This article was originally published in August of 2015.
Halfway between Capitol Hill and the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue is the monumental old Post Office building, its tower a Washington landmark. The Postal Service sold it a few years ago to a certain hotel chain. The hoarding outside announces the process of the renovation works: “Coming 2016 … Trump”.
So, a party that has lost two general elections in a row after having its economic credibility eviscerated in the 2008 banking crash turns towards a political maverick who sounds like a true believer, despite the fact that it will probably ensure that the current incumbents win a third time. In doing so, the party faithful are rejecting career politicians who sound overly cautious or too willing to concede territory to their rivals.
In Thursday’s Washington Post, there were two quotes about the presidential election that rung true for me in reflecting on the Labour Party leadership campaign.
First, one from Hillary Clinton: “In politics, if you can’t explain it and you can’t sell it, it stays on the shelf”. The second was from a Trump supporter at a rally in New Hampshire about a more establishment candidate: “Jeb Bush is a low-energy person. For him to get things done is hard.”
These pretty much sums up the difficulties for the Burnham and Cooper campaigns to me: they might have interesting ideas, but if they can’t articulate them in a way that engages with people on the voters’ terms or display the level of passion needed to force things through, they’ll be staying on that shelf.
That said, they remain my own first and second choices in the leadership race.
Corbyn is Labour’s Trump (or indeed Bernie Sanders, who I have heard enthusiastic praise for too whilst I have been here): a passionate advocate for the views of the true believers but without the reach across to attract enough other voters to his side in the places where it matters. After 32 years in Parliament, Corbyn was not even trusted enough with sharp objects to be made junior minister for paper clips. The idea that he could run a major party, let alone a government, is risible.
Of Burnham and Cooper, it seems to me a no-brainer if Labour is interested in winning back power. Yvette Cooper has steel that Burnham does not. She would be difficult for Cameron to best in the House: he has difficulty against women, and Cooper can be rapier sharp at her best. She comes across as credible to key voters (ask someone over 55 who is interested but not involved in politics). Burnham can sometimes look like a little boy lost and has the Mid-Staffordshire political millstone as a burden too.
So, my ballot paper will run Cooper-Burnham-Corbyn-Kendall. But Cooper really does have to up her game.