As someone who has led two very different organisations – a college and a council – I have some experience of leadership. I know that watching somebody else lead is quite different to leading yourself. It is much easier to know what someone else should do and be a commentator or adviser. To lead is a lonelier business. After consulting and considering, you have to decide. The challenge, therefore, for any leader is to inspire and mobilise and make decisions in a way that builds an organisation forward. When selecting a headteacher the director of education turned to me and said, ‘Which out of these candidates would you follow up the hill?’ We do not want a leader that races up the hill only to turn round and find no-one behind them. We want a leader that when they go forward we instinctively and enthusiastically go forward with them.
Leading the Labour party will be a massive challenge and is not a one-person job. So the leader will need to motivate and engage as much of the incredible talent in the party that they can. We cannot have another period of remote leadership where the leader is distant from the parliamentary Labour party, the Labour movement and – most dangerously of all – the people we are elected to serve.
People on the doorsteps of the United Kingdom are telling us that they think the political class is no longer like them. They perceive politics as peopled by ‘professional politicians’. Any leader worth their salt must respond to this challenge. Diversity is more than gender and ethnicity, important though they are. It is multi-layered. People across the United Kingdom should be able to look at Labour’s shadow cabinet and see someone in the front line of the leadership of our party that they have confidence in, that they believe understands their world.
A number of remarkably talented people are putting their pitch to be the deader or deputy leader of the Labour party. Currently, I sense that most of the people who might nominate them as well as the people who might vote for them have yet to make up their minds who is best to take us forward. That openness is a very positive thing. It should be embraced. It provides the space for each of the candidates to set out their stall and be measured against different people’s yardsticks of what is required in a Labour leader.
What is my yardstick? I am interested in how each candidate sees themselves leading. Will they surround themselves with people like themselves in their advisory team and shadow cabinet? Or will they have a different approach? How will they motivate people they work closely with and how will they inspire the party and the country? How will they make sure that there is a debate about the direction of the party that is genuine, open and inclusive? But also conducted and concluded in a way that sets a direction forward that everyone will get behind. Or do they see this as unnecessary? What sort of manager of people are they? We all have strengths and weaknesses – that is a given I’m afraid. I want a leader who is self-aware and has steps in place to address their weaknesses and capitalise on their strengths. Who is the person close to them who they trust to tell them when they’ve got it wrong even when they don’t want to hear it?
———————————
Nic Dakin is member of parliament for Scunthorpe
———————————
The Labour Leader. I am deeply
concerned about the replacement Labour leader being a “Career Politician.”
Having seen many of these, close-up, I have serious doubts about their
competence and “wisdom.” They are gutless and scared of promoting “radical”
policies, in case they affect their careers. Five years ago I suggested at a
conference that there should be price controls on the utilities. This was
ignored, although the tepid price freeze policy did eventually come a few years
later. Career Politicians have been derogatorily described as “pygmies,”
“Thatcher’s Children.” At a conference fringe meeting, two years ago, I asked
leadership hopeful, Liz Kendle (shadow Health Minister for Older people and
former Think Tank employee) “Have you ever worked in the Public Sector?” She
responded like a rabbit caught in headlights “Er, Er ….No.”
With the Public antagonism and contempt towards
Career Politicians, candidates ought to come from various
backgrounds/careers/trades and be of a minimum age (e.g. 50+) and/or have
considerable and varied “real world” life experience? People in charge of ministries need to have
some direct experience. Estelle Morris was a very good Education Minister,
being an ex-teacher, although she was hounded out by the Right Wing Press.
Mature politicians are likely to have settled
backgrounds (e.g. with adult children) whereas young politicians may fight to
pay mortgages and so on, juggling time and commitments in a dog eat dog world.
The Tories selected candidates who were not from
the professional political elite. Was this the reason why they achieved their
unexpected victory? Nevertheless, the
candidates came from mainly business backgrounds. If Labour was to go down the
same route, it needs to widen the selection so that it encompasses people from
more Middle and Working Class backgrounds – trades people, engineers,
scientists, nurses, teachers, shop workers, park rangers, etc. Ideally,
Parliament should represent UK class, occupation and demography.
This extract from my recent article sent to Progress editor. It is most unlikely to be published! I wonder why? If Labour is to recover, ALL views need to be heard. Self censorship is one of the reasons for Labour’s defeat.
The Labour Leader.
I am deeply concerned about the replacement Labour leader being a “Career Politician.”
Having seen many of these, close-up, I have serious doubts about their competence and “wisdom.” They are gutless and scared of promoting “radical” policies, in case they affect their careers.
Five years ago I suggested at a conference that there should be price controls on the utilities. This was ignored, although the popular but tepid price freeze policy did eventually come a few years later. Career Politicians have been derogatorily described as “pygmies,” “Thatcher’s Children.” At a conference fringe meeting, two years ago, I asked leadership hopeful, Liz Kendle (shadow Health Minister for Older people and former Think Tank employee) “Have you ever worked in the Public Sector?” She responded like a rabbit caught in headlights “Er, Er ….No.”
With the Public antagonism and contempt towards Career Politicians, candidates ought to come from various backgrounds/careers/trades and be of a minimum age (e.g. 50+) and/or have
considerable and varied “real world” life experience? People in charge of ministries need to have
some direct experience. Estelle Morris was a very good Education Minister, being an ex-teacher, although she was hounded out by the Right Wing Press.
Mature politicians are likely to have settled backgrounds (e.g. with adult children) whereas young politicians may fight to pay mortgages and so on, juggling time and commitments in a dog eat dog world.
The Tories selected candidates who were not from the professional political elite. Was this the reason why they achieved their unexpected victory? Nevertheless, the candidates came from mainly business backgrounds. If Labour was to go down the same route, it needs to widen the selection so that it encompasses people from more Middle and Working Class backgrounds – trades people, engineers, scientists, nurses, teachers, shop workers, park rangers, etc. ideally,
Parliament should represent UK class, occupation and demography.