So where does it all leave Labour?

First let’s deal with the bollocks. There is nothing more pathetic in a political party than rival camps making silly points about the other side in the aftermath of an internal election – but there is always a minority. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of the campaigns of both sides, though only Es campaign has to live with the consequences of campaign pledges. That needs to be in the spirit of why what happened, happened and where Labour goes from here.

To the Es criticising Ds who have taken it badly, I say this:

• Remember how you hated it with a passion the last time Labour lost an election when you could have won, maybe should have won? Say 1992 or even 2010 if you were sufficiently deluded.
• Remember how you felt the last time your team lost a big game in to a last minute goal when you outplayed them for 90 minutes.
• Remember the sense of injustice that you would feel if you understand the figures and how close it was among MPs – six votes remember, imagine that the other way round.
• Remember how passionate you were about it, and if you weren’t passionate your shouldn’t be in politics.

So give them a break.

To the Ds criticising Es who have celebrated a little much, I say this:

• Remember how you felt on 1 May 1997 and 7 June 2001.
• Remember how excited you felt when your choice won?
• Remember how you felt when your team last won the league, promotion, some cup of other.
• Remember that nobody remembers how it felt for them.
• Remember how passionate you were about winning and how good it felt when you did. And if you aren’t still passionate about winning your shouldn’t be in politics.

So give them a break.

Sometimes supporters feel things more deeply than the candidate. For the uninitiated being at a Party Conference when this happens is a bit like being at a general Election count and, instead of slipping off to a party and going back to work after the weekend, you have to spend the next week locked up in a building with the people from the other parties. I’m so glad I wasn’t there.

To Ds criticising E himself, (for it is he),

Stop going on about the older bother thing. It’s not the bloody monarchy, it’s not North Korea (Kim Jung Ed – as the ever brilliant Alexi Sayle put it*) – if he wants to stand he’s got every right to, so come off it. It’s a bit weird to me, I don’t buy it myself, but it IS up to him and if people vote for him, that’s democracy. Like D said himself, in any form of democracy you have to be prepared to lose.

So get off E’s case

To Es criticising D for ‘bad timing’ and ‘not making a decision’, for goodness sake get real. There was no good time. It is just absurd to suggest that you have thought through closely what you will do if you don’t win. First, you are just relieved the campaign that time forgot is over – you have had three months of groundhog day hustings, combative performances. Three bloody months of it and you party a little, the next day you rest a little (Thurs). In the afternoon you start thinking about two speeches – one for Saturday, one for Tuesday – both require positive thinking. You’ve almost certainly not tempted fate by doing too much before now. Writing and rehearsing a 45 minute speech takes time – that’s Friday morning too. Then off to conference – a three to four hour journey end to end. Straight back into working on the victory speech, out to dinner somewhere with the partner, Up early, pre-match nerves, time to kill ONLY THEN might you think about what if I lose. Even then you have no idea how you will feel in private – it can take a day or two to sink in. And let me point this out, you really don’t know if you haven’t been there. Oddly enough, I have and it’s the weirdest thing. But the person who I think has ‘been there’ more than any other is Phil Woolas who has both lost by very few with a good swing in his favour and who hung on by a lot less than 1.3%.

And remember neither of these guys knew the result, and it hits their partners hard – or it should. At this level they are either totally committed to your political career or the relationship is doomed.

So get off D’s case.

To D’s talking of ‘the tragedy’

It isn’t. Nobody died. The Middle East is a tragedy, Haiti was a tragedy, Brian Clough’s injury was a tragedy for him. This isn’t a tragedy – there is life elsewhere and he will soon know it.

So just stop it.

There’s a bright side to the last episode of this particular soap opera and a very good reason for its lift in the polls. Labour has had far more media from its conference as a result of having The Brothers slugging it out than it ever would have with D v E2. What’s more, Labour has provided a human story – one that, I suspect, has got more attention from women and white van men alike than. The media loves a close election and this one was the closest leadership contest in modern times.

