10 thoughts on the Labour leadership race

What a joy the Ashes has been this summer. Not least because it has been a welcome break from the General Election politics binge. Still, the fallout from the ballot box battering continues for the Labour Party and, with the contest to find a new leader STILL not over, here's ten musings on the race to replace Ed Miliband...

Why The Labour Leadership Race Is Now Wide Open http://t.co/vYXT50nkOA pic.twitter.com/jSzjee9fWr

— Sky News (@SkyNews) August 7, 2015

1. Why the hell is it taking so long? 

Yes, I know the party said it wanted to have a full debate about the future after the election night disaster but this is ridiculous. We are still more than a month away from the winner being announced. It'll be 128 days since the election by the time it comes out. The message sent the to electorate is that they don't know what they're doing. I know Parliament is off for its usual lengthy summer off but, given that the candidates have been known for some time, couldn't this have all been wrapped up by now?

2. Why so nasty?

Maybe the inordinate amount of time take has led the contest to becoming so bitter? It certainly has looked more fiercely and angrily fought than the election itself, even if this has largely been from the respective 'camps' rather than the contenders themselves. The criticism of Liz Kendall for being 'childless' was shameful. Whatever you think of her that was poor and, again, gave the electorate more reason to see the party as being out of touch.

3. Any ideas?

It's not enough for the other candidates to shout and bellow at Jeremy Corbyn for being 'unelectable'. How about explaining which of his ideas and policies won't work - since there are legitimate debates on this front - and countering them with different suggestions? Too much of the talk from the other camps has been about throwing negatives at Corbyn's door while trying to avoid promising bold policies that can't be defended in an election manifesto. 

4. Can Corbyn win?

I never actually thought Jeremy Corbyn would come remotely close to winning but the veteran MP finds himself in front. I still get the impression he might be overtaken but his rise has been a surprise. Perhaps it shouldn't be though. Having someone like him on the ticket was always likely to show the others up for spouting too many soundbites. He represents genuine change in a way that none of the others have come close to doing and he hasn't been afraid to throw up some bold ideas. As things stand Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham seem to be mopping up supporters with similar outlooks. You feel that one of them will have to surge ahead to knock Corbyn out of the race.

5. Clause 4 mistake

Corbyn did make a big mistake when hinting that he wouldn't be against a return to 'Clause Four' in this weekend's Independent on Sunday. Yes, he actually referred to coming up with something new in the same spirit but bringing it up by name simply gave ammunition to others of a return to the past. Labour should look for a snappier more modern way of defining itself - but not in the form of the cheesy soundbites attached to the leadership campaigns or retreading the steps of the past.

6. Heir to Blair

Labour has a huge hang up about Tony Blair but surely it's about time it dropped it. I know many of the party's members can't look past Iraq (and granted that's a massive issue) but the failure to accept and celebrate any of the positives from his era paved the way for their opponents to paint the entire time in a bad light. Labour has to admit Blair was an electoral success and learn why.

7. Image matters

One of the lessons to come from the Blair era is the importance of having someone who looks and sounds like a leader. In many respects it's sad that the public cares about image so much. Having strong ideas and convictions ought to come first before the ability to 'sound good on the telly' but they don't. Take a look at the last Parliament. Even when Labour was ahead - during the days of fuel crises and the unravelling budget of caravans and pasties etc - David Cameron was way ahead of Ed Miliband when it came to asking the public who would make the best PM. It's an odd thing that we elect parties and MPs yet focus most of our attention on a presidential style contest between one or two combatants. Until that changes, Labour needs a leader with wide appeal.

8. The wrong contest?

It's easy to forget that Ed Miliband deserved to win the last Labour leadership election. Yes he gained the support of the unions but, actually, he did perform well in the contender debates. The trouble was that it came down to a student debating contest that wasn't necessarily helpful for the role of leader of the opposition.

9. Voting system

It might have seemed like a nice idea, but will inviting people to pay £3 to become eligible to vote backfire? The talk of a joint infiltration of Telegraph readers and the far left - not normally bedfellows - seems to have be overblown but it does seem that if Corbyn wins he'll have to shake this tag off just as Miliband did the 'in the unions' pocket' jibe.

10. Taking on Boris

Theresa May and George Osborne may have their eyes on the Conservative Party leadership but surely the stage is set for Boris Johnson to be the leader by the time the next election comes around? Labour will need a strong candidate to take him on. I can't help thinking that old BoJo might struggle against a formidable female...

