the ability of others. It is the tally of nominations that gives direction to the wider movement, and indeed public, about whom MPs consider best equipped to lead not only an opposition but an alternative to this coalition government.

Making this call has been for me a question of both policy and practice. We must have a strong story to tell about who we are and what we stand for – and what we don’t. We also need the capacity and infrastructure to inspire and enthuse people who share our ideals to campaign with and for us. If we fail to understand the importance of either, or indeed the power of the combination, we will be condemned to opposition – and more importantly let down those that need and thrive under progressive governments. So our leader must be someone who can excite people about our intentions and also build the relationships – throughout our movement and our country – that we need to achieve our aims. Too often Labour has had one or the other – the right analysis of Britain’s needs but a lack of organisation to convert this into turnout; or widespread latent support within the country but little to fire up our response to a domineering Conservative rhetoric.

From the top of our party to the grassroots we need direction and ambition that rallies us not only to learn from the past but to fight for Britain’s future. That’s why today I have ultimately decided to nominate David Miliband. It is a decision I have made as a result of this period of discussion about the leadership rather than one which was predetermined or inevitable. He has convinced me that of all the contenders – each of whom has much to offer – he has the most capacity to grasp and address these two concerns. I’m therefore backing him to steer us as Labour not only in taking on Cameron and Clegg but also through setting out our own vision of the kind of country Britain can and should be.

I’ve argued with David and his supporters on a number of issues. I have spoken with many others who have done the same. In doing so I have come to see that he is committed to a way of working which recognises that differences can be an opportunity for positive debates. That we can find common ground as well as agree to disagree. And that leadership is about being prepared to both fight for and engage with those who differ over our shared direction of travel and method of journey. Labour at its best has always used criticism as a chance to improve, not corrode, our decision making. To think it is only the role of those competing to be leader to challenge in this way is to deny the contribution all levels of the movement can make to defining what it means to be Labour and how we want to act as a consequence.

Our collective mission is to reach out to those across Britain who want a world which looks to more than markets for inspiration. We have to be able to draw all these people – whether members or not – into being part of shaping our nation’s future. We need a leader and a contest that will go beyond our internal comfort zone as we define what it means in this day and age to use the concerns of people, not profit, as the markers for our priorities for action. Ideas and detail matter. They are the foundation of how and why we ask people to join us in securing a government which believes there’s a better life to be had for everyone through common endeavour.

We must be confident in saying why ours is a politics that stands against an ideology that preferences immediate deficit reduction over long-term economic investment and growth. We know and rightly fear the impact this will have on the families and futures of the people we serve. But it is not just to protect the vulnerable that we need to challenge coalition cuts. It is because we want to live in a society in which all are in demand not as cheap labour but for the value they add by the skills that they have and the knowledge they share. That we speak out on cutting university places and The Future Jobs Fund because it means our workforce is less attractive to employers – not more so. That removing support for industries and scaling back investment in new technologies diminishes our chances in the race to restore jobs and commerce to our towns and cities. We seek to tackle inequalities not just of wealth, but service provision and opportunity too because we see they hold many of our brightest and best back. We know tinkering with definitions of child poverty rather than acting to end it condemns many to a life bereft of prospects and wastes their potential to contribute to our shared prosperity.

If we are to win these arguments we also have to have more than bright ideas. It is not enough to know how the world should be different if we cannot convey our purpose to others with clarity and reference to their lives. David has struck me as someone open to how we can have that kind of relationship with each other and modern Britain. And that being a movement, not a machine, means getting our own house in order.

Many have talked of party renewal but little has happened; we squabble over control of the internal structures yet don’t acknowledge the need to reform the basics of how we operate as an everyday volunteer-led movement. I am heartened that all candidates appear to recognise these difficult questions need to be answered. Old or new members, few in our party claim to enjoy the rounds of meetings and minutes we set up as activism and that has to change.

It is David’s willingness to go a step further in looking at what can sustain relationships between those with common progressive cause that I find compelling. As these discussions around community organising and what it means for our politics continue I will push for all concerned to be clearer about what kinds of conduct we mean to sustain. The alternative is that we risk appearing as though we intend to compete with the Scouts or the WI. We don’t just need volunteers; we need voices in every community speaking up for the ideas that drive our movement -whether in office or opposition – and taking part in activities that are the practical expression of this passion for social justice.

The debate and discussion about Labour’s future will go on beyond the close of nominations made by MPs. Today is a staging post in the process not its completion. It reflects that politics is not only about a capacity to participate in discussion; it is also a matter for decision-making. For me the time is now. My assessment was in the end that David edges it over the other candidates in being able to perform the role of leadership our movement requires. I’ve made my choice. Now it’s over to you in the months and debates ahead to do the same.

Stella Creasy Labour and Co-operative MP for Walthamstow