The way we nominate our leadership candidates must change

By Tom Copley / @tomcopley

So the nominations have closed, and the five contenders for the leadership of the Labour Party have been unveiled. Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, David Miliband and Ed Miliband will spend the next four months making their case to Labour and affiliated members and, of course, their own colleagues on the green benches.

Let me start out by making something clear: I am not a supporter of either Diane Abbott or John McDonnell. While I agree with some of their positions on certain key issues – the Iraq War for example – I do not regard either of them as credible leaders of the Labour Party. But surely no one can defend these crazy rules that have led to the nomination of one and the exclusion of the other from this contest?

Despite being no fan of Diane Abbott I am pleased she will be on the ballot paper. Not just because she doesn’t look the same as the four white, middle class, middle aged male contenders, but because she adds a different dimension to the debate. Her outspoken views put her well to the left of the other candidates and her presentation and style are entirely different. Her opponents should not underestimate her – she won’t win the contest but her years of regular TV appearances make her a formidable media performer. In what could be a tight race, the way her vote transfers could make an important difference to the final outcome.

But the way in which she got on to the ballot paper shows what a farcical method the party uses to nominate potential Leaders. Looking down the list of Abbott’s nominees, it’s difficult to find more than a handful of the thirty three of them who may actually vote for her. If nothing else the very fact that one of her opponents – David Miliband – has felt the need to nominate her tells us that there is something deeply flawed with the current rules.

All the leadership contenders called for the broadest range of candidates possible. David Miliband, to his credit, put his money where is mouth was and ensured that he and enough of his supporters backed Abbott for her to get on the ballot paper. But he shouldn’t have had to. We need to change the rules to make it easier for candidates to be nominated – and perhaps allow CLPs and affiliates to cast substantive rather than just supportive nominations. MPs should be able to nominate the candidate they actually want to win and not have to nominate someone else just to broaden the field – members and affiliates should be able to do that instead. Undoubtedly members and affiliates would have ensured both Abbott and McDonnell’s presence on the ballot paper without other candidates having to “lend” them nominations.

Of course it’s important that the Leader of our party has the confidence of their Parliamentary colleagues. But MPs and MEPs already have a third of the votes in the Electoral College that will ultimately select the next Leader. If by some miracle she were to somehow win the leadership, Diane Abbott would clearly not have the confidence of her Parliamentary colleagues. But she won’t win, and her presence in the contest will enrich the debate. John McDonnell should have had the same opportunity.

Many of those who nominated Diane did so to ensure that there would be a woman on the ballot paper. But the fact that in 2010 the only woman to put herself forward doesn’t stand a cat in hell’s chance of actually becoming Leader raises serious questions for our party. In the 1994 leadership contest Margaret Beckett stood for the leadership as a very credible and experienced challenger against Tony Blair and John Prescott. It is a real shame that sixteen years later no woman of similar standing within the party has stepped forward.

I believe that Diane Abbott’s presence in this contest will make the debate a lot more interesting. After some consideration my first preference vote will be going to Ed Miliband. My other preferences are up for grabs though. So go on leadership candidates – start impressing me.