For Labour’s sake, no more ‘leaders-in-waiting’!
AS LUKE Akehurst sensibly put it on Twitter this evening:
Hoping for party unity as campaign ends. Choice between EM and DM ain’t benn vs healey
Indeed. More importantly, this ain’t no Blair v Brown neither.
Because the one thing we as a party must ensure – and must not tolerate under any circumstances – is any kind of ongoing campaign by any losing candidate after the winner is declared.
The last Labour government would have greatly benefited had Blair and Brown both stood for the leadership in 1994 and then accepted the verdict of the party, rather than come to some grotty, ridiculous and unrealistic “deal” which served the party and the country so badly.
This time round, the main contenders are all standing. They’ve all had the opportunity to state their case. The winner will be the winner. All the others will be… well, they won’t be winners. They will have to set aside their ambition, difficult thought that may be. My heart bleeds. No, really…
Whoever wins – whether my preferred candidate or not – there will be no leader-in-waiting, no-one waiting in the wings, ready to take over when the time is right. There will be no tolerance for anyone egotistical enough – and with the monumentally poor political judgment – to believe that his rejection by the party in this contest was merely a temporary blip or passing phase that will be remedied when the time is right.
In the same way that only someone who’s been treated and received a certificate saying so can prove he’s sane, so the only politician who knows for sure that his party doesn’t want him to lead it is someone who’s stood and been rejected. They should take their certificates home from Manchester, frame them, then consider how best they can serve, either as members of the Shadow Cabinet or as loyal back benchers.
Rejection is hard, especially so if it’s by a narrow margin. So what? Deal with it.