Audience on song to grill election trio

Fair play to the BBC. When it comes to an election people line up to say it's biased. I often think that if the sheep from all sides are bleating then you're probably doing as good a job as possible of being fair and balanced. The Beeb came in for some criticism for the audience assembled for the five-way leader debate and, while I think that was possibly a tactic, it's clear that it raised its game with tonight's Question Time special. This time the audience seemed not only balanced but also energised and up for the challenge of holding Cameron, Miliband and Clegg to account.

Cameron kicked off Question Time with his half-hour. He frustrated the camera-man by instantly stepping off the large 'Q', and walked straight into a grilling about welfare and benefits. He was clearly prepped but still dodged the chance to offer more detail on the cuts to come. On the economy and NHS he drifted into 'pumped up Dave' territory but this was not the occasion for full-on sleeves-up arm-waving mode - not least because sweating under lights isn't pretty. This was like the second half of the now-distant Sky News debate and, just as in that slot, he enjoyed the format. That's not to say he was comfortable - the benefits non-answer was rumbled, the umpteenth brandish of 'the note' fell flat and the daft 'law to ban tax rises' was exposed - but he survived and will look back on a performance that at least ticked the 'Prime Ministerial' box at the same time as not forgetting which football team he apparently supports.

Ed stepped up second and found that the crowd was in no mood to forgive and forget the past. He floundered a little here, struggling to address this 'overspending blamed for recession' line. By now Ed and his party really ought to have forged a stronger retort to the narrative established by their opponents. Why doesn't he talk about how the money had to be spent to save banks and therefore people's mortgages and savings. He'll grab headlines over his promise to govern as a minority - even though he's already mentioned it - rather than go for an electoral deal and stuck strongly to his guns on the EU and immigration. Still, that pesky raised Q might still overshadow his half-hour, with his stumble off it as he left the stage at the end proving fodder for creators of Gifs, Vines and memes everywhere.

The audience was in no mood to let Clegg off the hook either - slapping him straight around the chops with 'that' tuition fees question. The Lib Dem leader's hours spent answering calls on LBC will have helped here as he was adept at addressing the interrogations from the clued-up crowd.He defended himself and was able to play his 'i'm different to them honest' card, sounding like he was answering the 'coalition question' more openly than the others even though he wasn't. As damage limitations go this was a decent effort.

The snap poll crowned the Prime Minister the winner. In the long term it'll be interesting to see if Ed Miliband's risky sounding 'i'll govern alone' line has any impact though.

It's a cliche to say that the audience was the winner but this was a crowd that asked tough, testing questions and didn't let any of the trio get away with their standard spin. All three were at it - using the questioner's name, the obligatory 'that's a great question' when they realise they've got no response and saying 'let me address that directly' before doing anything but - and the crowd was in no mood to let them off the hook. The BBC needs to bottle this audience and take it on tour to future Question Time episodes. Led by the excellent David Dimbleby they helped give us an entertaining and challenging 90 minutes that outstripped most of the regular series shows from recent weeks. There's life in the Beeb - and political debates yet it seems...

Ed and Nicola's dating game dominated BBC debate

So, Nicola fancies Ed but Ed's playing it cool even though a lot of Ed's mates like the sound of Nicola and are even starting to prefer her to him. As burgeoning relationships go, Ed and Nicola isn't exactly Ross and Rachel from Friends but it's clear that it's an increasingly important dynamic in this multi-layered election.

At the end of 'manifesto week' came the BBC Debate and one of the clearest pitches yet from the SNP as Nicola Sturgeon turned to Ed Miliband and called for a deal to 'lock the Tories out of Number 10'. Like her or not she spoke with passion and determination and while Ed did his best to be non-committal it wasn't easy for him to repel a powerfully put plea.

In truth he was never going to say yes to a deal with the SNP, not least for the fear of helping what will surely be a miserable election for Labour north of the border (unlike Nigel Farage this blog won't get confused into thinking Hadrian's Wall is still the border. Unless of course UKIP intends to return us to the Roman times?). Oddly, by being so anti-Tory, the SNP has helped Labour. There's no need for Miliband to offer a formal coalition with Sturgeon, Salmond et al because they've made it clear they wouldn't prop up the Conservatives, the only other plausible big party. Begrudging or otherwise it's clear that the SNP would support Labour even if it made no deal after May 7. Ed will just need to hold his nerve and hope he isn't too reliant on the SNP - something that won't be easy against his feisty Celtic counterpart.

