I am struck by the tone of press commentary surrounding the
Labour leadership contest. What has dumbfounded me most has been the consensus
surrounding Jeremy Corbyn as the futile gesture from the dying, awkward
appendage of the Labour movement. Independent columnist DJ Taylor likened his
candidacy to the Stuart king Henry IX who, many years after defeat, maintained a
notional claim to the throne. Referring both to Henry’s refusal to relinquish
the throne and to the values for which Corbyn stands, DJ Taylor said, did he ‘think
he would ever return? Probably not, but, even at this late stage the
mythological structures erected around the tantalising visions of kings were
too seductive to be thrown away.’ DJ Taylor is suggesting that Corbyn clings on
to an old way that doesn’t exist, at least within his party but I’m not sure
this is true, but it might be soon.
For all the ‘nay saying’ I hear from the press regarding
Corbyn’s candidacy, what is irrefutable is his popularity amongst party
members. Labour List’s recent poll put Jeremy Corbyn at 47% of the overall vote
amongst Labour List readers, with Andy Burnham lagging behind with 19% of
readers’ support and the other candidates falling short of that. Considering
this together with recent reforms to the way leaders are selected, with a one
member one vote system, Jeremy Corbyn’s support outside the parliamentary
sphere would likely mirror the readers’ poll.
Prior to the changes toward the OMOV (one member one vote)
system, votes were effectively weighted in favour of various bodies electoral
colleges, affiliated with the Parliamentary Labour Party. Under the old system
one MP’s vote was worth approximately 608 ordinary members votes and 12, 915
affiliated members votes. This disparity was caused by the fact that MPs are
often members of each affiliate organisation simply by holding the office of MP
and were allowed a vote for each affiliate organisation for which they were a
member. Now, the OMOV system should
mitigate against such weighted outcomes. Jeremy Corbyn may well receive party
wide support.
It is this fact that may worry the other candidates who are
currently screaming ahead in terms of nominations. Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall
and Yvette Cooper all have more than the requisite 35. However, given that Jeremy Corbyn
has party-wide if he received enough nominations in Parliament, he may well
win. As each prospective candidate claims they are keen to see the Labour
movement find it’s feet again, why not allow Corbyn to extend his campaign and
give the party a chance to see what it wants?
Recently I wrote a piece on the point of Labour for the
Political Rooster contending that, the varying electoral demographics within
our society, which the Labour Party relied on for support in May, had stopped
ticking the red box and moved to scrawling in the blue, yellow or even purple
boxes. If the Labour Party cannot form a vision that appeals to it’s core
demographic, and won’t even listen to it’s own members then they will be left
it in a worse position than before the leadership contest began. The recent institution
of the OMOV system allows for a good refection of the overall party’s will. That
said, isn’t it the Parliamentary Party’s duty to behave responsibly within the
confines they find themselves and, given that they must be aware of the high
levels of support for Corbyn, usher any excess nominations his direction?
Chris Leslie, the Shadow Chancellor, spoke on today’s Sunday
Politics. He said of the May election manifesto that, “we had a lot of offers
in energy, housing etc. that were perfectly plausible but, in aggregate there
was a misimpression we wanted to intervene across multiple markets.” Now, each
leadership contender excluding of course Jeremy Corbyn has interpreted the
electorate’s rejection of Ed Milliband’s various manifesto pledges as reason
for altering the Party’s stance on key policy areas. Liz Kendal suggests Labour
should welcome the Free School agenda, whilst Andy Burnham was notably jeered
at during a recent hustings for intimating support for a benefit cap. Yvette
Cooper seems to wish for a hark back to the prosperity of the Blair era, with
talk of bringing back Labour’s commitment to end child poverty; which according
to the IFS only slightly improved anyway from 1997 to 2010 due to a rise of 18bn in welfare spending on families.
Chris Leslie’s comments this morning made one thing clear to
me. It wasn’t Labour’s individual policies that the electorate had a problem
with, but that the manifesto as a whole and it’s delivery didn’t convey a clear
vision, that of the working man, the labour party, the thing that makes the
Labour Party authentic. Otherwise they are just Tories in red ties. So, if the
candidates running can bring themselves to hand over nominations they should.
For the good of their party. If they don’t, they won’t have a party to lead.