Going first and going well
Member choice will always have a factional element, but it must be fairly run.
Here’s what I know happened in Ilford South.
In 2019, the contest to get the open selection was seen as between the candidate of the left Sam Tarry and the candidate of the moderates Jas Atwal.
I have known both candidates for a long time. Sam worked really hard to help try to elect a friend of mine and, as such, I saw him a fair bit when I visited that constituency. Sam was generally (to get really in the weeds) on the soft end of the hard left and we had quite a lot in common politically. I wouldn't say we were friends, but we were definitely on friendly terms.
Jas was someone I had met through work. He was a council leader and a lot of my job was outreach to such people. Jas was definitely to my cautious right, but he was upstanding and hardworking and clearly loved Redbridge (the London borough where the constituency sits). Again, we weren't mates, at best, we were on nodding terms. But I admired some of what he was doing in Redbridge.
Ilford South is a neighbouring seat to me so I know it and some of its people pretty well. When the seat was first being contested it was during the extremely tumultuous period in the Labour Party where huge battle lines were drawn. Tarry was definitely the candidates of the left, Atwal of the moderates.
At that point, I would have been happy to see either represent the seat. It’s a seat I know quite well as it’s a neighbouring borough and I spend a lot of time in Redbridge. I have friends there across the Labour spectrum.
But I leaned slightly towards Sam because I thought he was on the cleverer and more independent of thought end of the spectrum of candidates of the left. His previous political behaviour had been more consensual and bridge-building and his supporters quite often came from the soft left as much as the hard left as a result.
This was monumentally destroyed for me in what happened next.
Jas was accused of sexual harassment in mid-August. As always, I took the accusation seriously at first. I am far from believing that it doesn’t happen from people I know or admire. But according to this uncontested account (which tallies with what I have been able to find out from people in the constituency), the accusations were baseless and after a long investigation, Jas was completely exonerated.
The problem I have is not with the party investigating a complaint. It absolutely must. It is with the party having a complaint made in August, but the suspension of Jas from the party happening only on the night before the selection meeting. This is such an obvious skewing of the selection against Jas and in favour of Sam. It was blatant and it was blatantly wrong and I know that it left a very, very sour taste in the mouths of many people in the constituency.
Sam benefitted from that stitch-up and the most generous interpretation is that he did nothing to challenge it. He was happy to win in that way. I have no idea what he did or didn’t do as part of what happened. I just know that I was disgusted at his being more than happy to go along with it. I was happy from that point on to publicly say so despite the result being that I would originally have leaned towards. How he got there matters.
Other reports tell me that Sam did very little to build bridges once there. Now I am absolutely sure that there is a constituency around Jas who would not have been to that. Fair dos. Hard for them and hard for Sam. But there were people who would have welcomed a reset and a way of working with the person they were working to get elected and who was then elected to represent them.
In my opinion, it was this lack of care for the people who didn’t side with him that did for Sam. Other high profile left wingers have gotten through their Trigger ballots just fine. It’s harder now that it was under Corbyn to trigger MPs. As someone who has thought A LOT about this while writing my play, I believe I understand the dynamics behind a trigger and deselection better than most. It has to be something the majority of the CLP really wants to happen. Something they actively make happen. I don’t think Sam was stitched up. I think he was the beneficiary of a stitch-up and never put the work in to make up for that. He alienated too many people locally. It was bad politics.
What happened in Ilford South was not an example of the right wing of the Labour Party exerting its power. It didn’t have to be. It was, in fact, an example of the left wing failing to understand the membership properly. They would do better not to make a martyr of Sam, but to learn from what happened.
HOWEVER
Labour is currently going through a big series of selections. And while there isn’t the same kind of egregious interference that left Jas so low, there are people being kept off of longlists for what look like - and let’s face it are - spurious and factional reasons.
That was wrong under Corbyn and it is wrong under Starmer. It is wrong because you should not indulge in behaviours that you would consider unfair if used against you. If a tactic is underhand, that doesn’t change based on the outcome being favourable to your team.
More than that though, if you can’t win well - or don’t have the confidence that you can win well, then what does that say about your ability to win at all? Why should you win if you can only do so with a stacked deck? What other field would we see such behaviour and think it is OK?
If you believe in your arguments, policies and candidates then you have to believe they are strong enough to win in a fair fight. So give them one. Test them in this first crucible of ideas so they are stronger and surer when it comes to the bigger fight.
In the end, wrapping candidates in cotton wool and protecting them from difficult debate and strong challenge is not doing them any favours.
I know that the temptation is to say that now is not the time for Starmer to risk anything. He wants his candidates to be of one voice and so anyone who might be critical of the project should not have a place in the tent.
But when you are in a position of strength is the only time you can change the culture. You can only make Labour better by being better - by demonstrating confidence in better and your place in it.
Starmer had a fantastic conference. He is in an unassailable position in the Labour Party and despite what a few really, really odd people will tell you on Twitter, the membership are behind him. If he doesn’t do this now - when will he? By demonstrating his absolute confidence in this way, Starmer has a chance to show that his obsession really is country before party. It will benefit him to have a party that can represent a plurality of voices. It will benefit his politics to beat those who challenge him publicly in the marketplace of ideas. He just has to have the courage to ensure a system that works properly. Someone has to go first. And Starmer has the best and safest opportunity since Blair to do this. I urge him to do what Blair did not and have the courage to fight for his convictions.
Triggered
It’s happening! Click on the poster above to buy tickets!
I run a political and communications consultancy called Political Human. Please get in touch if you are looking for political or media consultancy advice, strategic communication and campaign planning, ghostwriting, copywriting, editing, training or coaching.
You can read some lovely things that some of my clients have said here.
What I’ve been up to
I went to see Ruckus at the Southwark Playhouse and The Crucible at the National Theatre.
A final appeal. This newsletter takes quite a while to think about and write. I know things are really tough all over at the moment, but if you can spare some cash to say you’ve appreciated it, I can’t tell you how much that would mean to me right now.
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform that no longer hosts Donald Trump. I’m at emmaburnell@gmail.com or on Twitter (far too often) at @EmmaBurnell_
As Michelle Obama put it: "When they go low, we go high."
Knifing an opponent to climb to power doesn't prove the power of having better ideas;
It simply indicates a bigger knife was used.