It's difficult to know whether the truth behind the impasse between Labour and the SNP, which neither of the parties will wish to utter in public, will have filtered through from this debate, however. It's always difficult to know if anything at all will change from a TV debate. Will, for example, the simple of fact of not seeing David Cameron on such a stage backfire on him, or help him distance himself from a situation he'll now be able to portray as chaos. The comments from the contenders and watchers on social media suggest it was wrong for the PM to duck the challenge but the important thing is the long-term perception and he'll be hoping that people prefer a chicken to chaos, or at least that it's the latter piled of mud that sticks.

I also wonder what will happen to the Greens. Natalie Bennett, once again, struggled to look as formidable as Nicola Sturgeon when it came to flying the anti-austerity flag. However, I wonder if any English viewers who were impressed with either Sturgeon or Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood will, in time, be won over to voting Green as the 'English alternative' to the SNP or Plaid. Bennett tried her best - at one point over zealously barking her point down the microphone to be heard - but struggled to make an impression once people saw the fascinating game of political footsie between Nicola and Ed emerge. The Scottish First Minister's vow to force Ed and Labour to be better will have spoken to many Old Labour voters, but how will that translate to votes?

And then there's Nigel. Farage fired off with a plea to stand up for the people - making a plea to speak common sense and say what real people are thinking in his opening gambit. I thought this was strong ground for him, the sort of stuff that his 'man in the pub' shtick is made for. And then he chose to attack the audience for being left-wing. I hadn't really heard him booed or jeered so I'm not sure whether this was prompted by anything in particularly or merely a tactic. The anti-BBC stuff will be lapped up by readers of the Mail and his new best mates at the Express, whose owner Richard Desmond handed him a £1 million cheque yesterday. It also feeds the anti-establishment, outsider rhetoric that actually goes down really well in Farage's public speeches. Intended or not, it got the UKIP leader a headline that was only topped by the SNP/Labour exchanges. It was the equivalent of Millwall Football Club's 'no-one likes us, we don't care' manifested as a political campaign and it probably went down well with his core vote who, according to pollsters, are considering returning to the Tory fold.

On the whole Miliband will come away telling himself that the fact it almost turned into 'Ed Miliband's Question Time' for large chunks will be good for helping to paint him as Prime Minister material. The fact that his trio of female questioners will have appealed to his core voters might still undermine his chances though. Given that he's not exactly winning Tories over, he can't really afford for the working class to abandon him. The 'Cameron failed to turn up to his job interview' line from Labour was predictable but strong. Whether that lasts once the debate fades in the past remains to be seen. What's clear, however, is that Nicola won't go away. Can Ed keep his cool and hold her at bay? Only time will tell.

Sturgeon emerging...but Cameron will consider himself TV debate winner

I wasn't able to see the much-hyped seven-way TV political showstopper live. I was out at the time but as I supped a pint in a pub I looked over and saw that the one proper 'leader's debate' was on the screen. The sound was off and the subtitles were on. Nigel Farage's face was on the screen and the text simply read 'controlled immigration'. Not at all predictable then. 

I caught up on ITVPlayer later (how modern) and sadly that one glimpsed shot across a Wetherspoons bar probably summed the whole event up - a little bit predictable. It felt slow, 'safe' and didn't really offer up much of a free flow debate outside of the odd fleeting moment.

That's not to say the whole thing was insignificant. We've come a long way in quite a short space of time since the last election. In 2010 it felt novel that Nick was there alongside Gordon and 'Dave' but now here we were with seven leaders, five years of coalition seemingly proving that the old Red v Blue, Labour v Tory battle is over. Or at least it seems to be for now.

In 2010, 'Cleggmania' was the result of a strong showing by a man smartly able to portray himself an outsider - a fresh face to give us 'new' politics that the expenses and recession hit Westminster bubble badly needed. Buoyed by that, the ITV face-off saw all four new arrivals on the debate podiums try to paint themselves as outsiders offering change. It sometimes seems the race to be the best 'none of the above' candidate is the most hotly contested one these days.

Farage says he offers 'real change' by being anti-EU but I felt he was a little subdued on the night. At last year's European elections he took on Nick Clegg but now, surrounded by a bigger crowd, he offered less gusto and passion. He tried to tell us the others were all the same but they clearly weren't. In fact he seemed more like 'one of the blokes' next to a fresh trio of female contenders. 

I thought maybe he was trying to temper his performance but then came the slightly bizarre 'HIV' line. You fear that there was more than just an 'NHS cost' motive when talking about foreigners with HIV. People from overseas with diabetes, for example, will also cost the health service but that's a condition his supporters might have. This seemed a murkier brand of dog whistle politics.

