The Labour leader contenders debated the economy, welfare and immigration at a Guardian conference in central London on Thursday night. If the object of the exercise was to impress the panel of Guardian columnists quizzing them, they failed.
We’ve had more than 20 hustings now and what was good about this one was that it involved particularly detailed questioning. All candidates, but particularly the favourite, Jeremy Corbyn, were pressed hard on how they would persuade the electorate to back their positions on the economy, welfare and immigration after voters in the general election clearly rejected Labour’s stance on these issues. This line of questioning reflects the argument from James Morris, Labour’s pollster under Ed Miliband, in this analysis of the reason’s for Labour’s defeat.
None of the candidates could offer particular persuasive answers to this electoral conundrum, which explained the collective thumbs-down at the end. But an audience poll would probably have given a very different result. Corbyn seemed the most popular candidate, and he had the clearest, most appealing messages (or most appealing to Labourites).
But judged as a debating contest, Yvette Cooper was probably best. Her exchanges with Andy Burnham on the economy were particularly lively and even though he may have had the better case (Cooper: “We did spend a little bit too much before the crash, but it didn’t matter, and so we should not say sorry”; Burnham: ”If you spent too much, you should say so”), she prevailed over him rhetorically.
Burnham had his impressive moments too, and he was particularly good at using an answer on the welfare vote (an embarrassing issue for him) to deliver a stirring “unity is strength” riff.
Liz Kendall seemed to rely too much on over-familiar stock answers, although she was robust on Europe.
We learned seven new things from the debate:
1. Corbyn signalled that, if he becomes leader, he will play down the role MPs and the shadow cabinet play in determining party policy and let ordinary members have much more say. He said:
This is the first [leadership election] where the role of the parliamentary party is minimal. It does mean the whole dynamic of the Labour party has changed because it means that whoever is elected leader will have a mandate from a very large membership and it does mean we need to change the way we make policy. I don’t think we can go on having policy made by the leader/shadow cabinet/PLP, it’s got to go much wider. Party members need to be more enfranchised …
We’re living in a society where people communicate with people very quickly and very easily. They can push forward. I think we need to catch up as a party and political system with the speed of process … That means a big change with the way the Labour party does things.
He also indicated he would not apply a top-down approach to party discipline in the Commons. He would not “corral” MPs, he said. If MPs did not accept the party line, there would be discussion, and perhaps compromise, he indicated.
2. Burnham suggested that the system that allowed people to become registered members and vote in the leadership election by paying just £3 – triggering a row over infiltration of the process – needed to be reviewed after it was over.
3. Burnham said he would change Labour party rules at next month’s party conference to give the Scottish Labour party more autonomy if he became leader.
4. Corbyn said the SNP had a “fundamental problem” because its support was spread too widely. It was trying to span a spectrum from the pro-market right to the socialist left, he said. At some point this would become unsustainable, he argued.
5. Burnham said Labour should not support David Cameron’s EU renegotiation until the full details are available. But he also said Labour should be pro-European.
6. Corbyn said he was “very wary” of Cameron’s EU renegotation and did not rule out supporting EU withdrawal at some point in the future. He said:
I think we have to be very wary of what Cameron is doing, why we’re having the referendum at all and what he’s trying to negotiate because Europe is changing a great deal. It’s changed since Maastricht into much more of a market Europe than a social Europe, or a welfare Europe. While we’re not in the eurozone, the European Central Bank has behaved in an incredibly brutal way towards the people of Greece and indeed is about to do the same, I suspect, to other countries. I think we should be in the debate demanding much greater levels of social protection across Europe. Trying to end the race to the bottom on corporate tax in Europe, end the tax evasion that is systematic across Europe.
Asked whether could imagine backing British withdrawal from the EU, he replied:
At the present time, no, I don’t see that. But I do see that Europe is changing very fast and it is not changing in a good direction … We’re just saying Europe fine, Europe yes. It doesn’t matter what they do. We’ve got to be much tougher about what kind of Europe we want to live in.
7. Cooper and Burnham both said Britain should take more Syrian refugees.
