The Labour leadership contenders at the Progress conference last month. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour leadership candidates clash on the EU and the past at PLP hustings

Frontrunner Burnham warns that Labour must "take care not to distance ourselves from the last five years" on the issue of inequality. 

A large number of Labour MPs have been waiting for the Parliamentary Labour Party hustings before endorsing a candidate (nominations formally open tomorrow). But this afternoon's event - held behind closed doors in The Attlee Suite - did little to change the dynamic of the race. 

It was the economy, regarded as the central reason for Labour's defeat, that dominated the debate, with no questions on foreign affairs. Andy Burnham, the frontrunner, told the assembled MPs and peers that "We don't win  when we copy the Tories, we win when we're better than them" (a coded attack on rival candidate Liz Kendall). The northern shadow health secretary also called for the party to re-establish an "emotional connection" with voters and to have "a voice that will carry" outside "the Westminster bubble". He outlined his ambition of a country "where everyone has the chance to get on", adopting a more aspirational pitch than Ed Miliband, and described himself as the "big change" candidate. But in a line that his opponents will exploit, Burnham also warned in reference to inequality that "We need to take care not to distance ourselves from the last five years". 

Liz Kendall, the only 2010 MP standing, framed herself as the "change candidate", warning that Labour would lose if it offered "more of the same". She declared: "I don't want to be the Labour leader who plays into David Cameron and George Osborne's hands". One of her supporters, Chuka Umunna, told me afterwards that if Labour replicated its 2010 approach of "simply opposing" every cut in the Budget and the Spending Review "we know what the result will be". Kendall also told MPs that "We won't help the weak by just railing against the strong" (a repudiation of Ed Miliband's relentless attack on "vested interests") and that the party must "debate, decide and then unite". For Kendall, "unity", a quality emphasised by Burnham, is worthless if it means not facing up the scale of the defeat. 

Yvette Cooper again presented herself as the centrist candidate between the left-leaning Burnham and the right-leaning Kendall, warning that "We can't just reach for comfort blankets" (Burnham) or "turn into the Tories" (Kendall). She recalled her sadness at meeting a Normanton voter in tears over the bedroom tax and declared that "We won't abolish the bedroom tax by only talking about the bedroom tax", denouncing Miliband's approach as "too narrow". As an MP since 1997 and a former cabinet minister, she traded on her experience, telling the party: "Remember the person you choose, you’ll be sitting behind every week for the next five years in Prime Minister's Questions – we need someone who will take Cameron on, not be taken apart. You know I would relish the chance to do that."

MPs from all sides suggest that there were no flashpoints in the "comradely" debate but Kendall opened up a significant dividing line between herself and Burnham when she warned that it would be a "profound mistake" for Labour "to somehow boycott" the EU Yes campaign. Last week, the shadow health secretary pledged to establish a separate pro-EU Labour group, arguing that he had "learned the lessons" of Scotland (when the party was attacked by the SNP for campaigning alongisde the Tories in Better Together). Cooper argued that choosing between being part of a cross-party Yes campaign and running a separate Labour campaign was a "false choice" because the most effective way to make the argument was at a local level (for instance, talking about the jobs that would be lost in factories in her constituency). 

The mood of the camps was little changed from before. Burnham's remain confident that he will hold his frontrunner position (he won five new endorsements following the hustings), Cooper's that she is well positioned to win from the centre and Kendall's that her "change candidate" status will give her the edge. One thing today's hustings has clarified, however, is that there will almost certainly only be three candidates on the ballot paper. Mary Creagh and Jeremy Corbyn, the two other contenders, are both well short of the 35 nominations (15 per cent of MPs) they need. Burnham's camp are resistant to the idea of lending Corbyn supporters (as David Miliband did with Diane Abbott in 2010), with one senior figure telling me that he was opposed to a "Westminster stitch-up". Without one, however, there is no path to the ballot for the left-winger. 

Burnham's five new supporters are Andy McDonald, Alex Cunningham, Heidi Alexander, Carolyn Harris and Valerie Vaz. 


Now listen to George discussing the Labour leadership contest on the NS podcast:


George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.