Labour leadership hustings - Summary and analysis
Anyone hoping for some brilliant, charismatic candidate to emerge (see 2.21pm) will not have found him or her this afternoon, but that was a serious and constructive debate that exposed some real dividing lines in the contest.
No one really “won”. But nothing happened to disrupt the impression that Andy Burnham is the frontrunner. (See 2.20pm.) And, although Liz Kendall is clearly the most distinctive amongst the three frontrunners, I will go home wondering whether she is just too pro-change and too pro-business to get elected. To provoke booing at an event like this, even very quiet booing (see 5.33pm), is quite something. (They’re very polite, the Fabians; we’re not talking Unite, or the PLP.)
Here are the main points. As you’ll see, a key faultline that is emerging is between Burnham and Cooper on the one hand, and Kendall on the other.
- Liz Kendall came under fire after she defended £9,000 tuition fees. Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper both spoke out in favour of replacing the current tuition fees system with a graduate tax (Burnham tentatively, Cooper strongly, saying she had backed the idea since 1999.) But Kendall said that she did not support cutting tuition fees (as Labour proposed in its manifesto) because her priority would be investing in early years education instead.
- Burnham and Cooper both criticised free schools. This was significant because previously, in a speech to the press gallery, Kendall defended them.
- Kendall and Burnham clashed over how Labour should campaign in the EU referendum. Kendall said it would be a profound mistake for the party not to be part of the wider, cross-party pro-EU campaign. But Burnham said Labour should run its own campaign. He said that the referendum would be a defining moment in politics, and that if Labour won the campaign, this could be a springboard for success in the general election, because the Tories would be split.
- Cooper has said that Labour should have “firm rules about work and welfare and more compulsory jobs”. In comments released in advance (see 3.49pm), she also said that she supported the benefits cap in principle, but that there are “big problems” with how the government is applying it. Aides say that her position is more critical of the benefits cap than the position taken by the party in its manifesto. It also creates a division with Rachel Reeves, the current shadow work and pensions secretary and Burnham supporter, who has backed the benefits cap.
- Burnham has clarified his position on having a separate Scottish Labour party and said he is opposed to the idea. At one point earlier in the campaign he suggested he was open to the suggestion. Cooper also said she was opposed to the proposal, and Kendall and Mary Creagh suggested having a separate party was not the solution to Labour’s problems in Scotland.
- Burnham gave a passionate defence of comprehensive education, saying support for the comprehensive idea should be a core belief for Labour.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
This is perhaps not surprising.
Crowds gathering around Burnham, Kendall and Cooper for selfies. No such luck for Creagh and Corbyn #fabsummer pic.twitter.com/K22TCTu7OW
— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) June 6, 2015
Corbyn says socialism is alive all over the world. But socialism is not the same as statism, he says. When socialism emerged, it was community-focused, he says. The most popular institution in Britain is a socialist one, the NHS. We should defend the principle of from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.
And that’s it.
I’ll post a summary soon.
Creagh says we have to make sure that, as one world, we can stay together.
Kendall says socialism is not dead, but it needs to change. We need to be as passionate about wealth creation as about inequality, she says. (There is some very quiet, murmured booing near where I’m sitting when she says this.)
Question 7 - Socialism
Q: Is socialism dead?
Certainly not, says Burnham. Now, more than ever, we need to make the case for security. Labour should speak to the aspirations every family has. He says Ed Miliband was right to focus on this issue at the election. But we need more convincing answers.
Cooper says the fight against inequality is more important than ever. That is why we need a Labour party. That is what Labour is for.
But we should not shame the work-shy, she says, using a line from the material pre-briefed. (See 3.49am.)
Cooper says people are concerned about immigration. But, when you talk to them, their concerns are often about exploitation. Labour would tackle that. When you explain that, people will support immigration, he says.
