The Labour leadership race increasingly reminds me of a cycling competition in a Velodrome. The contestants go round and round for monotonous lap after lap, jostling for position, but remaining tightly bunched. Every now and again, one will pedal a little faster to go to the front before dropping back as a rival takes a turn to remind spectators a race is underway.
Then it explodes into frantic action near the end, the contenders putting everything into a final burst to speed first across the line before leaping onto that winner’s podium with a gold medal dangling from the neck.
The five wannabes for the dubious prize that is the leadership of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition have shared dozens of platforms at hustings. They’ll sit together at dozens more, with a truce in the middle of August for separate holidays, before the debate gets going properly ahead of ballot papers landing on doormats from September 1.
Only those living a sheltered life or disturbingly deluded will have found the race inspirational, with even political anoraks at times struggling to find substantial differences between the hopeful five – save Diane Abbott’s well-known positions on issues such as Trident and rail re-nationalisation.
At times, it feels as if David Miliband is trying to agree with Ed Balls, who in turn sounds like a more aggressive version of Ed Miliband, who likes to say he agrees with Andy Burnham.
Chairing two hustings last weekend, in Birmingham for the West Midlands Labour Party and central London for the Unite trade union, it was obvious to me that the candidates have heard each other’s speeches so often that if one of the wannabes was delayed, the remaining four could answer questions word perfect on their behalf.
A debate tried to break out at moments in Birmingham, but what impressed me most were the 600 Labour members turning up on a Sunday morning to hear the five in the race. The event in Birmingham University’s magnificent Great Hall, scene of the third and final Gordon Brown-David Cameron-Nick Clegg head-to-head-to-head before May’s general election, was superbly organised. And the audience submitted more than 100 questions, which told me there’s an appetite for a debate that isn’t yet flourishing on the stage. Labour doesn’t want to slip back into the civil war of the 1980s, but the leadership contest needs more zest.
Labour rules are tight in order to guarantee fairness – although, in my view, they’re stifling, preventing the five cross-examining each other. As the chair, or more accurately moderator, your central role is to keep answers to one minute and closing speeches to two minutes. But you do get to pick the questions. Surprisingly, in Birmingham, I didn’t hear a single, specific mention of Afghanistan or Iraq. Instead the questions focused on jobs, the economy, the National Health Service and education.
The Unite hustings in Congress House was a more intimate affair, with 200 political levy-payers in the TUC General Council chamber and regional groups watching via an internet link. Disappointingly, with no strict party rules banning interaction, the five didn’t seem to want to engage with one another, concentrating on saying what they’d arrived to say regardless of the questions.
To pep up the two hours, I introduced a few “real life” questions of my own, which found the contestants may know the national deficit to the nearest billion, but the Jobseeker’s Allowance (it’s £65.45 not £100, Mr Miliband major), child benefit (£20.30 instead of £28 for a first child, Mr Burnham), single person’s state pension (£97.65 rather than £120, Mr Balls) and a colour television licence (£145.50 not £100, Mr Miliband minor) were a mystery – although, credit where it’s due, Diane Abbott knew a single ticket for a ride on a London bus was £2.
I asked a number of other questions and interestingly the state payments were over-estimated and the cost of living under-estimated. There’s a political as well as economic lesson in that.
The five should take a leaf out of Alistair Darling’s book. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darling regularly checked the prices of everyday goods so he wouldn’t be caught out.
If my Velodrome comparison has any mileage in it, the race will burst into life in a few weeks. Contenders cannot, alas, be forced to brim with ideas or burn brightly with vision – however necessary both may be if Labour is to topple the Con-Dems. But the party could change the structure of debates to encourage discussion. And fewer hustings could mean more interest.
Meanwheile, the tussle for seats in the Shadow Cabinet is so lively it makes the leadership race look sedate. It may be easier for scrutineers to announce which MPs don’t fancy their chances because scores are lobbying for votes. I found one northern MP, fed up at being asked for his support, hiding in the Sports and Social Club in the bowels of the House of Commons to avoid the button-holers. Is it time to introduce penalty votes on the over-eager?
