Surviving the rumour mill is a key test for would be leaders

By Joe Caluori / @croslandite

The French singer Amanda Lear once said: “I hate to spread rumours, but what else can one do with them?”. This insouciant attitude toward the flow of information is clearly shared by the ‘Senior Labour Source’ who briefed Patrick Hennessey that Ed Balls was considering withdrawing from the race, after Unite voted by a margin of 24-8 to back his namesake Miliband for the Leadership.

The most damaging rumour for a candidate in any election campaign, internal, external, at any tier of office, is that they are thinking of throwing in their cards and retreating from the green baize with what chips and dignity they have left.

In the political echo-chamber of Twitter, many interpreted a slightly underplayed and tardy response from the Balls camp as evidence there was truth to the rumour, but Balls’ subsequent tough talk has demonstrated that he has no intention of pulling out.

Of course, many will feel there was a kind of rough justice at play here after allegations earlier in the campaign that rumours suggesting that Andy Burnham was considering dropping out had come from the Balls camp. This, coupled with Balls reputation for prolific off the record briefing will have led many in the Westminster village to conclude that karma is at work.

Rumours often turn out to untrue, but the most effective rumours are always ones that are rooted in received wisdom. It was true that Andy Burnham’s lack of early momentum led many to assume that he was along for the ride – dipping a toe in the water to see if it was safe to go for a swim. Likewise, the Balls rumour trades on the fact that Ed Balls is way behind in CLP and PLP nominations, and if Unite won’t back his campaign despite the Whelan factor, then the gig must be up.

But in a 5 candidate election which is a transferable eliminating ballot there isn’t really a structural motivation to retire early – Ed Balls may well finish a good third, and there is still time for him to chip into Ed Miliband’s support in the first round and angle for Andy Burnham’s second preferences.

The point of rumours is establish prevailing myths around a campaign, which the electorate will associate with the candidates and journalists will use as a reference point when they interview candidates and write articles about the campaign. So the voracity of a rumour is unimportant – its purpose is to sew doubt, dent momentum and provide a ready made negative definition for candidates.

In an election like this one, which has been for the most part a clean fight with consensus between candidates on many issues, some personality politics goes a long way with the lobby – as it does on Twitter and the blogosphere.

In 2007 there were rumours affecting all candidates, mostly stemming from the bruising process of collecting the necessary parliamentary nominations. As the deadline approached and Alan Johnson and Harriet surged ahead, there were questions over whether the other four declared candidates would make it onto the ballot. Many never believed Hazel Blears would make it, and there was surprise that Hilary Benn had made so little progress – even Jon Cruddas’s candidacy looked as if it would go to the wire amid rumours that unions were ringing around MPs to chivvy them along.

Rumours are a regrettable but inevitable part of any campaign. So what can we learn from rumour mongering? A strong campaign won’t be destroyed merely by disinformation. The ability of candidates to survive, and even make light of the rumours that cling like crustacea to the timber of their campaigns is a crucial test of leadership. Candidates that obsess over the lies told about them will almost certainly lose focus and become evasive and tense; candidates that are able to treat rumour with a wry smile will show the confidence and steady nerve required to lead.