Burnham says he defends free movement in the EU. But people have concerns about immigration. He spoke to someone in the campaign who said he was concerned because he was the only person on his shift who spoke English. Labour will never win his vote back if it just says immigration is good. That is why it must address exploitation issues too.
Question 6 - Immigration
Q: Will you make a positive argument for immigration?
Yes, says Corbyn. He did not like the Labour immigration controls mug. And it should not have let the Greens make this argument.
Kendall says Labour should not afraid of defending immigration.
Creagh says the Tories and Ukip are two horns on the same goat. If you are from Purley or Pakistan, it should not matter, if you work here and pay your taxes.
Problems with things like housing are to do with government policy, she says.
She says the minimum wage was meant to be a floor. But it has become the norm.
Kendall says Britain’s future is closely linked with Europe. We need a Labour argument on this, she says. But it would be a profound mistake to boycott the wider pro-European campaign.
Creagh says her parents were immigrants from Ireland and Northern Ireland. And she has lived abroad herself. She wants us to stop demonising immigrants.
But Labour should not make out EU reform is its problem. It is David Cameron’s problem, she says.
Cooper says Labour should be pushing for EU reform before, during and after the referendum.
And the campaign needs to be local, she says, showing the impact on local factories.
Question 5 - EU referendum
Q: Should Labour embrace scepticism about the EU?
Corbyn says he has mixed views about the EU. Some aspects of it are positive. But it has become market-orientated. The treatment of Greece has been “disgraceful”, he says. There should be more social solidarity across the Europe.
He says he hopes Labour MPs will be allowed a free vote on this.
Burnham says the EU referendum will define British politics for a generation. It could have the same impact as the Scottish referendum. Labour could look as if is defending the status quo. Ukip could look like the outsiders. So there should be a distinctive Labour campaign, for staying in Europe, but for reform too. He says his father worked in Europe when he could not find work in the UK.
But freedom to work is not the same as freedom to claim, he says.
If Labour pushes for reform, it could be the party that wins the referendum, he says. The Tories will be divided. Winning the referendum could be the springboard to winning the general election.
Cooper says a digital revolution is taking place, but we have not adjusted to that.
For example, digital broadband is essential. Many small towns are literally left behind because they cannot get fast broadband.
Kendall says the world of business has changed, yet Labour does not recognise this. For example, many people are self-employed. And many work for a private firm delivering a service to the public sector.
People think Labour does not value business, she says.
And we need “real welfare reforms” to give people a better change in life.
Burnham says Labour cannot look as if it is hostile to business, to firms that employ their constituents. But it looked like this at the election.
There were good policies, like the business rates cut for small firms, but they did not cut through, he says.
He says the EU referendum should be brought forward. And Labour should campaign strongly to stay in. That is how Labour will win back business.
Corbyn says the last Labour government did not spend too much, except perhaps on defence. There should be much higher levels of taxations on corporates and the wealthy, he says. It is not simple, but you have to campaign hard.
Creagh says Labour has become an analogue party in a digital age. It needs to change. It needs to become the Carlsberg party - refreshing parts that other parties cannot reach. It needs to form a progressive coalition.
Cooper says she took her driving test in Basingstoke. She can win a driving test there, she jokes.
Labour was too narrow at the election.
It had something to say about low pay, but not about skilled jobs.
Burnham says Kendall is right. Labour needs to face up to fundamental questions. It did not do this in the 2010 leadership contest, he says. It needs to address big issues, like spending and immigration. He says his campaign is doing this.
But it is not just about winning in Basingstoke, he says. It needs to appeal to all people.
Too often Labour looked like a thinktank, he says.
Then, realising he is addressing a thinktank conference, he says there is nothing wrong with thinktanks.
Question 4 - How does Labour win?
Q: To win a majority of 10, Labour needs to win in seats like Basingstoke, where it has never won before. How would you build a party that could do this?
Kendall says people did not trust Labour with their money. If that does not happen, it will not get a hearing.
