(c) fotologic

At the Fabian Society’s New Year conference, Gordon Brown declared that “Labour is backing Britain’s aspirations; and we’re fighting to win”. Yet, what has been starkly apparent from the latest failed bid to bring Gordon Brown’s leadership into question is how Mr Brown’s Cabinet colleagues are wholly lacking in aspiration.

So, what next for the Labour Party? Who, when Brown’s days as Caesar do inevitably come to an end, will be Brutus? A wide field displays some half-baked contenders; David Miliband, whose faltering hand failed to bring down the dagger, not once, but three times; Alan Johnson, who has down-played his leadership aspiration all too often; to the detriment of his popularity, both in the party and with the general public. And of course there is Harriet “driving without due care conviction” Harman.

These three, amongst others, will be the ones that Labour will have to turn to for its future, should they face a heavy defeat in the general election. Of course, if Labour wins or isn’t hit too hard, then Brown will stay on, however, I am going to assume my initial scenario and examine the contenders in the running to be the first post-Blair-Brown-era Labour leader.

(For those interested in the Labour Party’s leadership election procedure; it is well summarised here)

Alan Johnson

This highlights one of the problems that Alan Johnson faces; despite his popularity amongst his colleagues and in the eyes of the general public – largely for his down to earth style, charismatic presentation and humble beginnings – there is a sense that he simply is not “leadership” material. This view is compounded by his continuing assertions that not only does he have no desire for the job, but that he isn’t up to it. In an interview with Desert Island Discs in 2007, he said, on the leadership: “I don’t think I would have been good enough, frankly. I don’t think I’ve got the capabilities”. In an interview with the Guardian in September 2009, he said, when asked the same question: “I haven’t got the ambition, and I haven’t got the self-confidence, and I haven’t got that real aching desire to lead. Which really is an essential quality in a leader. So I don’t think I’ll ever be leader of the party. But I’m not willing to rule myself out for all eventualities in the future”.

In that same interview with the Guardian, the interviewer comes to the conclusion that Johnson is a nice, likeable, erudite candidate, but lacks any real leadership credentials; in short he lacks passion, ideology or zeal. His basic conclusion is that the Party may back him as a “lighter” alternative to Gordon Brown. It is a criticism that is perhaps a little unjust.

It is true that most people would be hard-pressed to think of Alan Johnson’s core ideological convictions, but that much is true of most Cabinet Ministers. That being said, Johnson has pushed for proportional representation in the Commons, famously dubbed all parties’ control of immigration as “maladroit” and disagreed with Brown’s softened stance on 24 hour drinking licenses. Overall, whilst he perhaps lacks that determination and ideological clarity of the likes of Brown and Mandelson; he does command wider support than many of his front-bench colleagues and the support that he lacks with the rank-and-file Labour Party members could easily be improved with a few visits to some key CLPs. His charisma, so it would seem, is his trump card.

Harriet Harman

Her background offers a stark contrast to that of her 2007 deputy leadership rival, Alan Johnson. Harman was privately educated in an independent girl’s school, attended the University of York and became chief legal officer for Liberty (or the National Council for Civil Liberties, as was). She was parachuted into the safe Labour seat of Peckham (which has since become Camberwell and Peckham) in a by-election in 1982, two years later she was on the front-bench as a social services shadow minister, before entering the shadow cabinet in 1992 as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Labour’s victory in 1997 saw her take position as Secretary of State for Social Security, though this was short-lived as a year later she has sacked due to a European Court ruling her winter fuel allowance as breaching sex discrimination laws (men were entitled to the payments at 64, whereas women were entitled at 60).

She re-joined the front bench in 2001 as Solicitor General. However, the most significant step in her parliamentary career came when she won the 2007 deputy leadership contest. Harman started her campaign with no union support and her campaign was entirely self-financed. She was a complete outsider yet still managed to oust the bookies favourite, Alan Johnson, and became the only party-elected member of Brown’s Cabinet. She did, however, off the back of her campaign, have her knuckles wrapped by the Electoral Commission for undisclosed donations.

An article last week in the New Statesman provided a comprehensive and brilliant profile of Ms Harman. The author demonstrates that following last week’s attempted putsch, Harriet is one of the winners. A close friend of co-conspirator Patricia Hewitt; it is suggested that she knew of what was to happen and used it as a bargaining chip to secure more of a purchase in Brown’s inner-ring. In any future contest her former lack of union backing will be transformed by her husband’s influence, through whom she can hope for the Unite union’s backing. Not only that, but she is seen as a true left-winger than can re-ignite the grass-roots support, as she demonstrated when clearly outstripping Johnson amongst Labour members in the 2007 contest. Harriet can also command more support from her parliamentary colleagues than the likes of David Miliband, who is seen as a “bottler” and as too Blairite. She can offer a real alternative to the Tories, one that may be attractive to voters following the hard-spending cuts offered by Cameron. The question is: does she want the job?

She has denied any ambition for the leadership in the past, but how much of this is shrewd positioning?

The Milibands

He is seen as an intellectual force within the party; representing an end to the damaging Blair/Brown rift that many see as having crippled the party. However, he has been offered many opportunities to rise to the occasion and has backed down each time. Some may argue that his refusal to unseat Brown was prudent, yet, the manner in which it was executed showed indecision and hesitance.

