UPDATE Tues 7/9: Read David's interview with the Guardian
David writes on the Labour leadership contest and why Andy Burnham's supporters should give their second preferences to David Miliband.
As Labour Party members begin to fill in their ballot papers and choose their new leader, it is time for us to face up to the questions that really matter.
Who can lead the fight against the coalition’s cuts agenda from day one? Who can regain power for Labour – not in ten years, not in 18, but as soon as the next election comes? Who has got the vision for the future of the country – and the capacity to appeal to the whole nation?
You would expect me to endorse and to support someone whose background, connections and political perspective mirror my own – not least when he happens to have been my Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Minister in my team when in government.
That’s why I’ve placed my first preference with Andy Burnham.
I believe that being genuinely in touch with the day-to-day concerns and heartfelt hopes of individual men and women across the country is a critical pre-requisite to Labour’s re-election to government and to its future success.
It is that connection that led Andy to understand the imperative of creating a National Care Service and taking on the challenge of an ageing population. His efforts in this regard have not had the recognition that they deserve – doubly so when you consider the irony that those who would stand most to benefit from such a Service are the ones most likely to vote ... but that they were more likely to vote for the Conservatives at the last election than Labour!
This just goes to emphasise the importance of speaking to every section of our society – and to having a vision of an enabling government, which puts power and opportunity in the hands of the citizen.
Andy has understood this – and so, in spades, has David Miliband, which is why I will be giving him my second preference.
In an age of falling membership of political parties of all stripes and of greater engagement with single-issue causes, Labour must adapt to stay relevant. We must place ourselves, once again, at the heart of every community across Britain – allying with volunteers, faith groups, parents and tenants’ associations who are campaigning against cuts and closures and for a better deal for individuals and neighbourhoods.
As David has written, it is “people before programmes” that is important. It is people – particularly the poorest – who will feel the brunt of what the coalition is doing; and it is in alliance with the people that the Labour Party must respond.
I have given my support to Andy and to David for a simple reason: that they have the capacity for real leadership. Leadership involves a vision of the future, rather than simply a reflection on the past. It involves experience on the global stage, as well as the domestic; the capacity to command, as well as earn, respect.
Above all, it involves understanding the limitations – as well as the strengths – of Parliament and of formal political action.
David and Andy have understood the importance of reflecting the concerns of the working poor – and the not-so-poor – without patronising them. Both candidates have had something to say about the rapid change in the economic and social make-up of Britain.
25 years ago, a debate took place in our party about whether Labour could or should rely for its success on the ‘rainbow coalition’ of the disadvantaged, dispossessed and discriminated against.
That debate was won with the election of Tony Blair, who recognised that the combination of those who are ‘naturally’ Labour – almost by dint of birth – and those who are better-off, but who have come intellectually to a position of support, was not enough to command a majority in the country. Labour must always go further and seek to appeal to the aspirant – those from whatever background, who simply want to get on in life; for the next generation to do better than them and to have the opportunities which may have been denied to their parents.
Somehow, this debate has resurfaced, without a clear understanding from some leading candidates that the very successes of Labour change the voter profile – people’s belief in and perception of themselves.
Those who are middle-class are in danger of failing to understand that those who see themselves as working-class don’t quite see it in the same vein.
Sticking to the more traditional offer from the Labour Party would not have won us constituencies like Reading West, with its very high percentage of low-income but in-work families – because, before 1997, they voted Conservative.
It is also clear that those who believe that they can pull off an ‘Obama moment’ have failed to understand that, even with all his charisma, there was still only a 63% turnout in the presidential election.
Believing that Labour can win by regaining turnouts of over 80%, as was the case in decades gone by, is an admirable and commendable goal. But it isn’t a basis for leading a modern party, with all the difficulties of reconnecting with an electorate who, most often, only give a damn about politics when they feel unfairly punished – as with the removal of the 10p tax rate.
Understanding this is far more relevant to those we must win back than re-running the debate about the wisdom of invading Iraq, downplaying the importance of tackling anti-social behaviour, or even repudiating the massive expansion of higher education on the back of repayment of fees and maintenance loans.
The choice of our next leader can’t be simply about repudiating certain policies or individual people from our past. It is about the kind of offer that we will make to the whole country come the next election – one that offers a new role for government and more power in the hands of people and communities. Andy and David understand this. That’s why I’ll be voting for them.
Comments