She is passionate about dealing with things like zero-hours contracts and the bedroom tax. But if these things do not affect you, then Labour did not have much to say at the election, she says.
Labour needs to change fundamentally, she says.
Corbyn says he was never New Labour.
At the election Labour made many good points. But Labour was also signed up to cuts and austerity. So it did not inspire people.
We should not offer another dose of “austerity lite”, he says.
Harrop reads out a supplementary question.
Q: Since you all went to university for free, why shouldn’t I?
Creagh says, when she was an Islington councillor, schools in the borough were very poor. There can be no defence of failure in the system, she says.
Kendall says “under my leadership” early years, not cutting tuition fees, will be the priority. In her constituency some children start school 15 months, or 20 months, behind in developmental terms. They will struggle to catch up.
Burnham says he disagrees. Both should be a priority. Tuition fees of £9,000 have stopped many young people in his constituency going to university. We need to keep aspiration alive. He says we should look at the idea of a graduate tax. That is crucial if we want to give all young people a chance to go to university.
Do we support a broken system with academies and free schools? I don’t, says Burnham.
Cooper says the current system does not work. She has supported a graduate tax since about 1999. It would be hard, but it would be a fairer system, she says.
The free school experiment is not right. It has not been value for money, she says.
Corbyn says education is being privatised. We should restore the role of local councils in education, he says. And we need to do more on adult education, he says.
Burnham says he was shadow education secretary for a while. He thinks comprehensive education is vital. Belief in comprehensive education should be central to Labour’s DNA. But Labour did not support this when it was in power. He wants to see all children educated together. He feels passionately about this. Every child should have prospects at 18, university or training. Education should get all children to this level, he says.
This gets a round of applause.
Cooper says we need more high-quality technical education. And there should be more IT training for women; most coding jobs are done by men, she says. And she attacks George Osborne for his education cuts.
Question 3 - Education
Q: Education did not feature much in the campaign. How would you make it central to Labour?
Creagh says she used to be a lecturer at Cranfied. We are at the Institute for Education, and she says there was a poster on the wall with an Einstein quote saying imagination is at the heart of intelligence. She does not want Michael Gove telling teachers what they must teach.
Kendall says she agrees. Early years education is vital.
(She also mentions education under Gove. It is as if he were still education secretary, although he was moved last year.)
Harrop tries to move on, but Burnham and Creagh complain because they want to speak about Ukip. Harrop over-rules them.
Harrop asks Corbyn about London.
Corbyn says the BNP used to be powerful in London. But they were challenged, and defeated.
He says he wants devolved powers for housing in London.
He says he spent some time campaigning in South Thanet. Many of those planning to vote for Ukip did not know much about Ukip. But they disliked politicians, and believed the stuff fed to them by the Sun and the Mail.
Cooper says the Ukip vote went up in parts of Yorkshire. Labour did well in big cities, where there is growth and diversity. But, in smaller towns, it went backwards. Both the Tories and Ukip were able to play on the politics of fear and blame. Labour has to be able to reach out to communities left behind. She says her family all grew up in small towns, so she understands this.
For too long Labour assumed Ukip was taking votes just from the Tories, she says. That is not what is happening. Labour must take them on.
Harrop asks Kendall about Ukip.
Kendall says Labour should offer a chance, not a grievance. Labour has been too nervous about speaking up for the benefits of immigration, she says.
She says she agrees with Corbyn about Britain being too centralised. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. That should change. It would lead to better decision-taking. We should never have allowed George Osborne to steal Labour arguments with the Northern Powerhouse. This has to be a big part of how we win in 2020, she says.
The questioner says Burnham was reported as saying he did want a separate Scottish party.
Burnham says this was a proposal that came from some in the Labour party. When first asked about it, he said he would not dismiss the idea. But he never said he was in favour. He wants to keep a British Labour party, he says.
Kendall says it would be glib to say there is an easy solution to Scotland. But we did win the referendum by saying we are better together. We should make that case again. She says she is concerned about calls for structural change. People want hope. We have to start from the ground up.
