Stakes rise in most surprising nominations for Labour leadership

Douglas Alexander, Eric Joyce, Frank Field and Kate Hoey.

With the Labour Party publishing official nominations online as they are made, close Labour watchers will find many MPs nominating the candidate who would seem to fit most naturally with their own political views or personal ties.

There is also an emerging regional theme. Ed Balls's and Andy Burnham's early nominations do not just reflect a good many friends in the north, but suggest that they could raise rival White Rose and Red Rose New Labour armies, given their strong centres of gravity in Yorkshire and the north-west, though David Blunkett is leading a Burnhamite incursion in Yorkshire.

But not all of the nominations are going where one might expect. Here are some of the early contenders in the Least Predictable Nomination stakes.

1. Douglas Alexander for David Miliband

There were four "next-generation Labour" voices most closely associated with Gordon Brown over the past decade. Two of them -- Ed Balls and Ed Miliband -- are now rival candidates for the leadership, while Yvette Cooper chose not to join a "family fortunes" leadership race, and has instead nominated her husband. That Douglas Alexander, the fourth Brownite, has nominated David Miliband may well demonstrate a welcome desire among this generation to break out of the "sons of Blair and Brown" frame of reference.

Although he may be disappointed not to have secured the Alexander nomination, I can't see many surprises on the Ed Miliband list of initial nominees.

2. Eric Joyce for Ed Balls

The standout surprise on the Ed Balls list of his first 24 nominations is the MP for Falkirk, Eric Joyce, for a long time among the most Blairite members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. As an ex-soldier, Joyce was often put up on Newsnight to defend the government over Iraq when no minister was willing to do so. On that, he and Balls can agree to differ.

3. Frank Field and Kate Hoey for John McDonnell

Asked to identify the most right-leaning member of the PLP, a number of Labour members would put Frank Field and Kate Hoey on their shortlist.

Both are living up to their reputations as freethinking mavericks by being among the first supporters of John McDonnell. Perhaps the stalwart of the Socialist Campaign Group and the candidate of the Labour Representation Committee left will run a Blairite "big-tent" strategy after all?

Ed Miliband is doing well on nominations, but I do not see any great surprises. Perhaps we should challenge him to prise Nick Brown's nomination from Ed Balls

Finally, Diane Abbott has yet to record any official nominations on the Labour website. David Lammy, who is personally close to David Miliband, has pledged to nominate (but not vote for) her. Though McDonnell has set the bar high, I suspect Abbott may turn out to be the winner in the Least Likely Nominee stakes after all.

Sunder Katwala is general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.