Originally published @ 11:42 pm, Tue 27th Jul 2010
The fuss about Peter Mandelson’s book has calmed down, and the main conclusions appear to be that the leaders of New Labour could hold it together enough to provide winning ways for 3 General Elections but couldn’t bring it together for the fourth; oh, and that Peter Mandelson is vain.
I can understand the anger about memoirs. But if they are going to get published, being published during the leadership election and in a way that doesn’t take attention away from party conference is a good thing. Especially if there is something to be learned.
Meanwhile, the New Statesmen published interviews with each of the five candidates – except each of the 5 interviews were swamped by opinion and restating of the emerging shorthands for each of the candidate. David- the leading candidate, with most authority, but perhaps too keen on markets; Ed – apparently more radical and more charming, with others then saying he isn’t; Ed Balls – being written off despite a recognition that he has been most effective in the recent period of opposition; Andy – probably doesn’t have the clout yet; Diane – how could such a leader expect loyalty from a party after the years she’s been on the BBC paid to be anything but loyal to.
There are stories of the leadership campaign having some bitterness in Westminster ( http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2010/07/ed-miliband.html#links ), but for many party members, there will be a sense that there wasn’t that much between four of the five candidates whilst they were in government and it’s quite possible there won’t be that much between them afterwards. And if there will be, it’s not showing yet. That’s not to dismiss the candidates, so much as to say that an opportunity still exists, even if it can’t be as dramatic as a leadership hustings at party conference like the one that helped David Cameron become leader of his party.
Ed Balls came to the GMB HQ in my ward on Sunday evening and, addressing a mixed audience from across Greater Nottingham, can be said to have done better than many were expecting. Endorsement by Ken Livingstone won’t do him any harm either, even if the reasoning was a bit on the lame side (control of officers rather than perhaps the best hope of a more alternative economic strategy).
(Ed also tried to put some of the factionalism behind him in an interview with Polly Toynbee - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2010/jul/26/labour-leadership-ed-balls )
Part of the purpose of a long campaign must be to allow the candidates to grow out of their previous roles and to demonstrate a new leadership. And whilst the resolve of MPs might be declared and unlikely to change, the party members and affiliated members seem to be much more undecided.
Finally, there is a fear that the ConDems are winning the economic argument for cutbacks now. I think it has been difficult to get our economic argument across, in part cos of the severity of the recession and in part cos people, having voted, are a bit reluctant to come to a view that they were wrong quite so quickly (another way of describing a “honeymoon”).
But the honeymoon has not been that great for the ConDems - http://today.yougov.co.uk/commentaries/peter-kellner/honeymoon-over - and it’s interesting to see Labour closing a bit more on the Conservatives in the Guardian/ICM poll and the Ipsos MORI.
Kommentarer