Corbyn says half of Labour voters voted for independence, and then stuck with the SNP. After 1997 we moved towards a federal Britain, he says. He says he wants a proper debate on whether to have a federal structure in Labour; he wants to hear from the unions. And we should embrace more devolution.
Burnham says we have to set out Labour’s answer to identity politics. To be Labour is to be comfortable with multiple identifies; you can be English, British and European. He says he agrees with Cooper that there should not be a separate Scottish Labour party. And he says we need to confront nationalism. The Tories are playing “openly and nakedly with English nationalism”. Labour should be the party that holds Britain together.
Question 2 - How do you combat nationalism?
Q: How does Labour combat dual and mutually dependent nationalisms in England and Scotland?
Cooper says the SNP tried to divide as, as did the Tories and Ukip. We have to appeal to common values, and say we are stronger together. We should not break up the Labour party and have a separate party there. She was in Scotland yesterday, she says. A separate party is not what activists want. It would play into SNP hands.
Creagh says we are a hollowed-out party. We have to earn back trust in Scotland. That starts with the Holyrood elections next year. But we have to tell the story of how we are better together. When working people divided, the Tories end up ruling. That is the answer. Structural answers are a secondary issue.
Burnham says everything must be focused on winning the next election. Many people do not have a secure job. The Labour party must tell people it will help them get on.
Cooper says Britain is becoming gloomy. We have to fight for the jobs of the future. As a progressive party, we have to fight for the jobs for the future, “otherwise we are nothing”.
Corbyn says we have to re-evaluate our role in the world. He is opposed to Trident. Housing is important too. People are being driven out of London by the benefits cap. And it is a question of rights and justice too.
Question 1 - Vision for a Labour Britain
The event will follow a BBC Question Time format.
Q: In six words or fewer, what is your vision for a Labour-governed Britain?
Andy Burnham goes first. A Labour government will help everyone get on.
Yvette Cooper says jobs and growth.
Mary Creagh and Liz Kendall both talk about politics being for the many not the few.
And Jeremy Corbyn says something similar, but includes equality.
Updated
And Jeremy Corbyn is here too. He was not expected to come.
Labour leadership hustings
The four candidates have just arrived and are taking their seats.
Andrew Harrop, the Fabian Society general secretary, is chairing.
The Greens (or at least their West Midlands arm) have responded to Yvette Cooper.
Why Labour isn’t the answer << RT @AndrewSparrow: Y Cooper backs compulsory jobs; benefits cap fine in principle - http://t.co/7IqbcZOysc
— W. Mids Green Party (@westmidlandsgp) June 6, 2015
Here are some highlights from Twitter from earlier in the conference.
Standing room only for the opening session of #fabsummer pic.twitter.com/euvsQONnXp
— The Fabian Society (@thefabians) June 6, 2015
From Peter Kellner, the YouGov president
Peter Kellner says: "In 50 years time tuition fees will be seen as one of Blair's greatest achievements." #fabsummer
— Cllr Sam Stopp (@CllrStopp) June 6, 2015
Peter Kellner says we either repudiate, accept or fudge Blair's legacy. Only two of those options give us a chance #fabsummer
— Cllr Sam Stopp (@CllrStopp) June 6, 2015
Significant divide in room on Kellner's view that socialism is unelectable - represents contested fault line throughout party #fabsummer
— Daisy-Rose Srblin (@DCSrblin) June 6, 2015
From the Labour MP and deputy leadership candidate Ben Bradshaw
.@BenPBradshaw says his majority is sustained by loving the Lib Dems and Greens in his constituency- not by hating them #fabsummer
— Louie Woodall (@LouieWoodall) June 6, 2015
From the Telegraph columnist Mary Riddell
"If it was down to words and knocking on doors we'd have a lot more Jehovah's witnesses in the country" BRILLIANT @MaryRiddell #fabsummer
— Rose Gray (@_RoseGray) June 6, 2015
Yvette Cooper’s comments (see 3.49am) are broadly in line with the Labour manifesto. That doesn’t stop them being newsworthy, because these days it is rare to hear senior Labour figures defending anything in the manifesto. More often, we hear them saying how flawed it was.
