DilaTory Government: Opposition needed

Labour leadership contenders or a Tribute Band?

It is freshers week in Parliament and Boris Johnson's illicit army of Brexiter MPs, old and new, are champing at the bit. The stragglers from the opposition parties are girding their loins for the uncomfortable months and years ahead. PM Boris Johnson suggested that people could pay for Big Ben to bong for Brexit, and then admitted that he had no plan and there would be a clock face projected onto no. 10 Downing Street at 11pm on 31 January instead. It is ominous because a whole raft of dilatory promises will follow.

After all, Brexit is done and all is well in blighty. Australia is on fire, Trump has been impeached, and as a war in the Middle East draws more likely the export of arms from the UK is spiralling upwards. It provides an example of how the UK will address its declining economy. The film 1917 is set to win many awards and has many lessons. It shows the inglorious episodic outcome of wars fought on spurious arguments over 'ownership' of land and people and the 'reputation' of their leaders. People die, the land is sterilised and reputations are shredded or very occasionally elevated. It was ever thus and with the smarter technology and bigger egos now in play, the consequences are frightening.

The media has written off the Labour Party and concluded that Boris Johnson's Government is secure for the next decade. This is despite only 29% of the electorate (42% of a 70% turnout) or about 26% of those eligible to vote, given that the electoral roll only records 90% of those eligible to vote at the right address. This suggests that the so-called progressive parties have considerably more scope to challenge the government than the media would have us believe. If only the opposition parties could collaborate more effectively than hitherto. The alternative ambition of electoral reform towards a more proportional voting system is unlikely to be approved by the Johnson Government. It will simply redraw parliamentary boundaries to increase the chances of winning more constituencies through a continuation of the first-past-the-post voting system that plays well for the Tories.

The national opposition parties, Labour and Lib Dem, are both engaged in selecting new leaders to replace leaders who failed with distinction to obtain the trust of the voting electorate. The leaders of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens all had good elections but they are never going to become the major progressive parties. On the assumption that the Lib Dems are unlikely to achieve significant gains following their tryst with the Tories during 2010 - 2015, it is the Labour leadership that offers the greatest chance of challenging the Johnson Government. The decision about the new leader is, therefore, the most significant event that will determine the likelihood of existing progressive policies being defended at the national level or being reshaped for the future.

Progressive policies are already being achieved in some of the cities that have become strong bastions of Labour control. Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool and Preston have all advanced through radical policies that focus on community, public service, employment and green issues. This is reflected in recent research on the UK cities that are most improved.

The five candidates for the Labour leadership have shown some signs of understanding the need for greater local involvement and moves away from the centralising policies that have dominated the UK under successive Labour and Tory governments. The question is which of them has not just the grasp of the issues but the gravitas and personality to earn the trust of the electorate. It is not about gender or where they are from, which is what the media seem to focus on, but how well they are perceived as a future prime minister by the public across the UK. Boris Johnson wallows in insincerity and feckless behaviour but he has a self-deprecating bouncy personality and zest for life that allows people to overlook his inability to focus on issues or be consistent in his views.

This is where Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson failed miserably. Corbyn's inability to sound positive, his obsessive tendency to focus on historic political causes, his failure to address problems and his persistent grumpiness did not endear him to the wider electorate. Swinson's unbearable optimism about her own qualities and lack of tactical nous or emotional intelligence was also a turn-off for the voting public. These characteristics were usually evident in just 30 seconds of watching them on television. The press and media then amplify their less endearing qualities in the drip-drip of articles, photos and interviews that manifest themselves in headlines, smears and rumours.

So what should we make of the five candidates for Labour leadership? They all seem to have a greater capacity for understanding the key issues than their predecessor and are less fixated on causes that may alienate the majority. They seem more willing to accept that there needs to be a broad church within the party but have differing views on how much they would collaborate with other opposition parties. Clive Lewis was the greatest advocate of this approach but failed to get sufficient nominations from his fellow MPs and this may be telling.

Applying the 30-second test to the remaining candidates, I find that Emily Thornberry has an annoying tendency to roll her eyes, dismiss other opinions and just keep talking without addressing a question. Her smile does not seem genuine and her throwaway remarks suggest that she has more in common with Boris Johnson than just entitlement.

Rebecca Long(-)Bailey is more likely to use evidence in developing ideas but is inexperienced in leadership, long on rhetoric and short on charisma. She is not helped by her quickfire speech delivery or overly serious demeanour. She is also a flatmate of Angela Rayner, who looks like a shoo-in for the depute leader post. Having friends and flatmates for leader and depute would be a wish fulfilled for the satirists and cartoonists but a disaster for a focus on serious opposition.

Jess Phillips has a warmth and honesty that is infectious but a tendency to shoot from the hip and whilst her intuitive rhetoric often strikes a chord with perceived reality, there is no sense that she has the inclination to tackle issues and events that do not interest her. Personality and intuition do not guarantee the attention to detail or the making of hard decisions that will be essential as the party tries to claw back its support.

Lisa Nandy has a thoughtful manner and offers some insightful perspectives. She speaks about many issues with precision but seems more inclined to follow her instincts than to garner wider evidence. These are not always in tune with the party and her stance on Brexit and the Scottish referendum will not play well with the party.

And that leaves Keir Starmer, who suffers from being a man, coming from London and being knighted. Having said this he does have gravitas and is capable of thinking clearly, speaking with authority and having a genuine commitment to eradicating the many inequalities that exist today. He would be capable of exposing Boris Johnson's flaky acquaintance with the facts.

If Keir Starmer was yoked together with the fiery northern MP Angela Rayner as a depute, or if the rules allowed, Lisa Nandy, there would be a formidable combination capable of bringing together the Labour Party and forging if necessary links with the Greens, the National parties and, maybe, even the Lib Dems assuming that they elect a more open-minded and thoughtful leader than the tactless Jo Swinson. 

Alternatively, people will soon realise that Boris Johnson is not just for Christmas but a toy PM.  Someone only capable of soundbite government and incapable of delivering anything but empty promises, the Tory Party old boys will eject him quicker than you can say, Michael Gove. They will be the most effective weapon for resurrecting the opposition parties.