A week is a short time in politics. No sooner had Tribune called for the extension of the nominating period for leadership candidates than it was done. Even as we were questioning the narrow range of declared candidates and lamenting the all-too-familiar absence of a woman from the list, Diane Abbott was preparing her surprise declaration.
So now there are six – David and Ed Miliband, Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, John McDonnell and Andy Burnham. We welcome the widening of the debate and believe all six candidates should find their names on the ballot paper. Jon Cruddas, who bailed out early, would have been a valuable addition in terms of the debate about where Labour goes next. But his courageous honesty and his identification of another vital role, title unspecified, has marked him out perhaps for a different task.
The leadership contest, with a range of candidates (preferably an even wider choice by the time nominations close) and a four-month campaign, shows that the party has grasped that a period of deep reflection is essential. But it would be wrong, and against the longer-term interests of the labour movement, to close down debate arbitrarily through the exclusion of candidates who fail to cross the artificial threshold of parliamentary signatures.
A three-way debate exclusively between prominent members of the last Labour Cabinet would be limited and rooted in the past. That’s why Tribune is calling for the rule to be set aside, either by the National Executive Committee or by the candidates agreeing among themselves, in whatever form it takes, to keep every candidate in the race until the end. Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Diane Abbott set out on pages 10-12 where they stand now and we expect to hear more concrete ideas about the future in the weeks to come. (Andy Burnham and John McDonnell will appear next week, David Miliband appeared last week.)
The debate around the leadership needs to be extraordinarily thorough, reaching into dark places within the labour movement, such as what the unions get out of their umbilical link to Labour’s bank balance. It needs to address not just the shocking failures of the past – the invasion of Iraq, subservience to the City, widening inequality, complicity in torture, degradation of civil liberties and the failed economic policies – but also the changing expectations of a changed electorate. One which expects more humility from its political leaders who should stay more closely in touch with the people they are supposed to represent while genuflecting less to the rich and powerful. It requires a party and a leadership which more closely resembles what the Labour Party stands for, not the deformed creature it became in power through the mindset of New Labour. One which does not hold delusions of military grandeur about Britain’s global role. One that truly represents a new, more inclusive and consultative form of politics. Only a long, reflective debate will determine whether or not any of Labour’s putative leaders can lift themselves out of the past and make the leap of vision and understanding that is required.