This is what the manifesto said about the benefits cap (the rule saying out-of-work families can claim no more than £26,000 a year in benefits).
We will keep the household benefit cap and ask the Social Security Advisory Committee to examine if it should be lower in some areas.
And this is what it says about making claimants work.
There will be a guaranteed, paid job for all young people who have been out of work for one year, and for all those over 25 years old and out of work for two years. It will be a job that they have to take, or lose their benefits.
It is not clear whether Cooper is just re-asserting this, or proposing that Labour goes further.
Yvette Cooper backs more compulsory jobs
Andy Burnham has been briefing in advance of this afternoon’s hustings. (See 2.03pm.) And Yvette Cooper has now put out a line too. Her team have just sent me a short press notice saying she will declare that Labour should back the idea of a benefits cap in principle and that it should support “more compulsory jobs” (which, in practice, means more conditionality for those on benefits who are able to work).
Cooper’s comments are highly qualified, but they have a rightish flavour.
According to the press release, she will say:
People should be working if they can. I’ve always worked long hours and always believed it was right to work hard and support your family. But I did have 12 months twenty years ago when I was too ill to work. I hated it and I was desperate to get back to work, but I couldn’t. And I had to get sickness benefit and housing benefit to pay the bills and pay the rent. So I will always support strong rules on contribution, on expecting people to work, including compulsory jobs. But I will never slag off people on benefits because they cant work as “work shy” or “scroungers”. That’s what Tories do. Not Labour.
And here’s the note explaining Cooper’s position in more detail.
At the Fabian leadership hustings, Yvette Cooper will say the principle of limits on welfare and caps on benefits is right. She will say it’s right that families should be better off in work than on benefits and its also right to look for savings
But she will say there are big problems with the government’s benefit cap proposals. She will say, in a lot of areas, most of the money is going straight to landlords not to families. A quarter of those families are on sickness benefits – they really can’t go out and get a job to remove the benefit cap, and they may struggle to move house too, so all this will do is push them further into poverty.
She will say Labour should look at the detail of the legislation, but that serious amendments are needed to the plan.
She will say that, just because Labour lost the election doesn’t mean we should ditch all our principles and swallow the Tories plans. Finally, she will conclude that we should have firm rules about work and welfare and more compulsory jobs, but “we should not sign up lock stock and barrel to Ian Duncan Smith’s plans”.
Updated
The Fabian conference is at the Institute of Education in north London. I have just arrived, and the hall is packed. There must be around 400 people here.
There is a panel discussion now, on the subject of how Labour should change for the 2020s. It has a very Guardian feel. Polly Toynbee is chairing, and Owen Jones is on the platform. He has just finished his speech. He just got a large round of applause for mocking the idea, floated by Chris Leslie in an Observer interview last weekend, that the party should be (as Jones put it) “the political wing of Which? magazine”.
What Guardian readers think of the Labour leadership candidates
What impact are the candidates making?
Ideally, it would be good to convene a giant focus group of Labour party members. But that it quite hard, and so instead I’ve tried the next best thing; this week I’ve been asking readers of the Guardian’s Politics Live blog for their comments. The Guardian readership cohort is not the same as the Labour membership cohort, but there is some overlap and Guardian readers provide some insight into leftish opinion. I must have had around 100 direct responses, and these are the main points that emerged.
(Some people who post regularly BTL on my blog are certainly not Labour supporters. Their comments are very welcome, but for this exercise I’ve ignored them, and instead focused on what Labourish readers are saying.)
