The slogan "You Can't Trust Labour" ultimately buried Neil Kinnock, seen here in 1992. Photo:Getty Images
Show Hide image

In burying Ed Miliband's project, Labour's leadership contenders risk burying themselves

As Labour's leadership contenders race to bury the Miliband project, they risk unearthing Neil Kinnock's defeat. 

"There's no point in running around shouting 'don't trash our record'," one ally of Ed Miliband remarked in 2010, "We got 29 per cent of the vote. It's already been trashed."

Similarly, you might argue, there's no point in trying to work out which parts of the Miliband project are worth saving. It got 31 per cent of the vote. It's already dead.

That's certainly the calculation that appears to be driving the campaigns of Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper. Both Burnham and Cooper will today highlight their own closeness to business. Burnham will warn that Labour "didn't celebrate the spirit of enterprise", telling his audience that the party "got it wrong" on businesses. Kendall, meanwhile, having already delivered her critique of Milibandism, will set out her own stall with a speech in her constituency of Leicester. 

The criticism of this approach being pushed by Miliband's remaining allies is that the polls showed that economic competence and leadership, not Labour's attitude to business or aspiration, is what did for Labour. This is technically true. It seems unlikely, however, that a series of open letters from businessmen of various sizes and the constant attacks on Labour policies even from its own big-money donors didn't have something to do with the party's dire ratings on economic competence and leadership. 

Burnham's speech is good politics in the leadership race, too. He remains the frontrunner and a formidable candidate. But if there is any threat to him it looks most likely to come from Kendall on his right flank, and the more of her best lines he can appropriate, the better for him. It also further weakens the Cooper campaign's "best of both worlds" message - the less of a risky proposition Burnham looks, the less tempting Cooper's middle way is.

But there's a risk to Labour too. In 1992, the Conservatives sunk Neil Kinnock with one message: "You Can't Trust Labour". They argued that the Neil Kinnock of 1992 wasn't that different from the Neil Kinnock who stood up for Michael Foot in 1983 or the Neil Kinnock of 1987. They said he'd changed his mind before, and would change his mind again. Tony Blair - the only Labour leader to take his party into government since 1974 - had the advantage that he'd already tried to modernise the Labour party as an Opposition frontbencher, ending Labour's support for the closed shop and stealing Michael Howard's clothes as shadow home secretary. Kendall, the lowest-ranking of the candidates, can't so easily point to a record of putting her words into action. Cooper and Burnham, meanwhile, are even more implicated in the last five years. It may be that in shucking off Miliband's reputation for being anti-business, they re-acquire Kinnock's for evasiveness.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Manchester Gorton?

Will Labour lose in Manchester Gorton?

The death of Gerald Kaufman will trigger a by-election in his Manchester Gorton seat, which has been Labour-held since 1935.

Coming so soon after the disappointing results in Copeland – where the seat was lost to the Tories – and Stoke – where the party lost vote share – some overly excitable commentators are talking up the possibility of an upset in the Manchester seat.

But Gorton is very different to Stoke-on-Trent and to Copeland. The Labour lead is 56 points, compared to 16.5 points in Stoke-on-Trent and 6.5 points in Copeland. (As I’ve written before and will doubtless write again, it’s much more instructive to talk about vote share rather than vote numbers in British elections. Most of the country tends to vote in the same way even if they vote at different volumes.)

That 47 per cent of the seat's residents come from a non-white background and that the Labour party holds every council seat in the constituency only adds to the party's strong position here. 

But that doesn’t mean that there is no interest to be had in the contest at all. That the seat voted heavily to remain in the European Union – around 65 per cent according to Chris Hanretty’s estimates – will provide a glimmer of hope to the Liberal Democrats that they can finish a strong second, as they did consistently from 1992 to 2010, before slumping to fifth in 2015.

How they do in second place will inform how jittery Labour MPs with smaller majorities and a history of Liberal Democrat activity are about Labour’s embrace of Brexit.

They also have a narrow chance of becoming competitive should Labour’s selection turn acrimonious. The seat has been in special measures since 2004, which means the selection will be run by the party’s national executive committee, though several local candidates are tipped to run, with Afzal Khan,  a local MEP, and Julie Reid, a local councillor, both expected to run for the vacant seats.

It’s highly unlikely but if the selection occurs in a way that irritates the local party or provokes serious local in-fighting, you can just about see how the Liberal Democrats give everyone a surprise. But it’s about as likely as the United States men landing on Mars any time soon – plausible, but far-fetched. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.