Get a grip, none of the Labour leadership candidates are Tories

labour leadership candidates

I genuinely can‘t remember if this was funny to start with or not.  But if in the mists of time it ever was, it has long since ceased to be.

I am talking about the suddenly omnipresent tendency to call anyone within the Labour Party — or, indeed, the left in general — with whom you disagree a “Tory”.

The logic goes, you see, that if you disagree with somebody, then they can’t be “left wing”. If they aren’t “left wing” then they must be Tory. It’s a pretty black and white way to view the world. Not to mention fantastically thin-skinned and short-sighted.

Primarily it seems to have been aimed at Liz Kendall, in the Labour leadership race, so far. Now, bear in mind I say this as someone who is not a Kendall supporter — but really, can we get a grip? Liz Kendall is not a Tory.

In fact, I’m pretty certain none of the leadership candidates are Tories.

This all feels very McCarthyist to me, but I’m minded to lay the blame for the beginnings of this particular bout of nonsense at the door of the SNP. Or, more accurately, their band of semi-feral online supporters who conduct themselves with decorum more befitting a gang of 1990s football hooligans than political activists. They mostly seem to be referred to as “cybernats”.

Throughout the Scottish independence referendum and the 2015 general election, anyone in Labour colours was branded a “red Tory”. That was quickly taken up by other non-Labour parties of the Left, such as the Green Party.

Now, it seems, we’re using it against each other.

My first problem is that it oscillates between being terribly unimaginative and more than a little stupid. If at any stage you found it impossible to distinguish between what Labour were offering and what the Tories were offering, then you are either not paying attention or you are lying to serve your own purposes.

Now, that’s not to say that you had to agree with the Labour policies. But if you can’t disagree with two separate things without branding them identical and decrying them as the boogeyman, then I fear for the future of a democracy based on your vote.

So I stand by that Liz Kendall isn’t a Tory. What seems to have precipitated the accusations is that she’s taken a line that when it comes to some things, maybe the Tories had a point. Well, given that they just won a majority in a general election, I’d suggest that rather a few of the public thought so as well.

Liz’s argument, as I see it, is that the public didn’t trust us on the economy, and that’s why we lost. Until that changes, we will keep losing. And if we keep losing, then we will never be able effect any of the changes we want to.

It isn’t, actually, an argument I disagree with, even if I do disagree with her prescription of how we regain that trust. It’s also not an argument that’s entirely unique to her. But it is an argument that needs to be heard, regardless of your view on it.

Now, I’m not a Liz Kendall supporter, I said that already. But the Labour Party has always been a broad church, and there has to be room for Kendall and Corbyn supporters, both. I, actually, called for Corbyn to be nominated to allow a wider debate. I’m not going to vote for him, and there are a great many of his ideas I’m not keen on, but we need to have the widest possible debate, and that means listening to views and opinions that we may not agree with.

What attitudes like “Liz Kendall is a Tory” does is poison the debate. We’ve seen from George Osborne’s latest budget the disruptive effect that appropriating some of your opponents’ best ideas can have. We’ve seen from the recent election what appealing to too narrow a section of the electorate can do.

We need to produce not only the best leadership team, but the best ideas from this election. That’s not going to happen if we’re more interested as a movement in calling each other Tories than in building a Labour Party that can win power and build the better country that we so want.



  1. labour used to be a grass roots party. It has suffered from the creep of PEP Oxbridge special advisers. I think the modern divide between left and right political view could be expressed by saying ‘some study reality, some actually experience it’


    1. I’m not sure that’s really a divide between left and right, so much as between the political establishment and the people. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who studied PPE at Oxford, have never worked a proper job outside politics, and who inherited their fortunes from their parents/through marriage.

      Whilst I agree that the top of the Labour Party is too same-ish, and we need desperately to diversify and return to the grassroots, it’s a problem for political parties as a whole, rather than being on one side or another.

      Interestingly (or maybe not…) the very reason that I’m backing Stella Creasy in the deputy leadership race is that she gets the importance of grassroots campaigning on a ground-level.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s