- Readers are not greatly enthused by any of the candidates. Even amongst those who expressed a firm preference, there was no particularly excitement about what was on offer, and many people said they were disappointed by the choice. BlackSam said:
I’ve been a Labour Party member for more than fifty years and I’ve never seen such a poor field of candidates for the leadership.
Ikonoclast put it like this.
I believe the kids call it “meh”...sadly that’s how I feel about all the candidates. Best out of a mundane bunch? Burnham.
HiFlight posted this.
Szwalby told me:
I will rejoin the Labour party, again for the second time in my life because of my loathing for the Tories, more than enthusiasm for the Labour party as it is now. But I am really at a loss about who to vote for.
For some readers, their disappointment with the choice on offer was reinforced by a sense the party was rushing into a leadership election without working out what went wrong. This is from trees11.
My opinions regarding the leadership bunch are (with the exception of Jeremy Corbyn who at least is interesting!):
(I) they seem to have identified a solution before examining the problem and therefore are answering questions from five years ago;
(ii) they arrogantly assume they know the answers when they haven’t ask any questions or talk to people about why we lost so heavily in the election
- Andy Burnham does seem to be the most popular candidate, in so far as anyone is. Some readers are quite enthusiastic about his candidature.
Give the leadership to Burnham. The ideal candidate to tackle this new "blue collar workers" mantra crap from the Tories.
FrancesSmith told me:
My instincts say vote for Burnham, he isn’t perfect, but he has the experience which is needed, and a drive and energy that really is essential. I know mud will be thrown at him over mid staffs, but I take the view that the biggest mistake Miliband made was to not address the tory attacks on the last labour government, and having someone from that government, whose only failing is a pretty minor one over setting up a private rather than public inquiry into mid staffs, forces labour to deal with the tory narrative.
I think experience matters enormously, though people don’t watch pmqs it matters, as its about confidence within the party, so someone who scores point at pmqs is more useful than someone who doesn’t, its a morale thing.
So as he is a good parliamentary performer, and has been an MP for quite a long time, and is experienced at being dealing with the media I am voting for Burnham.
ToryFoodBankBritain said:
2 years ago most on here would have given a small toe for Burnham to oust Ed and take over the leadership.
But some readers are backing Burnham with reluctance, and there are doubts about whether he could win a general election.
Agreed. Burnham is probably the least worst but regardless of fairness the Tories and the press will harp on about the Mid-Staffs report. Easy target.
If this is the best Labour can muster then we're up shit creek. The only chance we've got is that the Tories will fuck things up so badly that Labour will get in as long as they don't fall apart in the meantime - which is a real danger.
And this is from Csakagondamunka.
As a northerner (Evertonian too) I feel as though I should be more enthused by Burnham, nice enough guy and has done pretty well in the roles he’s had....but I cant avoid a felling that he’ll definitely lose if leader.
Biddlemon said this:
People in my area are massive fans of Burnham as he showed integrity in dealing with the Hillsborough issue. Not only did he change the situation from the establishment he won against the disgusting Jack Straw who was blocking and backing the establishment. He has supported the families of Hillsborough dead and is much admired for doing so. My dilemma is that I have a great regard for him as a person but can he win not for what he is or says but because lies are being told about him.
And notjarvis made a similar point.
Andy Burnham is a genuinely impressive chap, with an affecting story, and experience of the real world.
But you get the feeling the Tories would like him in charge as they could wave the “In the pocket of the unions” card again constantly for the next 4 years (although it’s debatable how much traction that gets nowadays), and he’s a bit too close to some scandals from when he was health secretary that could come back and bite him
- Liz Kendall is seen as the most distinctive of the three frontrunners, and for some readers this is a big bonus. This is from Knukes1.
As a Labour member, who also runs a small business in the north, I will be backing Liz Kendall. For me, she seems most aware of the need to attract a broad coalition of voters at the next election, rather than focus on a core vote, plus attracting greens and Lib Dems strategy that failed so badly in May. She gets the things that matter to people, the opportunity to have a good job, a good house and the best for their children.
