Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Newsnight Labour leadership debate: political heroes

A most unlikely set of political heroes was offered by the candidates last night. What does this tell us?

With the leadership candidates asked for a Labour political hero during the Newsnight debate, we were at least spared their tributes to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. But what an unlikely set of personal nominations we were offered. Each could be seen as somewhat dissonant with the candidate's past career or campaign message.

Most authentic may have been David Miliband's nomination of Tony Crosland, postwar Labour's greatest social-democratic intellectual voice. It was a good choice -- I think Crosland would be my (somewhat pointy-headed) choice, too -- though the shadow foreign secretary seemed irked with it and to want to withdraw it once the four other candidates had chosen actual as well as lost leaders of the party.

Yet Miliband's claim that Crosland's untimely death in 1977 robbed Labour of a great leader doesn't stand up. Crosland had his chance in 1976 and would surely not have been a candidate in 1980, nor surely could he ever have hoped to lead the party successfully by then if he had been elected. (See the end of the post for more.)

Perhaps least plausible was Ed Balls's choice of Tony Blair, citing his victory in three elections, though he was perhaps not Balls's first choice for leader in either 1997 or 2005. Balls has previously pitched for Nye Bevan.

Ed Miliband played it very safe indeed with Labour's secular saint Clement Attlee, citing the achievements of the 1945-51 government.

Yet surely the efficient managerialism of Attlee, beyond his collegiality in cabinet, provides quite the opposite model of political leadership from the inspirational "movement politics" to which Ed Miliband's campaign aspires. Attlee did not campaign in poetry; indeed, given his famously monosyllabic nature, he might even have questioned the need for any more prose than necessary when governing.

For all of the achievements of the Attlee administration's first term, he entirely failed to renew an exhausted government after 1948. Labour ran in 1950 and 1951 on an empty "consolidation" manifesto, pledging little beyond the nationalisation of sugar. The central point of Ed Miliband's campaign on values and vision is surely to make once again, after New Labour, precisely the critique put by Dick Crossman in New Fabian Essays in 1952: that Labour had "lost its way not only because it lacked maps of the new country it is crossing, but because it thinks maps unnecessary for experienced travellers".

Diane Abbott's nomination of John Smith saw the Campaign Group candidate connect to the centre-right voice most associated with the "soul of the party". That is a smart strategy as part of Abbott's broad and mainstream Labour pitch. I suspect that she may have been less supportive of Smith's short leadership from the right of the party at the time.

By my calculation, Bryan Gould must have won votes from roughly 60 of Labour's 271 MPs in the 1992 leadership election (doing much better in the Parliamentary Labour Party, where he lost 4-1, than in the other voting sections in that most one-sided contest). Most of the left, such as Ken Livingstone, backed Gould over Smith. I don't have a record of which side Abbott was on. No doubt the newspapers could check.

Andy Burnham, too, cited John Smith having pledged also to give Labour back its soul, though he offered little reason for his choice. I suspect that Burnham, who was a researcher for Tessa Jowell from 1994-97, would have been instinctively sympathetic to the embryonic New Labour critique of Smith's cautious consolidation strategy, characterised as "one more heave".

So no mention of Keir Hardie or Ellen Wilkinson, Nye Bevan or Hugh Gaitskell, Barbara Castle or Bernie Grant, Neil Kinnock or Robin Cook. The Labour premiers Ramsay MacDonald, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are, for different reasons, very much outside candidates, though there must be less obvious contenders, too.

So, perhaps somebody should make a note to ask the leadership candidates again for their political heroes in October.

Crosland had his chance in 1976, when he received a paltry 17 votes (5 per cent) out of a Parliamentary Party of 314 Labour MPs, finishing sixth out of six candidates, albeit in Labour's most glittering field, with Denis Healey fifth (30 votes), Tony Benn fourth (with 37), Roy Jenkins third (56) and Callaghan second on the first ballot (84) behind Michael Foot (on 90), with Callaghan defeating Foot on the third ballot.

Crosland was famously displeased that he could not even persuade his ambitious acolyte Roy Hattersley to vote for him in the 1976 contest:

When Wilson unexpectedly stepped down as prime minister in 1976, it seemed natural that Hattersley would back Jenkins or Tony Crosland, his close friend and mentor, for the leadership. But he was told by Callaghan that neither of the two right-wingers could hold the party together. Moreover, Callaghan added, they were both going to lose. And those who wanted preferment under a Callaghan administration would have to vote for him (Callaghan).

Hattersley telephoned his friend Crosland to explain his predicament. He pledged eternal loyalty -- and then broke the news that he would be supporting Callaghan. He offered to explain why. Crosland, unsurprisingly, told him to "fuck off". When Callaghan won, he rewarded Hattersley with his first cabinet post, as secretary for prices and consumer protection.

