I’ve got three questions for anyone thinking of voting in the Labour leadership contest:
1. What is the probability of Labour winning under your preferred candidate, relative to the probability under your second preference?
2. How much superior would be a government under your preferred leader to that under your second choice?
3. What are the confidence intervals surrounding answers 1 and 2?
I suspect that honest answers to these questions would be: small, little and wide. But in this case, the outcome of the election just isn’t that important.
Instead, the result of the next election, and the shape of the next Labour government, surely depends more upon circumstances outside of Labour’s control than it does upon the character of the leader.
Take, for example, Paul’s endorsement of Ed Balls, on the grounds that he prioritizes economic growth over deficit reduction.
His support would be entirely reasonable, if we were looking for a new government today. But we’re not. The next Labour leader will - at best - only determine policy after 2015. And in this context, Balls’ words are less important. Let’s say he’s right, and that Osborne’s deficit fetishism does clobber the economy and - in doing so - leave a big deficit. It will then be clear to everyone that a change in policy is needed. Whoever the leader is will therefore adopt a Balls-style policy - because this will be the only option. Balls’ support now for such a policy will make him look perspicacious - though no more so than any other Keynesian - but it does not greatly affect the course of the next Labour government.
In this sense, fact, I fear that the leadership contest is reinforcing the widespread fundamental attribution error that gives us the over-personalization of political issues. This is an especial danger, given that the Labour party has a bad record in judging the character of its future leaders: few of those who think Blair a lying warmonger today thought this was part of his make-up in the 1990s, and most of the party were over-optimistic about Brown's ability to be PM.
1. What is the probability of Labour winning under your preferred candidate, relative to the probability under your second preference?
2. How much superior would be a government under your preferred leader to that under your second choice?
3. What are the confidence intervals surrounding answers 1 and 2?
I suspect that honest answers to these questions would be: small, little and wide. But in this case, the outcome of the election just isn’t that important.
Instead, the result of the next election, and the shape of the next Labour government, surely depends more upon circumstances outside of Labour’s control than it does upon the character of the leader.
Take, for example, Paul’s endorsement of Ed Balls, on the grounds that he prioritizes economic growth over deficit reduction.
His support would be entirely reasonable, if we were looking for a new government today. But we’re not. The next Labour leader will - at best - only determine policy after 2015. And in this context, Balls’ words are less important. Let’s say he’s right, and that Osborne’s deficit fetishism does clobber the economy and - in doing so - leave a big deficit. It will then be clear to everyone that a change in policy is needed. Whoever the leader is will therefore adopt a Balls-style policy - because this will be the only option. Balls’ support now for such a policy will make him look perspicacious - though no more so than any other Keynesian - but it does not greatly affect the course of the next Labour government.
In this sense, fact, I fear that the leadership contest is reinforcing the widespread fundamental attribution error that gives us the over-personalization of political issues. This is an especial danger, given that the Labour party has a bad record in judging the character of its future leaders: few of those who think Blair a lying warmonger today thought this was part of his make-up in the 1990s, and most of the party were over-optimistic about Brown's ability to be PM.
If one of the candidates was proselytizing about the empty myth of leadership and management ability, and putting forward convincing policies to break down power hierarchies etc. and other policies you approve of, would you change your tune at all? Are you just saying this because the policy differences between the candidates are small?
Posted by: Luis Enrique | September 02, 2010 at 04:23 PM
I'd be interested to know how, with the benefit of hindsight, how your 3 points applied to the last Tory leadership contest?
I'm not convinced the "character of the leader" can be understated when you look at the relevant success and failure in elections of the likes of Foot, Blair, Duncan-Smith, Howard and Cameron.
Posted by: pablopatito | September 03, 2010 at 09:04 AM
I'll concede that Cameron and Blair changed their parties. But the point is that the parties wanted to change when they elected those two.
Had a Cameron-type figure tried to "decontaminate the brand" of the Tory party in 1997, he'd have failed badly. And if Labour's leader in the early 80s have tried Blair-style reforms, he might well have ripped the party apart.
If characters do matter, it is because circumstances are favourable to what the character is truting to do.
Posted by: chris | September 04, 2010 at 11:58 AM