I find it dispiriting that people accuse her of being a Tory, when if you read what she says, there is a pragmatic approach that is firmly within Labour values.
I don’t think Yvette Cooper is charismatic enough, and I can’t really work out what she stands for. As far as Andy Burnham, I just can’t see him making a dent into the Tories ahead of 2020.
Kendall’s relative novelty is seen as an advantage.
Labour leadership candidates - I’ll be voting but I’m not sure who for yet. I’m not truly opposed to any of the candidates but I am wary of the ghosts of elections past. Subtly leaning towards Liz Kendall at the moment, I think, but there is some way to go yet!
But, because Kendall is relatively untested, even her supporters are relatively cautious. This is from ZacMurdoch.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer, I’ve run two businesses in two sectors and employed hundreds of people, and I’ve been a Labour supporter all my life. I oppose cuts to benefits for disabled people and the unprincipled handing over of much of the public sector to the private sector (as distinct from social enterprise, where profit isn’t the ultimate aim) - but I also think people should work for a living. Vilifying people like me isn’t going to get the party anywhere.
At the moment, Liz Kendall looks like my candidate - but it’s early days.
- Kendall is also the most polarising candidate. Some reader are strongly opposed to her. This is from NoSuddenMovements.
Liz Kendall is, sadly, easily led. She parrots things she's heard but inevitably they come from parties she supposedly opposes. So she thinks that Labour could have done more to guard against the global crash (Tory); that Labour needs to help the white working class more - is that because Labour abandoned it? (Ukip). Labour should be fighting against such myths not buying into them for even a second. I don't think she has the intellect for leader.
JamesCracknell said Kendall was “completely unacceptable as Labour leader”. Milinovak said:
Liz Kendall hasn’t shown herself to have leadership qualities at the moment, just the ability to produce a few unmemorable soundbites, and some very ungenerous views about the party she apparently wants to lead.
And michaelsylvain told me:
I’m yet to see why Kendall even joined Labour - I’ve met more left wing Tories on doorsteps than Kendall manages to be in interviews. The right wing trudge is dismal and self-defeating (Labour didn’t lose for not being right enough, but for not being different or credible).
One reader, jibber1975, even described Kendall as “a vile Tory”.
- Yvette Cooper is popular with those who rate experience highly. And, although there were not many readers who were passionate about her becoming leader, she does not attract a great deal of opposition either, which could matter in an election with a a preferential voting system. Peter Thompson said:
At the last leadership election in 2010, had Yvette Cooper stood I would almost certainly have voted for her. She has the combination of politcal nous, a grip on economic matters and the balls (ha!) to stand up to the slings and arrows that come with being Labour leader.
Jarrovian1949 said:
I am still undecided whether to give Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper my vote. Had Yvette stood last time he would have had my vote. I still believe she would stand up well to Cameron and it is time for a female Labour leader with experience.
SmileyGeorgeSmiley said he was “slowly moving towards Yvette Cooper, who to my mind is shaping up as the most interesting candidate by avoiding a binary base/swing voters approach” but that he had not made up his mind.
- Readers know very little about Mary Creagh, but this is an advantage for those who want a fresh start. Craig09 posted this.
Morning Andrew, I am a party member and this morning i am VERY happy to hear Jermy Corybn is running. I will vote for him (if he gets the numbers!) he has a history of standing up for socialist priciples and does not shy away from the nasty right wing media.
If JC does not get the numbers i would consider standing for Mary Creagh as she does not have bagage and shows a different sort of insight. Labour must change and own the future, not fall in to the tory trap of the past.
- Jeremy Corbyn has a lot of support from readers. His backers want a proper leftwing leader.
In response to your qu on Labour leadership, I'm a party member from Islington North and I'm delighted that my MP, Jeremy Corbyn, has thrown his hat in. He has my vote. I think it's vital that Labour have someone in the race talking against austerity and challenging the Cameron/Osborne terms of engagement, if they are to remain a true party of opposition.
