A clean race

By Jim Sweetman / @jimbo9848

Sitting in the foothills of the Pyrenees last week it was hard to find out anything about the state of the leadership race. Possibly not surprising, but it is refreshing to remember that while this occupies much of Labour’s time at the moment it is not the most important event in the history of the universe. Looking back over the race this week, watching developments and seeing the pace increase, we all need to be careful to maintain that distanced perspective, judge people on their commitment and values and avoid some slippery pitfalls along the way.

First, it is too easy to make assumptions and for those – once they get wrapped up in the media driven swirl – to start to look like reality. So, Diane is unelectable and Andy unknown but in practice once elected as leader they would both be electable and known. Other assumptions are being made about what people might do if elected. Everyone needs to keep an open mind as the campaign moves into the final phase.

Second, we have to accept the inevitability of polarisation in an election campaign but determine not to be sucked in by it. In any election people have to say what they stand for without a lot of compromise. They have to use slogans and labels and establish differences so that people can make choices. It is easy from that to make Ed Miliband look like union man, David look like Tony and the other Ed look like Gordon. Each tag comes with its own associated baggage and history and that adds to the stereotypes which aren’t helpful in getting the measure of the person.

Third everybody needs to avoid breast beating and yet more historical analysis in this final phase. Ed doesn’t need to say Labour lost the working vote and David doesn’t have to say the party was disconnected. They don’t need to dig up who voted for Iraq either. Of course, things went wrong and otherwise Labour would be in government but it was a third term, there was a dirty war and then a global recession. Everyone should be looking forward not backward. In particular, we need to stop seeing (and discussing) the electorate as solid working class, wavering working class, new labour or lib-dem tendency. The voters don’t like being categorised and who can blame them!

Four, it doesn’t help to go for an acceptable leader. It is not the time to think about who might play well with Jeremy Paxman and Daily Mail readers. That way leads to compromise candidates and the last thing Labour needs is an Iain Duncan Smith. The potential leaders need to be judged on their merits not on how they play with someone else.

Five, people should stop fretting about the unions. Of course, Labour is inseparable from its union roots and therein lies the truth that any and all of the candidates will have trade union support at the next election. They may have to court union votes now but that is a different matter.

Six, as the vote gets closer the media will want to take the decision and railroad events. They will want to say who wins the hustings from their perspectives, make misguided forecasts about possible policies and raise fears as they seek out news. Being in the clutches of the unions and letting down the defence of the realm are the standard front-running stories but they will also stick in immigration and the economy.

Finally, everyone needs to remember that Labour is a broad church. All of the candidates stand for Labour values and all of them ought to expect to be serving in the new Labour government in a little over four years time. In the meanwhile, once this is out of the way, we need a coherent opposition and, in opposition, we need to respect different voices and viewpoints. Labour needs a new and honest connection with the electorate and that will not come from saying the same things and running every statement and speech past the central machine. The party needs to move into a new era of distributed leadership. Accountable, yes, but also open and discursive about what the country needs.