Sunder Katwala is general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

Tags: Labour leadership

10 comments

swatantra nandanwar's picture

I cannot understand this 'John Smith' thing. I came back into active politics just around the time that Smith became Leader, and frankly I did not see as a 'winner'. He may have said some 'leftish' things, but we lost the 92 election because of him, and I say it again if he had led the Party into 97, I doubt if Labour would have won that landslide.

Douglas Clarke's picture

But Crosland had spent the Wilson years in a serious of mid-level positions, whilst by 1980, he would have served as Foreign Secretary and maybe Chancellor.

Denis Healey came second-bottom, just above Crosand and with only thirteen votes more, but he managed to be Callaghan's successor. Why not Crosland?

David Wearing1's picture

Abbott was choosing Smith relative to other leaders, not other Labour figures generally (Miliband chose Crosland because he misheard the question), so whether she would have preferred Gould over Smith in 92 leaderhip election doesn't mean very much in this context.

sunderkatwala's picture

Having put out a request for info, am told via BBC research dept that Diane Abbott did in fact vote for John Smith in 1992.

sunderkatwala's picture

Douglas,

Healey lost in 1980 to Foot, so was not

I am saying
- I think Crosland would not have won in 1980, and doubt he would have run. He would have found it difficult to get past Healey as the right's candidate. And he would have been as or more difficult to get the broad support to win than Healey, who couldn't do so either.

- And, if you disagree about that, that he would, had he won, I suggest he would have had a nightmare as leader from 1980-83 and did not have the context in which he could have been "a great leader".

Douglas Clarke's picture

Ooops - that was embarrasing :D
Healey was so obviously the frontrunner, I forgot he didn't actually win... :D

I agree that Crosland would not have had much of a chance in OTL's 1980, but only because the party's right-wing establishment had just been discredited by the Winter of Discontent and a thumping election defeat.

Things could have quite easily gone differently if Callaghan had gone to country earlier. In that case, Callaghan and the party's right would have had more contorl over the succession and considering that Callaghan clearly favoured Crosland (promoting him to Foreign Secretary and dropping all the hints about the Treasury) I don't think its unreasonable that he could be the candidate of the right and, with the government still ticking over, could have won the leadership.

I agree, Crosland as Opposition Leader in 1980 would have been a catastrophe, but so would about any other leader. Foot was about the only acceptable candidate; establishment and left-wing. For all his (many) faults as leader, Healey would have likely been even worse.

sunderkatwala's picture

David M's argument was that Crosland "would have been a great leader" were it not for his untimely death. Its a nice point to want to make, but we basically agree on the main point that it is difficult to see how he could have been.

I will concede yr scenario for getting him close to the leadership is possible, though having come a poor 6th I think he may have been reluctant to re-enter the lists, and the PLP in 1980 may have been thinking somewhat about the new rules which were coming while electing under the old ones.

Without Foot, if you can't avoid the special conference, do you get a leadership rather than a deputy contest to split the party down the middle in 1981?

Perhaps if Crosland wins that he gets to lead, but it probably takes the 1983 defeat and leadership from Kinnock on the centre-left to make anybody leading the party possible.

Douglas Clarke's picture

Yeah, I think David M might have been romanticising about an ex-Foreign Secretary and wonkish intellectual who would have been a "great leader".....

I'm not sure the new rules would have passed but for the defeat, but if they do, Crosland is finished in leadership terms.

Probably, if Healey gets it rather than Foot (and the SDP splits as OTL), Benn has a good chance of seizing the leadership in 1981. Under a Benn leadership, Labour moderate loyalists like Hattersley would probably defect to the SDP.

Nah, I think that if Crosland survives, he can get the leadership only if you can extend the Wilson-Callaghan era a little longer. That is a very interesting scenario, but he won't be a trailblazer in the way I think David M imagines him.

Of course, if he got the Treasury in 1967.....

Abe Bernstein's picture

Is Andy borrowing from DMili's wardrobe??

clem the gem's picture

Ok, for anyone who remembers the 1992 election, Neil Kinnock was our leader then, not John Smith, so how do you blame Smith for us losing that one? If you are talking about the famously "detailed economic policy, this stood us in good stead for post-1992.
After Black Wednesday, when Tory economic policies fell apart, it was Smith and Brown who were quite obviously going to win the next election. The National shock at John Smiths death was palpable - the country had just lost its next PM.
So, I think that 1997 would have been a landslide without the sainted Tony.
And as for Atlee, managerial, well yes, but it was genius to make such fundamental changes to national life seem so ordinary and safe. And he also wrote poetry. His failure to re-energise Labour post-1948 was to some extent the symptom of the whole Leadership - most of whom had been in parliament since 1935, and had little contact with the 1945 influx until they got there. He did however promote Gaitskell, Bevan, Wilson and a slew of other younger men, whilst trying to keep the party together.
All in all, a much better pair than Crosland.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets