As I write this, the mighty coronavirus is rampaging around the world, and has given me an indefinite amount of time away from school (if you’re reading this in 2025, this was written before the supermarkets imploded, Boris Johnson had an anxiety attack live on television and we declared war on the EU). In other words, I’ve suddenly found myself with a lot more spare time than I could’ve dreamed or feared. As such, I’ve decided to spend it in the least productive way possible – writing about a Labour leadership election that is by now completely irrelevant. A good time was had by all.
The one silver lining of the demon we call Covid-19 is that everyone’s forgotten about the last election, which is good because Labour weren’t brilliant. To lose the way we did was shameful, especially when the dithering incompetance of the Tories is now so obvious, with their deliberations over school closures but a single example. You’d think an 80-seat majority would give the government authority, but evidently not. In the midst of all this, Labour have been engaged in a leadership contest that long since lost any excitement, and has now become a waiting game. Results day can’t come soon enough (or at all if you’re a sixth former right now), as Jeremy Corbyn, despite improved performances in Parliament, is at least three months past his sell by date, and the red ship is rudderless. Six candidates set out to take control of the vessel before the new year, but three of them – including the one I championed, shows what I know – have fallen to the wayside. Now we know the crown will be inherited by Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey or Lisa Nandy, and whoever wins it faces a steep uphill battle, albeit one that looks more winnable now than it did in January. That said, they should be mindful that it took 14 years and the abandonment of multiple principles for Labour to fully recover from a defeat of similar scale in 1983; they could either be in it for the long haul or consigned to the back catalogue of history. However, all is not lost. Boris Johnson’s reputation may be defined by his reaction to the coronavirus; his u-turns on closure of public spaces and claim that families will “lose their loved ones” could be the lasting memory of his time in office. Combined with the inevitable issues of completing Brexit, some dissection from the new Labour leader could pay dividends, maybe even in an early election. Stranger things have happened. How the victor will take on the budget and the new age of borrowing and spending will be important, as will their stance on HS2 the northern powerhouse and other current issues. The draconian policies of the Home Office must be combated, with these disastrous bouts of deportations and the new EU migration laws top of the list. Oversteering from the ideas of the last 5 years is also a risk and potentially one not worth taking. The eventual victor of this contest will have to manage all these factors, but with 10 Downing Street a not too distant possibility, a big opportunity, both for them and the Party, is there for the taking.
Sir Keir Starmer is the only candidate with a knighthood, which may or may not (hopefully not) contribute to his position as the clear frontrunner in the race. Along with his title though, there are two reasons why he has emerged as the heir to the Red dynasty. Firstly, Sir Keir has been perceived by some as the clear successor, or even replacement leader, for quite a while. In some ways he is the anti-Corbyn; not necessarily an inspiring leader, but forensic, more politician-like. That was enough for some, and he was tipped as the next leader of the party as soon as the election results started to come in. This has stuck, in no small part due to his second key quality: he has been keen to say nothing at all controversial or divisive in the past three months. Unlike his opponents, one of whom rated Corbyn “10 out of 10” and the other ridiculed Labour’s plans to “nationalise everything”, Starmer has said very little to alienate anyone, and despite being somewhat boring, it’s paying off. He’s managed to do the impossible – bringing together angry Blairites and resilient Corbynites into one coalition, and if he can maintain it, he will win the contest. The problem is maintaining it; becoming Prime Minister is nothing in comparison to unifying the wings of Labour behind one set of policies, and if he fails both his political career and the Party’s hopes could be in jeopardy.
He is, though, what conventional wisdom would call a safe pair of hands. An ex-lawyer, he became the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008, where, amongst other things, he brought two of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers to justice. His background helps him no end, and the skills you need to be a top barrister are useful in politics; the ability to logically deconstruct Tory bluff and blunder with evidence wouldn’t go amiss. He’s also seemingly committed to much of Corbyn’s agenda – pledges to increase income tax on the top 5%, abolish Universal Credit and support common ownership of utilities are likely to be welcomed. Don’t count chickens before they hatch, though; the membership holds the cards now, and this could be an attempt to placate them before subsequently picking up a centrist agenda. This does seem highly unlikely though, as renouncing the pledges would create far more problems than it solves. If Starmer holds out against notions of expelling Corbynites, he will be better for it, and Labour can campaign on an empathetic, radical platform to eliminate the injustices of the day.
However, Mr Starmer does have an Achilles’ heel; Brexit. A staunch Remainer, he’s seen by many as the main force behind Labour’s second referendum strategy – perceived by many a Labour member as the catalyst for defeat. Despite being perfectly rational, it was spun as indecisive and weak, with facts crushed beneath a tide of “Get Brexit Done” rhetoric that was both hollow and untrue. Unlike some in his Party, including one of his rivals for leadership, he isn’t pragmatic on Europe; he’s staunchly for remaining despite a Leave stance potentially being politically expedient, helping to win back seats in the North swept up by Brexit fervour. Despite the admirable nature of this, it could result in him being – unfairly – portrayed as a member of the mystical Southern establishment, like Nick Clegg with a red tie. On the other hand, it could bring Labour forward, forcing them to heed their heartlands in London, rather than engaging in a nostalgic goose chase over the Pennines, prising open the door for the Liberal Democrats or Greens in London.
If Mr Starmer isn’t quite left-wing enough for you, look no further than his closest opponent. Rebecca Long-Bailey served in the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Business Secretary, and is credited with the Green New Deal – a radical piece of legislation likely to be at the heart of Labour manifestos regardless who the next leader is. This gives her a lot of credit as a policymaker to cash in from the very start, and her loyalty to Corbyn (a trait lacking from many Labour MPs) automatically endears her to a wide section of the membership. Another member of the 2015 set, she notably went against the Party’s wishes by opposing further cuts to the benefits system, choosing not to follow Harriet Harman’s notorious “Lab-stention” – an act of remarkable cowardice and defeat, with the interim leadership choosing to ignore the needs of over 8 million voters who voted for Labour candidates precisely to oppose the government, not to see them capitulate. Although this shouldn’t be seen as a loyalty test – Starmer and Nandy both abstained – it’s a piece of the puzzle, and suggests a steely resilience, and a desire to stand up for the voiceless. It’s important to remember that this vote took place mere months after Long-Bailey was elected for the first time; it takes a strong character for a new MP to defy the leadership, and that’s a very promising sign.
Long-Bailey is also the most left-wing of the candidates, having been a loyal member of the shadow cabinet (unlike some of them) for three years under Corbyn, becoming one of the Party’s prominent figures in that time, especially amongst the Momentumites. It seems fitting, then, that the organisation set up to propel Corbyn to the leadership in 2015 now champions Long-Bailey, and perhaps unsurprising. This could be a blessing and a curse. While the support of Momentum and prominent union leaders is definitely an aid to her campaign, Labour has to keep looking forward, away from top-down structures that establish a grip over the Party. Greater democratisation must take place, and that can’t be done through giving power power to the heads of party organisations and powerful union leaders, allowing them to select favourable parliamentary candidates. Alongside this, Long-Bailey should commit to a new radical socialism, beckoned by Corbyn, that learns from the past but abandons empty nostalgia; 21st century problems require 21st century approaches. Aspirational socialism is needed – everyone must have the opportunity to succeed and a safety net to protect them from destitution. Long-Bailey is arguably the candidate best able and most likely to convey it. (Stuff about old socialism – is she losing the new radical left to Starmer/Nandy?)
Finally, running from the outside is Lisa Nandy, having secured a place on the final ballot after some inspired performances that marked her out as an outspoken candidate for change, because one of them inevitably had to be, and people don’t like Jess Philips. However, her position appears to have mellowed over the contest, potentially to placate the membership. SHe’s by far the most experienced candidate, having been in Parliament for a decade now – double that of her competitors – and has featured in the Shadow Cabinet in that time. Despite accepting the result of the Brexit referendum, she stresses that we must maintain strong trade links with the EU, rather than crashing out in the way we look set to. In line with this, Nandy has also stated that the Brexit transition period should be extended, as we focus now on dealing with Covid-19. The government’s refusal to budge on Brexit despite all the current goings-on suggests a willingness to be reckless, even hinting at a no-deal Brexit. This cannot be allowed to happen, and Nandy’s resistance to it is both reassuring and promising. She also appears to want to take forward a radical agenda, particularly around tax, and is intent on thinning the ravine that separates the rich from the poor. As she says, we need to go further than the previous Labour government, building on the national minimum wage and child tax credits. This agenda would be welcome, but balancing it with an apparent disdain for Labour manifesto promises like free broadband will be interesting. It also remains to be seen how her emphasis on communities will manifest itself; will she put more money into bus services, as she’s alluded to, and will these measures draw in votes? It remains to be seen.
As Labour reaches a decade in opposition, it seems fitting that it’s leader will never have witnessed their party govern from within the House of Commons. There is an upside to that; the next leader will be from a new intake, with new ideas. Blairism is on its last legs, none of the three espousing a neoliberal agenda, and the Blairite contender for deputy is by no means projected to win. Labour must take a transformative agenda forward, putting those left behind (yet now somehow cherished) by the Tories at the centre of it. The 21st century’s problems cannot be ignored; zero hours contracts must be outlawed and their perpetrators punished. Emergency measures must be put in place to ensure the NHS has the capacity to deal with crises like this one, and its workers at every level – carers, cleaners, doctors, nurses, delivery drivers – must have our full support, both verbally and materially. Finally, we must look outwards. True democracy cannot be achieved when people have to vote against something, engaging in the shambles of tactical voting rather than supporting a person or a party they believe in. Millions of votes are wasted on safe seats every election, while governments pile wealth into marginal seats to impress swing voters. The system must change, as must we. Greater cooperation between parties is essential, with the SNP or the Greens; Labour cannot oppose the Tories alone. Even if this does happen, though, it is restrained by the denial of votes. If you can legally join the army or get married at 16, you should have the vote at 16, and every British resident, whether they own a passport or are in prison or are an EU national, deserves a stake in this country’s future. If Labour champions these causes amongst others, we can win,and soon. We should only hope the victor of this contest sees things the same way.
Keeping Left 