A few quick thoughts on #LabourHustings. I thought everyone did well; everyone made good points. This was a long, long way removed from 2015: which featured one man talking sense and three cardboard cutouts saying nothing.
The sheer civility of the debate was also excellent, and a lesson to all of us. We are not left Labour, centrist Labour or right Labour - WE ARE LABOUR. And we must all stand together in solidarity and common purpose.
Who did I think won? To my surprise, probably Rebecca Long-Bailey. Consistent and strong throughout. But she does need to explain what she means by 'democratising the economy', and the issue with her politics is as follows.
She has many excellent ideas, many accurate prescriptions, and she should be lauded for having written the Green New Deal. I think she deserves to go down in history for that.
But she doesn't quite express herself in ways which non-political ordinary people will connect with.
But she doesn't quite express herself in ways which non-political ordinary people will connect with.
It's not a huge thing. It's something she can develop. And in her favour, she never went over the 40 second time limit once: a good exercise for all five candidates, given this absurd age of slogans and soundbites we live in.
Jess Phillips is quite right to highlight the kind of language so many of us use. Her sheer earthiness - her normalness - is her greatest asset. I also thought she was right to highlight crime and security. But sometimes, she comes across like she's half asleep.
Emily Thornberry is EXTRAORDINARY when she raises her voice. She suddenly morphs into this force of nature. Oddly, she's not even half as impressive when quieter.
Strength: her chutzpah. Weakness: her smugness.
(See what I did there? They're two sides of the same thing).
Strength: her chutzpah. Weakness: her smugness.
(See what I did there? They're two sides of the same thing).
Lisa Nandy was, like Long-Bailey, also strong throughout. But there's an X-factor as leader she doesn't quite have. It's a charisma thing. She's almost too mild-mannered at times, however much that's a good thing overall. She's not punchy enough.
Keir Starmer, by contrast, probably is... yet he's also a bit wooden. Maybe I was a bit disappointed by him because I'd already seen him outline all his talking points at his launch press conference. He integrated those into all his answers here.
Overall, my conclusions are as follows. If anyone refers to any of those five options as 'Tories', get in the sea for goodness' sake. All five are Labour through and through; all five accept most of the ideas which drive the movement.
The Labour left, as I've said before, have won the argument over the ideas. The question is how the next leader:
- Communicates those ideas
- Which ones they prioritise
- Leads not just the party, but the whole country
- Unites the party
- Holds Boris Johnson firmly to account
- Communicates those ideas
- Which ones they prioritise
- Leads not just the party, but the whole country
- Unites the party
- Holds Boris Johnson firmly to account
I still think Starmer's most likely to do that, but I'm a bit less sure than I was, That's less of a comment on him than the strength of all the other four options, all of whom deserve credit for their performances.
My only real disappointments concerned the questions. There should've been a question about Scotland; there wasn't. There should've been a question about electoral reform; there wasn't either.
And I'd conclude with a question which impacts Starmer and Long-Bailey equally. You both talk about giving power back to people. I agree fully with both of you. But do either of you know how to sell it on the doorsteps in a way which will win voters over? I don't think you do.
Food for thought... but overall, an encouraging, positive start.
