The Flawed Choice For Labour Leader

In a sense I feel sorry for the Labour party - no matter who won on Saturday, they still wouldn't have had a decent leader. This is the least inspiring choice presented to a political party for the vacancy of leader since Ken Clarke took on IDS back in 2001. And, after a brief time of reflection, it appears that the Labour party have learned nothing from the mistakes of the Tories in 1997. Labour did not have the right sort of candidate standing, and they did not choose the right person.

Because the person the Tories should have had to lead them back in 1997 is Michael Howard. Sure, he was abrasive, difficult, awkward and completely unable to say the word "people" like a normal person. But he would also have been great at taking on Blair, reorganising the Tory party and making them into credible contenders in time for 2001. They wouldn't have won, but they would have made some progress rather than just treading water. Instead, the Tories chose the relatively inexperienced Hague just at the time when they needed experience to face one of the most difficult times in Tory party history. And look what happened - 13 years in the political wilderness, and only able to return to power with the help of the Liberal Democrats.

The Labour party have done exactly the same thing - although I'd argue they've chosen someone far less capable that the 1997 version of Hague. At a time when they need someone to do the completely unglamorous job of rebuilding their party, reorganising it and getting it into a position where it isn't on the point of bankruptcy, they've chosen a gormless version of Mr Potato Head to run their party. They've chosen someone lacking experience and gravitas. They've chosen someone who has at no point shown that he can take the fight to the Tories. What they should have done is chosen an experienced leader who knows how to combat the coalition. Maybe not the most inspiring of leaders, but a dependable one capable of not only opposition but also of rebuilding the party. Jack Straw or Alan Johnson would have been good choices at this juncture. I don't think either one of them would be able to win the next election, but I'm pretty sure they would have improved Labour's performance. Whereas with Miliband Minor, I'm pretty sure we're going to see Labour doing worse at the next election than it did in May of this year.

Which is what I mean when I say Labour had a poor selection of candidates to choose from when they elected Miliband Minor. Their party is crying out for an experienced leader, and instead they had to choose from geeks, bullies, non-entities and idiots. Their leader is a mistake; and a mistake that will only reveal its costs after a crushing defeat at the next election. Assuming, of course, Miliband Minor lasts that long...