This was what I concluded after some serious thought; many discussions with Labour colleagues and non-party friends; and emails to a couple of NEC members interested in the views of party members. Not all of my colleagues and friends agreed with my final verdict and I respect the considered counter-arguments they proffered. But having weighed up all the pros and cons of a sooner or a later leadership election, including the financial cost to the party, this was where I landed. And I believe, on balance, that Labour’s NEC called this one wrong.
I’m sure there are members who consider that the NEC decision benefits some of the potential leadership candidates and is to the detriment of others. I have no interest in such views and I hope that wasn’t a feature in the decision made by individual members of the NEC when offering their comments and casting their votes at Tuesday’s meeting.
I want this leadership election to act as a catalyst for recruitment and be an opportunity for kickstarting party renewal. Is the NEC really suggesting that these benefits can’t be sustained beyond a leadership contest?
I want an open, forthright and positive leadership contest. Unlike lots of others I already know who I’m supporting – I’ve spent time sourcing and reading some of the lesser read articles, pamphlets and speeches by already announced, and other possible, contenders. But is the NEC really suggesting that facilitating opportunities for members to listen to; read about; engage with and question potential candidates; and fully participate in this election needs to take four months to meet the openness this critical time in our future requires?
Values and ideas should underpin what the candidates espouse during this contest – setting out their vision for the party and the country – so that informed decisions can be made. But can the NEC really be saying that the minutiae of every party renewal or policy issue raised will be thrashed out during these four months?
While the circumstances differed, the timetables to elect a Leader and Deputy Leader in 1992, 1994 and 2007 spanned less than two months. These leadership elections, arising at similar times in the calendar year to now, did not warrant a four month timetable. Some would argue these were just as, if not more, critical times for the party.
However, most importantly, the general election result left us with a government and agenda which makes this a critical time for the country. If we’re serious about returning to government sooner rather than later then getting our elected leader and shadow cabinet in place sooner rather than later should have been the factor which featured first and foremost in the minds of the NEC.
With the ConDem alliance taking advantage of their honeymoon period and moving swiftly to pursue spending cuts and controversial constitutional reforms we should not be overindulging in an elongated intra-party conversation. The people who depend on Labour in government need us, arguably now more than at any time in the last 13 years, to be focused on their future and to be acting in their interest. I remain to be convinced that this was the prism through which the NEC made its decision.
The decision is made, the timetable is set and it appears as though there’s no opportunity for revision. I await report backs from the NEC members who consult and inform party members and genuinely hope that my concerns are unfounded.
Twitter @Jo_Milligan
The danger really is not that it favours one candidate per se, but that it allows the Labour party to retreat back into its comfort zone and we end up with a candidate that reflects that (oh how many people i have listened to saying that it’s time we went back into opposition as if that were a good thing). It seems absurd that the reason the NEC gave was that they couldn’t afford a special conference or a separate mailing to members. That seems bizarre – if we are really so strapped for cash, let’s cut annual conference by a day.
Why does it take us far far longer to elect a leader than it does an entire general election campaign? Could it be that all the lobby groups in the party and the hangers on who have books to sell want it all strung out so they can get people along to expensive meetings where the can waffle for Britain? It does not take a genius to work out that we need a leader who is electable.People elect shiny leaders who look good on TV, can talk well and appeal to the masses. David Miliband fits that bill so just get on with it so we can take the fight to the Tories without all this endless waffle and nonsense.