And some readers have welcomed his candidature, not because they intend to vote for him, but because they want a proper policy debate in the contest.
- But there is still a strong appetite for someone better. Several readers said they would like to see Keir Starmer as leader, but he was not the only non-contestant who was mentioned. This is from Sanguine6.
In my view, depressingly for Labour, I think the real ‘leaders’ - Leslie, Umunna, Starmer, Creagh (who I rate very highly) see post-2020 has the right time to lead the party and potentially become PM. I think in some quarters Labour have already written off the next election.
As a result, some people think there will be another contest in 2018. This is from m909:
So who will I vote for? I’m torn between AB and LK, with then both having qualities that would make them good in opposition
My main background thought is that whoever wins (unless the winds of chaos hit the Tories) is that they are probably keeping the seat warm for one of the two or three obvious “absentees” from 2018 on
I’m heading off to the hustings now. I won’t be posting again until around 3.30pm.
Updated
What the polls say
There is not a lot of evidence yet about how Labour members are likely to vote in the leadership contest, but two surveys are worth mentioning.
Just after the election Survation published a poll for the Mail on Sunday in which people were asked who should be the next Labour leader. Amongst the population at large the top three were Andy Burnham (14%), Chuka Umunna (12%) and Yvette Cooper (11%) and, amongst Labour supporters, the findings were similar: Burnham (21%), Umunna (16%) and Cooper (13%).
More recently, the LabourList website surveyed its readers. More than 2,000 people responded, and, again, Burnham came out top.
Andy Burnham, who is shadow health secretary, comes out on top with 35% of the vote. This isn’t particularly shocking, given that there’s been some vocal support for him within the party. And as the Labour party’s NHS spokesperson for the past 5 years, he’s scored himself points with a lot of people.
In second place is Liz Kendall with 24%. Although 11 points behind Burnham, this is no bad place for Kendall to be – particularly as she only became an MP in 2010 and isn’t necessarily as well known. She has, though, been Shadow Minister since her first year in parliament.
However, what is perhaps most interesting about the results is that in third place is ‘other’ (we’ll come to exactly who makes up this other category in a moment). 22% of people chose an MP who hasn’t declared or opted for none of the above. This could signal some discontent that there isn’t the variety of candidates that readers would like to see. Or that they’re not particularly excited about anyone who’s said they’re standing.
Updated
How many public MP endorsements do the candidates have?
The New Statesman has been keeping a very helpful tally of how many MPs have publicly endorsed each candidate. The full list, with all the names, is here.
Here are the numbers.
Andy Burnham - 50
Yvette Cooper - 36
Liz Kendall - 32
Jeremy Corbyn - 11
Mary Creagh - 6
Updated
By September you’ll be fed up of reading about Labour leadership hustings. They will be taking place in every part of the country, and party officials think that by the end of the contest the candidates will have debated each other well over a dozen times.
But at this point they are still a novelty. Today’s event at the Fabian Society summer conference in London is only the second hustings to take place. Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper and Mary Creagh all debated Labour’s future at the Progress conference three weeks ago, but you could argue that that wasn’t a proper hustings because at that point campaigning had not fully started and the event included Tristram Hunt, who subsequently decided not to stand. This afternoon Burnham, Kendall, Cooper and Creagh go head to head in earnest. The only omission is Jeremy Corbyn, a late entrance to the race, although, like Creagh, it is thought he may struggle to get the 35 nominations he needs from MPs to get his name on the ballot paper.
The hustings starts at 4.15pm. I will be covering it in detail, and providing a summary and analysis afterwards.
In the meantime, here are two Labour leadership stories from today’s papers.
Between now and 4.15pm, I will be posting more on the Labour leadership contest, and on some of the other highlights from the Fabian conference.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow
Personally, none of them look leadership material. Oh for a real-life personality to take on Cameron and Osbourne.