Sunday, May 27, 2007

Guest Poster: Benn, Harman and Cruddas at West Ham


By Richard B
Last Wednesday West Ham CLP organised the first of two deputy leader debates. In Stratford we had Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman. We have the others this week (Tuesday).

Congratulations to West Ham activists, Lyn Brown MP and her team for the organisation and UNISON-Labour Link for stumping up some cash. I think West Ham is one of the few CLPs that has organised events with all the candidates. Shows what you can do with everyone working together! The meeting was chaired by Conor McAuley (West Ham CLP Chair) who chaired the meeting in a professional and balanced way.

Below I will give my general impressions of the debate. I will declare an interest as I had Cruddas leanings before the meeting and was likely to vote for him with my first preference before the meeting. Although I do have a lot of time for Harriet as she was one of the few MPs that turned up at one of the “Justice for Cleaners” rallies at Canary Wharf (I recognise her TGWU family connection). Likewise Hilary has attempted to move the agenda on over international aid and comes across as a human being

My initial impression was that all the candidates seem to suffering from campaign fatigue and looked tired. However their opening 10 minute speeches were well presented and they then answered a range of questions from Iraq to heat islands (don’t ask). There was a high level of agreement that the party needs “renewal” and is not “fit for purpose”. On this point I do find it interesting that two cabinet ministers seem to give the impression that they were not around as the party was run into the ground. Will this change under Brown?

I thought that Harriet was slightly lacklustre and seems to be campaigning as Gordon’s preferred number two “I have worked with him for 20 years”. I am also not sure that I buy in to her argument that she will resonate with southern swing voters. Having been brought up in a seat in London during the 1970s and 80s, that went Tory in 1983 and back to Labour in 1997 I am not convinced. I broadly agree with the argument about a woman in the position (I supported an AWSL in West Ham) but I think this is outweighed by other issues. When Harriet was speaking suddenly the picture of Shirley Williams and her hectoring tones appeared in my minds eye. Shouldn’t renewal mean policy not image? On Iraq Harriet did call for an immediate withdrawal which surprised me. Does Gordon know?

In my opinion Hilary started slowly but got better as he got going. He was the only candidate to mention Warwick “We need Warwick Two” and international issues other than Iraq. He showed some real passion and commitment and I left with a more positive impression of him than I started with. I think overall he answered the questions with the greatest detail.

Jon has actually thought deeply about what renewal means and has a programme for bringing back lost voters in policy and practical terms. Maybe he is still a bit vague on other policy issues but has passion and can enthuse people. The dig from other candidates that the position also means deputising for the Prime Minister in the Commons and abroad which seems aimed at Jon doesn’t hold up. I know about the suspicions of Jon’s “tack to the left” but in my opinion he can energise the party and I think resonate with voters that have deserted us. I left very enthusiastic about Jon.

Overall I thought Jon came over the best at our first debate. In a highly unscientific poll afterwards (but with people who were going to support each of the candidates before or were undecided) Jon went down very well and Hilary impressed me. Roll on Tuesday.
Richard B.

grayee: If anyone else who was there wants to post a different view let me know.

2 comments:

Green Cllr said...

Whilst it's fair to say that the first debate was a bit lacklustre, and the post reflects (more or less) what the candidates said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your analysis and conclusions.

Let's take the critique of Harriet's argument: "basically, you're saying I don't think she'll go down with swing voters and I know because I used to live in a a marginal seat". OK, I exaggerate, but only slightly. Swing voters are strange creatures, and if they all thought like Labour Party members...well they wouldn't be swing voters. Maybe she is a female Blair- articulate, middle class, and not too scary.

Hilary spoke well, but left me a little cold. Campaign fatigue?

Jon's presentation was really interesting, and possibly worth more than you've allowed for. First off he passes what I've heard is called the "battlebus test"? That is, is he capable of performing the Prescott role of going round the country and cheering up the activists? I think he is, and does pass the test - the only one of the three that could. He had thought deeply about the problems we face, and I thought his analysis was mostly right, even if the conclusions he drew were a little iffy. But he made a pitch for a job that doesn't exist: he wants to combine the post of Chair of the Party and not have a Cabinet post. Well, he would, but Gordon isn't going to let him do that. And there lies the problem. There's no point in having a candidate that isn't going to get on with the PM.

Of the three, Harriet performed the best.

John Gray said...

Richard
What do you think!