Analysis of Labour leadership debate: a hopeless horror show

On Sunday, the BBC gave the 4 Labour leadership hopefuls the opportunity to compete in a televised debate on Sunday Politics. My view: it’s looking really bleak for Labour.


IT is difficult to comment on the substance of the material discussed because there was very little mature discussion about anything. Andrew Neil spent the whole time shouting like an angry headmaster, trying to control his unruly students as they bellowed over each other to try and persuade us that, somehow, they don’t represent business as usual for the beleaguered party. Needless to say, they all failed completely. The detention from Headmaster Neil would definitely have gone to Liz Kendall who, despite offering the most sensible contributions, interrupted the others constantly and muttered petulant, playground retorts under her breath whenever she disagreed. At one point, Neil cited John Prescott’s criticism of her lack of experience when challenging her credibility. He should, instead, have challenged her understanding of basic etiquette.

For anyone who hopes that Labour might actually stand for something and mean something again someday, this debate must have been a horror show. Let’s look individually at how each of its stars performed.

Andy Burnham: tortured by his past.

Andy Burnham sort of said something about spending too much, but then said they didn’t spend too much, or perhaps they did. It was like we were witnessing the inner turmoil of his troubled soul, as his heart and head were engaging in a pantomime trade-off: “O no we didn’t! “O yes we did!” In the end, Burnham appeared to cheer himself up by reminding himself, and everyone else, that he wasn’t leader at the time, whenever he had to defend something vaguely controversial. His crowning moment came when he attacked the 2015 manifesto, saying that the longer the driveway to the door, the less he had to say. It was, he proclaimed, “too narrow.” He was then reminded that he had recently claimed it was the best manifesto he had ever stood on. Once you attack the manifesto that you think was your best yet, despite the fact that (unlike election-winning predecessors) it was a disaster in the eyes of the voters, I don’t know how you come back from that. Andy’s only moments of clarity came when he said that he supports a welfare cap “in principle,” although he wouldn’t commit to a figure of what it should be. The other was in firmly opposing the government’s 2-child tax credits policy, because he was 1 of 3 (very pertinent, that is). On everything else, he needs to figure out what he thinks, if it’s not too late.

Yvette Cooper: all hail Miss Defiant.

Does anyone else listen to Yvette Cooper and just think, “But Yvette, you married Ed balls!” Yet Yvette proved yesterday that, in relation to the charge of arrogance, smugness and self-congratulation even when hopelessly wrong, she is not guilty just by association with her old man, but is guilty in her own right. Yvette kicked and stamped her feet at any accusation that in the good years, Labour spent too much. She even claimed that debts were very low before the crash, and reeled off a list of spending commitments that the government had delivered as a result. This was in spite of Andy Burnham, who had carried out a spending review, openly contradicting her, and Andrew Neil quoting both OECD reports on the structural deficit, and a statistic that, within a couple of years, debt had risen from £300bn to £500bn. She was, Neil stated, saying things that were “factually incorrect.” Having loudly proved that she had learned nothing and was the continuity candidate offering the same remedies as before, Cooper never really recovered.

Jeremy Corbyn: did well just to be there.

Jeremy Corbyn has achieved something just by being a contender. Friend of terrorists Jeremy Corbyn actually put in a decent performance. What he offers is, of course, orthodox socialism as the solution to everything, and in yesterday’s vote on the welfare bill, he did rebel against Harriet Harman as predicted. What I liked about Corbyn, however, is that he had a clear approach to outline. If the bar now is set so low that a candidate is good by virtue of knowing what he stands for on anything at all of substance, this is why Mr Corbyn is doing well. He wants to borrow money, and lots of it. He rejects austerity. He believes you shouldn’t have an “arbitrary” date for running a surplus. All very predictable stuff, but I enjoyed listening to Corbyn the most.

Liz Kendall: her moment’s come too soon.

Liz Kendall’s contributions were overshadowed by her behaviour. She interrupted constantly, on several occasions throwing her toys out of the pram like a spoilt brat. She was the only one who appeared to dismiss with any resolve the notion of Corbyn being a member of her cabinet. She supported the welfare bill and then, to distract everyone from focussing on this, wittered on about an apparently ground-breaking revelation she’s had: any idea one advances has to be accompanied with supporting evidence of how you’ll pay for it. Mind you, we shouldn’t mock; for Labour, this is indeed a lesson it’s been hard to learn over the years. Kendall explained that Labour’s victories under Attlee, Wilson and Blair, came when it reached out to those who voted Tory too, so she grounded her modernising views in a sound historic argument that it’s hard to disagree with. She got upset with Andy Burnham for vigorously denying that ‘Blairite’ is now a term of abuse within the Labour party. Clearly she is right to rebuke him. Labour has turned ferociously on the Blairite way, even though this was its route to power in 1997. I expect Kendall realises that, at the moment, it is the Tories who have really taken the message from Tony Blair: build a broad coalition of support and you’ll do well. That’s why it was a Tory chancellor writing in the Guardian of all places yesterday. That’s why they’ve taken on the minimum wage issue. That’s why the levy on banks increases.

For some reason, it was Corbyn of all people who actually dared use the term ‘broad church,’ but I am in no doubt that only Liz Kendall really has the fire in her belly to try and pull it off. She faced down her critics on Sunday, insisting she is “tough.” I believe her. The trouble is, she is too inexperienced, having only been an MP 5 years. Her parliamentary colleagues don’t just expect her to fail – they want her to! Her bad behaviour was, I think, borne out of frustration. It’s clear that she views the Labour party of today with contempt, and hates its stubborn resistance to face up to its problems and change. What this leadership debate showed, without any doubt, is that Labour is nowhere near ready yet for a Blairite dose of reality to be dished out to it. That’s why Liz interrupts. That’s why she’s angry. That’s why, unfortunately, she’s wasting her time.