The Tory supporting “Independent” (it isn’t independent) newspaper gleefully reports today that the comedian Mark Steel has been excluded from voting in Labour’s farcical election for a new leader. Someone at Labour HQ has decided that Steel does not support the values of the party, whatever that means, so he can’t vote.
Firstly, I don’t like the idea that someone – who exactly? – has made a decision that a person can’t vote in an election which was opened up not just to Labour Party members, but also to so-called “supporters”. After leading Labour to a disastrous defeat in May’s general election, Ed Miliband has bequeathed a shambles of an electoral system for electing his successor which has the potential to split Labour down the middle and confirm the clear view of voters that the party, in pretty well any form, is not fit for government. Did no one explain to Miliband what might happen if you opened up an electoral system to people who were not actually members? They would encourage people to vote, for heaven’s sake, and not always vote in the time-honoured manner. And so it has been that some old lefties who despaired when Labour was in government, as well as some younger people who were not previously shown any interest in politics, who can can do their bit to ensure it never enters government again! (I am not sure whether that’s the main reason they are signing up as supporters, but that will be the effect.)
I shuddered when Labour officials referred to the “robust” system that was in place for deciding who could and couldn’t vote. That system could only be based upon a combination of assumptions, some facts and guesswork. And that flies in the face of democracy, not that the Labour Party has ever been any good at democracy, right through the Benn years to the present day.
The few people who are actually interested in the Labour leadership contest, and I am talking about ordinary, non aligned voters – and it’s a much lesser number than you might think – will come to look at the electoral process in terms of the appearance that Labour could not run a piss up in a brewery, never mind the entire United Kingdom and that’s regardless of whether Corbyn becomes the new leader or not. Already, people have looked at Labour under Miliband and decided it wasn’t fit for government. The chaotic election process will only reinforce that view.
The only question is what Labour should now do, given the mess that election has become. I would be loathe to suspend the process because I don’t remember anyone complaining about it before the campaign started. I think many of us thought it odd, but we were prepared to go along with it because it was something new and brought a wider democracy and greater participation in the Labour Party. If it is proved that criminal activity has taken place – and there has been no suggestion whatsoever that this has happened – things might be different, but just because the whole thing has been Ed Miliband’s folly, a cock up of the highest order, is not enough reason for overturning the entire ballot. From what we can see, Corbyn will win by miles anyway.
The last thing I want for Labour and the country is a Corbyn leadership but it’s not his fault that Labour has messed up. If he wins, society will pay a heavy price by enabling a generation of permanent Tory government. It’s Labour’s fault and proof that the electorate was right back in May, that Miliband was not a credible prime minister and that Labour could not be trusted with pretty well anything. With judgement like this, we can hardly argue about it, can we?
