CSM hustings - personal reflections

By David Freeman

David is 20, a Political Student at Warwick University

The first thing that struck me about the debate was its casual and friendly atmosphere, both between the candidates and between them and the chair (I believe it was the first hustings with gifts!). Jokes were coming thick and fast by the end, there was a welcome absence of the phrase ‘I agree with Nick’ for once, and none of the fierce confrontation to be expected from many other types of debate. More to the point the candidates seemed united when it came to the coalition’s wrongdoing, but nevertheless had diverging views and visions for Labour’s future. There was very little scrutiny applied to any contender, though Diane Abbot was quick to disavow much of New Labour’s record where she could, often this felt like a shot at the others - all linked to the previous government in some way, as did any discussion of the role of women or race. Despite this what really shone out of the debate was the unity within The Party after the election defeat, this was no brawl or bitter struggle, though time will tell if this race will turn into our own Democratic primary - or worse.

Andy Burnham impressed me with his fair share of biographical anecdotes, history and upbringing being a staple in all the candidates answers, a catholic school upbringing, in inner city Liverpool, miners strikes - each candidate had a great wealth of heritage to draw on. The Milibands, sons of a refugee of the Second World War, Abbot part of an extended family spanning three continents, it seemed everyone had a powerful story to tell. Each story felt slight tweaked from the usual, more secular, stump speech opener. You could tell, some candidates more than others, that religion had been slipped in to pander to the audience, understandable considering who was their host. The way the David Miliband spoke with a honest humility about his personal experience of religion (or lack of it) was interesting especially when he suggested Labour, and the Church, had a lot to learn from each other, and also a lot in common - citing ‘the sermon on the mount’ as the most important Christian Socialist doctrine in his opinion.

For me the under-performer of the tie was Ed Balls, not due to anything in particular, more it seemed he never really got going. He weighed in on debates over the economy and faith schools expertly, and he has a very strong Christian background, mentioning Tearfund as an important Christian NGO. He has vast governmental experience, telling us how he asked the Jubilee protesters to come back and surround the Treasury again in order to help mobilise support, and regularly mentioning achievements as Children, Schools and Families secretary. But, honestly, I feel he lacked anything particularly astounding, no new ideas, nothing fresh, none of the candidates felt particularly expansive in their ideas. Balls for me could be a front runner if he dumped the legacy and laid out his ‘plan’ for Labour.

Ed Miliband on the other hand got a loud applause from the audience when he made an appeal for Labour to reclaim words like ‘Love and Compassion’. He and Diane Abbot impressed the most, purely because they were fresh, they delivered new ideas, new plans, and spoke of reinventing Labour. Ed Miliband seemed buoyed by his frontrunner status, and able to master difficult questions with ease, especially ones about whether Britain is ready for it’s ‘first Jewish P.M’.

I liked how Abbot rose from her seat for her final statement, and spoke about how Immigration was not as big an issue as everyone claimed, unwilling to appease ‘The Daily Mail’ as she put it. The passion and verve she spoke with, not to mention her riveting spiel on what ‘a leader should look like’ changed my opinion of her, indeed I agree with her that often being too ‘serious’ and trying to look ‘strong’ by wearing a tie and a suit has overshadowed what is powerful about politics. She seemed the one with the most to prove and the least to lose, which came through positively. For me she impressed the most, and made my choice even tougher!

If the next Labour leader is to be successful two things are needed, one to recapture the notion of change- makers; we need a leader able to prove we are the party of ‘change’ - and progress, it is a sad day when a Conservative lays claim to the word. The Party needs to be pioneers of radical vision, on Climate Change, on Development, on Nuclear Disarmament, Child Poverty - Labour needs to BE change for the better, unlike the Conservative change for change’s sake. So far none has a platform built on the future, but instead on their record or their heritage.

Secondly it is obvious whoever wins will need the support of the other candidates when the dust settles. Labour needs a conclusive winner, and it needs all the talent it can muster against both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, a bitter struggle between the candidates will only serve to divide the Party at a time when an election could be imminent. On this front - so far so good, and I wish all the candidates the best of luck this summer.

David Freeman, 13/07/2010