This blog will remain neutral during the Labour leadership election. But we want to ensure that the contest is about the future of the party's policy & organisation.
Left Foot Forward is looking forward to the splinters. Yep, we’re sitting on the fence in the forthcoming Labour leadership election.
We’re clear that the process should be months, rather than weeks, culminating in hustings at the Labour conference in Manchester. We want to see as wide a range of candidates as possible. And, critically, we want a genuine debate about the future direction of the Labour party in relation to both policy and organisation.
To kick off this process, we propose here five questions that we think should define the leadership contest. But these are very much initial thoughts and we’d welcome our readers’ views in the comments section as to whether these are the right points to address. This time next week, we’ll publish a revised list of questions and use it to frame our analysis of the leadership election ahead.
1. Economy: Public spending was 36 per cent of GDP in 1999 and has risen to 48 per cent (partly the result of the recession). Net receipts are currently project to reach 38 per cent by 2011-12? What does the Labour party believe is the right size of the state? How do we pay for that? And what is the state’s role once that level has been set?
2. Environment: Tackling climate change is more critical now than ever before. In the face of fierce lobbying by vested interests, and mounting public scepticism how do we inject a sense of urgency into addressing the problem? How would you take steps not just to build a clean energy economy – vital as that is – but also to dismantle the old, unsustainable economy in order that Britain can deliver on the targets set out in the Climate Change Act?
3. New politics: The coalition government is now committed to a referendum on the Alternative Vote, House of Lords reform, recall, and fixed terms. The Labour government arguably failed to deliver on its promises in these areas. What explains our inability to deliver full constitutional reform? How can we ensure that Labour pushes the new Government further on constitutional change and campaigns aggressively in a referendum on AV?
4. The election: Polling suggests that Labour support among skilled manual (C2) workers fell from 45 per cent in 2005 to 23 per cent. Support from 18-34 years olds fell from 41 per cent to 32 per cent. What explain this? Where else has support been lost? How should Labour try and win it back?
5. The party: Across parts of the country – particularly London, Birmingham, and the northwest – good local campaigns helped increase some majorities, hold ultra-marginal seats, and win back councils. How should the party reform to embrace this local action? How should Labour learn from the “respect, empower, include” mantra of the Obama campaign?
What do you think?
46 Responses to “What should Labour’s leadership contest be about?”
Benjamin
The Labour leadership contest should be about the links between, on the one hand, democratic renewal (electoral reform, devolution, pluralism), and social democracy and a fairer society on the other.
Social democracy and a stronger left can grow through a parliament and institutions that are more pluralistic and democratic.
Democratic reform should be high on the agenda.
Tory
“maintaining consumption, and keeping the economy going”
Apparantly we needed a VAT cut to serve both those things? The VAT drop served neither of those things and you can’t say if it were not for the drop that they wouldnt not.
As for what you try and explain away as ignorance regarding the deficit, you are wrong once again.
Our deficit is what we are spending but not taking in, the whole in our economy which grows when we constantly spend beyond our means. The VAT cut was an expense that did not help the economy and cost us a lot more than we could afford. The money we needed to invest to help see us through the recession would have been affordable if it wasn’t for the our budget deficit and Labour’s terrible spending habits! I use the debt and deficit along with one another because our debt means we cannot and should not spend beyond our means!
And the debt can easily be paid off? Well you seem to be the only person who believes that! Greece’s debts may be paid off easily too, except the people don’t think so..
But then again you on the left leave us to pay it all of and take the brunt of the harship, only to enter office again and throw it all down the drain!
Tory
hole in economy*
Chris
I’d like to see a different take on society that isn’t focussed on making as many people as possible middle class. People don’t mind being wealthless, they mind being worthless. Everybody, whatever their background, has that thumping desire to achieve; but you don’t need to go to university or become a manager to satisfy it. People will work for almost no money if they know they are doing something that’s needed and it allows them to build a stable life.
The army is currently one of the only institutions that will take poor people with no qualifications and offer them worth. In a world where armies are hopefully going to become less important, I’d like to see more institutions on this scale, with this kind of structure and national authority, doing things other than defence. Keeping the utilities going, and keeping Britain green and pleasant can provide worthwhile jobs for at least the next 1000 years.
So basically I’d say our number one need is to regain the relentless obsession with achieving full employment. We’re the only party without the ideological restraints to do it.
Marcus A. Roberts
RT @leftfootfwd: What should Labour's leadership contest be about? http://bit.ly/ccUS4i