Labour: The debate....

I've heard countless Labour commentators and politicians talking about how they wish Labour could have a real debate about why they lost before embarking upon a leadership contest.

I'm interested to know how such a debate could take place. Would there be a meeting? Would it be through endless articles in the press? Would it be through focus groups? Who says when the debate ends? Who says what the results of the debate are? Is this the point at which a leadership election happens? What happens if the results of the leadership election is at odds with the results of the 'debate'.

I think it's all fatuous. These 'let's have a debate' ideas don't really add up to much.

The good idea of a leadership election is for the contenders to put their cases forward. If they cannot persuade their colleagues, then how are they expected to convince the voters? The party has to be able to believe in the leader and their position and direction. In essence the leadership vote is the debate. The MPs have to work out whether they want to keep to ideological positions or whether they want to win, and the result of the leadership vote indicates where the party is.

It was only when the Tories elected David Cameron that we knew they were serious about being a party of the centre and ready to win. His election was the manifestation of the debate within the Tory party.

Now where I do agree with the commentators is for the delay before embarking on the leadership vote. Harriet Harman should have put the leadership contenders in significant positions on the front bench to challenge the Tories. This is what Michael Howard did after he lost in 2005. It would be even useful to let them all have a go at PMQs. That's not what happened, and Liz Kendall is still Andy Burnham's number two at Shadow Health.

I think Labour are like the Tories circa 2003 rather than 2005 and I think they will need another attempt to get it right.

Squiffy.




 

Serial: Real Murder

This is an aside from my usual blogs about politics and F1, but about something that has gripped me over the last year.

Anybody who watches Inspector Morse, Lewis, Midsummer Murders et al but would like to get into the nitty gritty of a real life case should listen to the 'Serial' podcasts.

They are from America (but hopefully that won't put you off) about a murder case in Baltimore from 1999. The podcasts talk you through the case of the murder of college girl, Hae Min Lee, a girl who went missing after school and turned up 28 days later in Leakin Park in the city.

At that point the police arrested her ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed for her murder on some pretty flimsy evidence and the say so of his friend Jay, who claims to have helped Adnan dispose of the body.

Why is it so gripping? This is real life. Adnan Syed is still in jail serving his life sentence for Hae's murder. During the podcasts you get to hear from Adnan himself, snippets from the court cases, and also from police interviews. You are able to draw a few conclusions but there are discrepancies on both the prosecution and defence cases. But there is something about the way the narrative is told by Sarah Koenig, the investigative journalist, that draws you in.

I was around 65% certain that there had been a miscarriage of justice by the end of the series.

Why am I talking abut this when Serial finished last year? Because there is a second set of podcasts called 'Undisclosed' based on the same case by 3 lawyers who forensically go through the evidence, timing and testimonies and tear the case apart. The podcasts are being released once every two weeks, with a follow-up in the interleaved weeks.

So far I'm even more convinced of Adnan's innocence.

You have to listen and really concentrate to take it all in but it is absolutely gripping and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Here's a link to the original Serial, and the lawyers views appear in Undisclosed.

Squiffy