Labour's pregnant pause

There's a simple reason why the Labour leadership election looks boring to most observers: discipline.

Mindful of fractious and divisive internal contests of the past, and keenly aware that internal discipline kept the party in power for 13 years, the contenders are very unlikely to give outsiders the dirty scrap they want. There is sensible reasoning behind this. Voters usually complain that there isn’t enough of a choice between parties (or candidates), and that 'they’re all the same'. They want to see clear blue water between political parties, but they also hate the intense fighting and arguments that erupt when there is a big political divide. Voters want MPs to represent local interests and stand up for what they believe in, but any political party beset by lots of infighting and rebellions wouldn’t get anything done; voters would soon get rid of it. The current political Labour leadership election has to be seen in that context.

To avoid fighting each other too much, which is partly complicated by fraternal relationships, the candidates have instead focused their fire on the Conservatives. Rather than deeply searching where the party went wrong, they have instead focused on the question, 'Who is the candidate most likely to get the Labour party back into power soon?' David Miliband’s pitch is that he is the most prime ministerial and credible of the candidates; brother Ed suggests that Labour needs to admit mistakes of the past if it is to win again, and Ed Balls that he can take on the Conservatives the best. Andy Burnham plays the 'I will make the party connect with the grassroots as I’m a working class lad' tune, while Diane Abbott points to her past record in opposing many New Labour policies as a guide to the future.

On some issues there is barely a Rizla paper between them. They all keep repeating the claim that the party needs to be more democratic and accountable and 'get back in touch with the grassroots' without spelling out in too much detail what that means. Part of the problem is that the Coalition government's rapid decline in approval ratings and mounting anger on the left over massive cuts to frontline services has united them all in opposition. But these developments paper over a fundamental problem: New Labour is in deep intellectual crisis, which can be summed up thus: the coalition is proposing changes and ideas that are only slightly more extreme than what New Labour's manifesto would have done. It’s still not clear whether Labour’s much-improved poll ratings come from the public's anger at the Coalition, from the disappearance of Gordon Brown, or from their approval of the current crop of candidates. Frankly, it is unlikely to be the last one; as previously suggested, they haven’t caught the public imagination yet. But give them a break – being in opposition is hard because the media barely listens to you. You can’t come up with big policy proposals and grab people’s attention because you can’t put it into practice anyway.

So for the next five years here are the rough choices: Labour will either have to elect someone capable of landing some serious punches at the coalition and undermining their support (in which case pick Ed Balls). Or it will pick someone who has the most hope of winning over some wavering voters and get them back in power that way (David Miliband is your man). Or it will ask their leader to acknowledge New Labour went too far and the way forward is to reach out to as many people as possible (Ed Miliband). Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott have no hope. There are small subtle differences. That may be no bad thing.