Leanne Wood flew the flag for Plaid Cymru but her Scottish counterpart proved the most formidable of the new recruits. Nicola Sturgeon managed to speak to voters beyond Scotland and put the anti-austerity case better than Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood or, indeed, Ed Miliband. 

But while the post-debate spotlight has been on Sturgeon - thanks in part to a hotly contested leaked memo - I can't help thinking David Cameron will be the happiest of the lot.

The format meant Ed Miliband got little time to face off with the Prime Minister and, as a result, the Labour leader's efforts to land blows on Cameron felt too forced and fell flat. The odd line resonated but more people probably came away from this feeling Ed still looks a little awkward in the way he uses his hands when he speaks and his tone of voice. It's sad that image counts but in these 'beauty contests' viewers will make their minds up, at least sub consciously, on image and not many people will changed their view on Ed from this.

Cameron must have been standing on the end smiling at the fact that while Ed tried to strike a tone that said 'sensible, prime ministerial, fair', the three ladies all wooed Miliband's core voters with a pitch to the anti-austerity vote. A strong Sturgeon showing is good news for the PM as it reaffirms the belief that the SNP will grab many of Labour's seats in May. Meanwhile, there was less time for Cameron's right-wing to be wooed by Farage. If anything, the most aggressive attacks on the Prime Minister came from Nick Clegg, who set on his coalition partner straight away in a bid to distance himself ahead of the vote.

The other way Cameron wins here is that, through engineering just one debate, he created a situation where all seven leaders played it safe. They knew this was their only chance to wheel out the soundbites and state their case so no-one really took a risk. It all felt a little too stage managed - with very few, if any, stand out lines or moments. Instead I grew tired at the number of time 'balance the books' etc were wheeled out by more than one of the panel.

If anyone emerges as 2015's Clegg it might well be Sturgeon. Many of the papers are now gunning for her and she seems keen to try to get Ed to agree to an anti-Cameron alliance. Miliband must worry that many of his voters might prefer Sturgeon at the helm of their party. In fact, if Sturgeon's anti-austerity pitch does go down well with English voters then Natalie Bennett's Greens are probably better placed to capitalise, even if Bennett does lack a little of the leadership strength of her predecessor Caroline Lucas.

While Cameron will be happy to have diluted Ed Miliband's chances and fended off a potentially difficult situation, he won't have done much to have boosted his own party's appeal. Still, that probably sums up the defensive outlook the Prime Minister has had, from the start of the negotiations on the format of the debate right through to the night itself.

David Cameron and Ed Miliband get the Paxman treatment

Well, David Cameron asked for that. Having dodged a full on head-to-head with Ed Miliband he went into the slightly odd format of the first TV debate and walked straight into Jeremy Paxman.

Not everyone likes Paxman's style but I do. Frankly, if you can't withstand 20 minutes of his sort of questioning from TV's toughest interviewer then you have to wonder if you're up for the 'top job'.

The former Newsnight man showed us what we had been missing by tearing straight into the Prime Minister - knocking the normally Teflon Cameron right off his stride. It was the most uncomfortable I'd seen the PM for some time and he must have been thinking 'why didn't I just do a head-to-head with Ed?'.

He recovered a little from a shaky start but was clearly rattled throughout.

Then came the Q&A with the crowd. It's a little harsh to expect the same level of electrifying grilling from the audience that Paxman had just managed and it'd be arrogant to suggest voters shouldn't get their chance to ask whatever they want. Still, this section flagged, Cameron was calm and collected and breezed through a largely forgettable 20 minutes. For me it showed the benefit of having a trained journalist at the top of his game - and also that the PM is a smooth operator who is relaxed when dealing with the public.

Still, to be fair, the audience found its feet with Ed Miliband. The Labour leader faced a trickier test - as well as more interruptions from Kay Burley - making it a far tougher Q&A. It probably helped Miliband prepare for what was to come but he was less accomplished with the audience than Cameron. He stumbled a little when faced with a question on his brother - but recovered and took the knocks relatively well.

There were, predictably, more knocks to come when he sat across the ridiculously over-large table from Paxman. The seasoned broadcaster gave Miliband a lesson early on - exposing the well-worn tactic of the media trained politician that is 'posing and answering your own questions'. Jeremy was having none of it and Ed found it hard going.

He admitted mistakes from the previous Labour Government, floundered a little on immigration and then, surprisingly, recovered when the spotlight fell on his personality. It's odd that this is seen as his weakness yet it's where he did better - batting off criticism relatively well, even taking Paxman on. I do think people might start to feel sorry about him having to face too many more questions about his family too.

