Lessons from the Labour deputy-leadership race

It’s a good job I’m not a betting man, because I would have put my money on Alan Johnson winning the Labour deputy-leadership election.

As it happens, he was beaten into second place at the very last minute by Harriet Harman, losing by less than a percentage point on the final round. Interestingly, the shortfall was almost exactly the same in the first and final rounds.

What is far more interesting, however, is that John Cruddas won the first round, and Harriet Harmon came second. Their success carried them all the way to the penultimate round. Thus, despite Peter Hain’s early ejection, this suggests that there is still a lot of life left in what is usually called the “left” of the party, and what I might prefer to call the socialist wing, Old Labour or (borrowing some of their own more irritating semantics) the “unreconstructed” elements within the Labour Party.

What is also fascinating and shocking is the turnout: at least a couple of MPs and MEPs failed to vote, but more notably, almost half (46%) of members did not vote either. This suggests that a large part of the party was either unimpressed by all the candidates (and this seems unlikely, as the offered genuine diversity and choice) or believed that the vote was of little importance or value. With Harriet Harman now elected, we can expect that the post will prove of little importance or value, too.

As for levy-paying members of affiliated Trades Unions, just 8% bothered to cast votes. This last raises some interesting questions. If only 8% of levy-paying members bothered to vote, what proportion are actually interested in Labour Party matters? What proportion are even supportive of the Labour Party? And perhaps most importantly, what proportion are actually aware that they pay the levy?

If I understand correctly (and please let me know if I’m mistaken) Trades Unionists pay the levy automatically unless they specifically opt out. If this is the case, then this vote raises the spectre that a huge proportion are paying the levy unwittingly. If so, there may be a case for legislation requiring Trades Unions to reverse this situation, so that would-be Labour supporters must actively opt into levy-paying.

In the meantime, Liberal Democrats would be well advised to draw to the attention of Trades Unionists that they may be unwittingly funding a Party that they do not support, and perhaps oppose. A case for a publicity campaign, perhaps?

Labour deputy leadership promises of renewal founder in politics as usual

A day late, I have just watched the Newsnight special on the Labour Party’s deputy leadership contest. What a depressing experience!

Every single one of them stressed their desire to “Restore trust in politics” (Benn) and “renew the party” (Blears). Yet by-and-large they all committed the same sins that make politicians so contemptible.

Asked to give a “yes or no answer” to four policy questions, only Alan Johnson was prepared to say what he believed without either hedging or explaining. When pushed about replacing Trident, new nuclear power, ending the charitable status of independent schools and an amnesty for illegal immigrants, their answers were:

Cruddas: No Yes Yes (failed to answer)
Hain: Yes Yes No No
Johnson: Yes Yes No Yes
Harman: (failed to answer) Yes No Yes
Blears: Yes Yes No No
Benn: Yes Yes No No

When asked who they would vote for if they were not themselves standing, all five of the front bench candidates refused to answer, insisting that they were “in it to win it” (Blears). Only John Cruddas was honest enough to answer – perhaps because he was asked first and did not know that the others were so spineless; he said he would vote for Harriet Harman “because of her gender activism” (he might as well have said because she was a woman).

In fact, the straightest answer came when asked if they would have voted for the Iraq war (they all did) if they knew then what they know now. Both Cruddas and Harman said they would not and added that Labour ought to apologise for its mistake; Hain said he could not wriggle off the hook with the benefit of hindsight (which I thought was an honourable answer); while Johnson and Hilary Benn said they were glad Saddam was gone. Blears still fudged; she wanted to look forward, not back (having clearly not moved on since 2005*).

On one issue they all agreed, however. None supported caps on the size of donations to political parties (though most supported caps on spending) and the Trades Unions ought to be exempted from any ban on large donations. Some things, it seems, have not changed in the Labour Party.

--

*Interestingly, I tried to link to Britain: forward not back, Labour's 2005 election manifesto, but it has mysteriously disappeared!