Some thoughts on the Labour leadership contest

We're a month into the contest to replace Ed Miliband so here are my thoughts on the process rather than individual candidates so far:

1. Whoever wins should pledge to make it easy to remove them
Having been led into two general elections by people the party had very serious doubts about for many years beforehand I suspect the desire to pick a winner will be a bit stronger within the Labour party than in 2007 or 2010 when the comfort zone was an appealing retreat after years of Blairism. However, the fact remains that Labour are picking their 2020 candidate for prime minister nearly five years before that election and circumstances could change enormously between now and then. In 2020 we'll have had a European referendum and possibly another Scottish referendum if England but not Scotland votes to leave the EU. Not to  mention the fact that the state of the economy and foreign affairs will be unpredictable and the Conservatives may have just elected a new leader as well.
I appreciate that nobody wants to run as an interim candidate and the idea of scheduling another leadership contest for 2018 automatically diminishes the authority of the winner in 2015 even though it is superficially appealing. Instead the current candidates should pledge to change the rules to make it easier to challenge an incumbent leader. It may be making a rod for their own back, particularly if they are in trouble in 2018 or so with the new Tory PM enjoying a honeymoon but I suggest it would be seen as a sign of confidence to propose it and will give a boost to whoever suggests it first.


2. The leader and deputy leader contests should be held at different times
Imagine that you want a balanced ticket with a centrist leader and a left wing deputy or the other way around. Let's say that you want a more centrist deputy leader like Angela Eagle if Andy Burnham wins the leadership but a more traditional left winger like Tom Watson to balance out a Liz Kendall leadership. What are you to do?
The 2007 process was hugely flawed (more on this later) as everyone knew the contest for the top job was Gordon Brown running against himself and so everyone knew the situation that the deputy would be working in. In 2010 Harriet Harman was the incumbent and provided the context there but in 2015 both jobs are up for grabs and the winner of one might help determine your choice for who should win the other but this is not possible under the current rules.
One should come before the other and I would suggest that the deputy leadership election should come second. In the US the vice presidential candidate is chosen to complement the strengths and weaknesses of the presidential candidate and something similar would make sense for Labour.


3. The process by which Labour MPs nominate their candidates should be a secret ballot
Back to 2007 again when Gordon Brown was nominated by 313 of the 355 Labour MPs meaning that no other candidate had enough nominations to run. Why did 88% of the PLP nominate Gordon Brown? No doubt many or most thought he was clearly the best candidate but the fact that he was likely to win no doubt played a part and there was nothing to be gained by opposing him. The fact that the nominations had to be public took Brown's victory from 'odds on' to 'bookies paying out before the event' because it became a virtuous (vicious?) circle of nominations and inevitability feeding each other until no other candidate could stand.
Coming back to 2015, the early part of the contest had candidates shocked at how many nominations Andy Burnham had apparently already secured. Again, no doubt much of this is genuine belief in Burnham as a candidate but the perception of him as the likely winner is surely a big factor. Imagine that the nominations were a secret ballot or, better yet, imagine that nominations had been a secret ballot in 2007.
Alternatively, perhaps the minimum should be a maximum? Once the 15% of the PLP have nominated one candidate then no others should be allowed? Given that elected officials no longer constitute 1/3 of the Labour electoral college their individual votes aren't likely to make a huge difference so individual nominations are little more than expressions of support and signalling. If no candidate can receive more than 15% then it would help reduce the risk of other candidates not even making it onto the ballot as in 2007. Jeremy Corbyn's recent entry has helped shake things up a little by potentially giving the Labour left a candidate who is definitely 'of them' but whether he'll make the ballot is unclear despite the fact that I suspect a large proportion of members would vote for him if he did.

I'm sure there are feasibility problems with all of these suggestions and given the institutional inertia of the Labour party none are likely to come to pass but those are my thoughts after watching the first month of this and in anticipation of the three still to come.