In some respects Miliband was the winner. He was expected to be savaged by Paxman yet actually did better with him than with the crowd. Cameron was expected to do better yet was clearly thrown out of his comfort zone at the start. There were low expectations of Ed so it's perhaps unsurprising that he topped them while Cameron struggled to live up to his billing at the start but still came on on top in the first snap poll, probably after his comfortable Q&A.

It'll be interested to see how Miliband copes with the aftermath. Yes, he landed two lines that will be remembered - namely 'you're not that important Jeremy' when refusing to discuss an SNP deal and 'am I tough enough? Hell yes'. The latter made me wince but might well get some attention - especially on social media. He was a little more proactive than Cameron in the audience session - I guess he has to be as the challenger - but looked less relaxed and more unnatural as a result.

But what about the policies? There was little detail from either side but there are some papers that might want to make a lot about Miliband's words on immigration and the fact he labelled an EU referendum 'unlikely'. He's likely to face some scrutiny on those two issues.

The race is well and truly on and I still can't help but thinking Cameron made the biggest mistake for agreeing to this show in the first place. His saving grace was that his worst moments were at the very start - but he'll be less pleased that Ed's better moments were at the end.

After Clegg in 2010, it's maybe a poisoned chalice to win these early exchanges anyway. Brace yourself, there's plenty more of this to come.

Debating the TV debates

What if we had a TV debate about whether we should have a TV debate and invite all the leaders to that? Maybe we they could show a documentary about the TV executives' long and fruitless quest to get grown adults to stand in front of a microphone instead?  Sound ridiculous?  Well, sadly, that's because we're in a ridiculous situation.

If anyone needs evidence of why many members of the public are disengaged with politics then look no further than the current row over the TV election debates. 

They were introduced to great fanfare at the last election and, while they may have had their plusses and minuses, they did at least prove a platform to bring the election to the widest possible audience.

Despite knowing that they were popular last time around, pretty much everyone involved has made an almighty mess of arranging something which should be simple. With fixed term parliaments we even had the benefit of knowing the date of the election almost five years ago. I'm not sure how many other TV programmes have the benefit of knowing a broadcast date that far in advance.

Sadly personal interest comes well before democracy for everyone involved.

David Cameron should be utterly ashamed of himself. He's come out and criticised the broadcasters for not consulting on their plans yet he wants to dictate what they do with no 'consultation' of his own. It seems he's being advised that Ed Miliband's ratings would only be enhanced by sharing a stage with 'Dave' so he's trying to duck a head-to-head showdown, despite waxing lyrical about debates before their inception in 2010. Worse still he's feigning concern for other parties who are missing out.

Not only is that a blatant case of putting self interest ahead of the voters' interests but it also undermines his party's drive to paint Miliband as a weak leader.  Labour's simple retort can be: "If he's that weak why not take him on?". Whatever you think of Ed Miliband, is someone really suited to leading the country if they can't back themselves to come out on top in a debate against him?

The icing on the cake came when 'Lord' Michael Grade weighed in in favour of the PM accusing the broadcasters of being arrogant in what was surely the biggest case of a pot calling a kettle black ever.

Still, Ed Miliband hardly did himself any favours by promising to enshrine TV debates in law if he was to become Prime Minister. I happen to think they should be held but I also think that politicians shouldn't be telling broadcasters what to screen. It smacked of a petty cheap shot to get a headline because that's precisely what it was.

The broadcasters haven't helped either. They were far too slow to recognise the new era of party politics that is upon us and have come up with imperfect plans. You can't help but feel the papers have revelled in their misery given that they're in no rush to see their broadcast rivals be at the centre of attention during the campaign and have stirred it all up.

The broadcasters must hold firm now, though. The Prime Minister - and anyone else who can't be bothered to turn up - should be 'empty chaired' and the show must go on. These politicians want us to vote for their parties and we deserve to know when they've put themselves first and spurned the chance to talk to us. I also don't agree with the suggestion, covered in this weekend's Independent On Sunday, that the PM should get his own separate show to 'be fair'. If he turns down his platform then it's 'fair' that he misses out - he can't be allowed to get his own way by throwing a tantrum. Unless, of course, having his oen show means being locked in a small room with an angry Jeremy Paxman.

It's all a sorry state of affairs and shows little sign of being solved. It doesn't auger well for possible coalition building after the ballot if our politicians can't agree when to go on the telly together. Maybe we should empty chair the whole lot. We might get more sense that way...