He first put his cards on the table in the summer of 2008 with an article in the Guardian that looked at the Labour party’s future, but failed to mention Gordon Brown and spoke of a bold new policy agenda. In 2009, David Miliband’s next (and best) opportunity came when his Cabinet colleague and friend James Purnell resigned from the Cabinet calling for Gordon Brown to stand aside. The latest episode with Hoon and Hewitt has brought to the boil an already simmering view that David Miliband hasn’t the stomach for a leadership challenge, and by extension the ability to lead. His standing has been seriously damaged within and outside of the party.

A vast war chest, but tainted by indecision and his image as “bottler”; lacks great support amongst the parliamentary party, has union backing and fair standing amongst the members. Time will tell.

Ed

Miliband the Younger’s prominence has ballooned within the Labour Party in the past year, his work as Secretary of State for Climate Change being seen as the building blocks for Labour’s “Green New Deal”, and he is liked by party members.

Much like his brother, he was educated at a comprehensive, before attending Oxford and gaining an MSc in Economics from LSE. He had a stint as a journalist, before becoming Parliamentary Researcher for Harriet Harman in 1993 and then Gordon Brown’s special advisor after 1997. He contested the 2005 general election as PPC for the safe Labour seat of Doncaster North, but had to beat off a challenger to win the local party’s nomination. In 2007 he was appointed as Cabinet Office Minister and a year later he became Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

The ascendancy of Ed Miliband to the point of being tipped to overtake his brother for the Labour leadership is brilliantly analysed in an article in the Independent last year. Andrew Grice explains that Ed Miliband is the servant of two masters in the question over the leadership; on the one hand he is genuinely loyal to Gordon Brown, on the other, he would wish to support his brother. Union’s have backed the younger brother as he is seen as representing, what Grice calls the “soft left” of the party, whereas his elder brother as seen as a Blairite.

What I find interesting is that the two brothers, by their mere associations with the different partners in the Blair-Brown pact, (Miliband as Blair’s policy advisor and Ed as Gordon’s) may have created a fresh rivalry for the future. Of course, it seems apparent that such rivalry does not exist at present, as Ed Miliband is, by all accounts eager to make way for his brother, but it would be strangely ironic if two of the fresh faced Labour Ministers, who are looked upon as representing an end to that split in the party, may, through David’s association with Blair, and Ed’s with Brown, continue that very divide.

Andrew Grice’s article was of course written before the recent Hoon-Hewitt debacle; so it overlooks the way that David has now been significantly weakened. Ed Miliband has perhaps, arguably, finally become alert to this very fact, having published an article in the Observer last week that seems to put his hat into the leadership-ring. There are various scenarios to consider, but David and Ed may just cancel each other out should they run simultaneously; making way for one of their rivals to act as consensus candidate. As for Ed’s own bid: too young? Too inexperienced? Many would say so.

Brown’s closest ally is something of an outsider, being seen as too close to the PM and his proximity and fierce loyalty has lost him friends in the parliamentary party. However, Ed’s background, much like his Miliband rivals, is an excellently credentialed one.Privately educated, first-class honours from Oxford, and MSc from Harvard, he later was a Financial Times reporter before being appointed as economic advisor to Gordon Brown in 1994. He became Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury in 1999 and then in 2004 he became the PPC for the safe Labour seat of Normanton. He entered the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in 2007 when Gordon Brown assumed office as PM.

In an article in the Guardian a few weeks ago, Martin Kettle outlines how the Hoon-Hewitt leadership move allowed the rest of the Cabinet (other than Peter Mandelson and Ed Balls) to gain some traction in terms of being more involved in the decision and policy-making process. Brown has had ultimately no choice but to clip the wings of his closest ally; making Ed Balls the big loser from the whole episode. However, he is the natural successor to the PM for the Brownites in the parliamentary party and is no enemy of the unions. There remains a question mark around his appeal amongst party members.

In Ed Balls’ favour is his dynamic and innovative approach to governing; he cannot be accused of assuming a “managerial” role in the Dept. of Children, Schools and Families, unlike some of his other colleagues. His work in the Fabian Society also gives him ideological clout; he is progressive, having authored the very policy document that led to the Labour Party handing independence to the Bank of England.

Steve Richards wrote an article in the New Statement suggesting that Balls may not even have leadership ambitions. He suggests that a more prudent way to the top would be for him to distance himself from the ever-unpopular Brown. He also argues that Balls has become the whipping-boy for the media and for Labour backbenchers alike; being blamed for New Labour’s lack of popularity and for the repeated coup attempts. He goes on to say that he has achieved more politically than any of his Cabinet colleagues, who merely whimsically flip-flop from policies that save money to ones that spend it. He –Balls – has been the one being prudent and reformist at the same time.

…

That concludes the tour of some of the hotly-tipped candidates. Of course, there are others that I haven’t really had the space to go into, but look out for Jack Straw, Jon Cruddas, Andy Burnham and even Peter Mandelson. The list of candidates might even be longer; Hillary Benn? James Purnell? Perhaps the arch anti-Brown rabble-rouser Charles Clarke himself – why not?

Based on their popularity across the three constituent parts of the Labour Party electorate; I would say that Johnson, Harman and the Milibands are way out in front of the rest of the field. Personally, I would be inclined to narrow it further to Alan Johnson and Harriet Harman.