Furthermore, this has kept the rest of conference, other then Mister Ed’s speech, virtually out of the papers. Just as well – it was probably rubbish. Here I’m serious. This time the fringe would have been interesting and the hall worthless – next year the conference itself must be more substantial, the direction of travel must be clear, the narrative must by the emerge.

Next Labour?

That aside, what steps for Labour.

The shadow cabinet elections will matter. There needs to be the right combination of ballast and new talent, the silver lining of the nature of the result in the PLP is that Ed be able to put the word out for new talent he needs to bring through to prevail.

Others are, however, a shoo in: Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, John Denham, Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn, Ben Bradshaw, Douglas Alexander and, oh yes, Yvette Cooper. That still leaves 11 to chose. Of these the six big posts will come. Though of the above Ed Balls has by far the best CV to be a Shadow Chancellor he is not the best choice. Don’t get me wrong E2 is more than a match for Gideon but he is, unfortunately, tainted by being far too close to Labour’s recent economic past and miles too close to Gordon. The new Treasury lead should be free of too much of that and should be able to do Gideon on facts. E2 will always let him off the hook as he can say “It’s your mess.” E2 will bash back and we’ll have more heat than light generated – that Labour can’t afford as winning elections requires re-establishing economic credibility. Furthermore, appointing E2 makes E look like a creature of Brown – E may not have been prepared to trash him directly but he’s certainly trashed his mistakes. If the economy flies David Cameron wins, probably. Will it happen fast enough, maybe not, will it fly at all, maybe not. If not then Labour has to be seen to be ‘right after all’. There is only one choice as shadow chancellor, Yvette Cooper, she’s a good bet to top the poll for the shadow cabinet.

Here’s some more for Ed

This isn’t the end of the debate on why Labour lost – it needs to conclude by the next conference and the party needs better answers than it has had thus far.

Labour could do with making a very early pledge to the country. We should apologise as a party for not having held an election when our leader was changed (even though it was not in the gift of the Party) and pledge that never again will a Labour leader seek to govern without a mandate. I realise that this decision was, last time, beyond the party, but it has proved lethal for Labour.

Avoid opportunism – backing AV is a good start.

Analyse the cuts closely. Oppose those most fiercely that cost private sector jobs. Not because the public sector doesn’t deserve support, though the otherwise economically daft ring-fencing of the NHS does actually protect the largest employer somewhat, but because if the private sector (which it is in no position to do) is to take up any slack then the mothballing of public projects delivered through contracting, in particular construction, is potentially massively damaging to the wider economy. Oppose most strongly the welfare cuts that hurt the vulnerable most rather than those that hurt Labour egos. But in doing this understand that central to the reasons for defeat was that Labour had lost the plot on public spending before the banks crashed but not so much that it couldn’t have been corrected. But it wasn’t.

Party unity is essential. Among the reasons Labour lost, alongside all that stuff about being trapped in our certainties, Labour lost because it was a complete and utter rabble, disunited, disloyal and not fit to run the country. Reach out, build bridges, spend time with the PLP, spend time at the National Policy Forum. Get round the county as leader, do it soon, then do it again where it really counts.

In time drop the graduate tax – it won’t work. Leave that to the Lib Dems.

Don’t duck difficult issues – not to do so has left issues like pensions to the other side. This was a central failing of Labour in Government. Develop a narrative on the difficult issues and use it to challenge the Government if it is failing to deal with them or getting it wrong.

Finally, be serious about the libertarian bit. The single greatest unresolved question for socialists and social democrats is the relationship between individual freedom and the role of the state. In Government Labour, in the end, got the balance wrong. Start asking the right questions and get back onto the front foot. Link freedom and opportunity in the narrative.

So farewell then …

What lessons in the outcome of the Leadership contest?

Most obviously, don’t be a front runner – quite how one avoids that is a good question.

The electoral college is flawed and can be improved. EM should recognise this and use it as a dragon to slay. He needs to slay dragons.

From the Milibands Labour needed JFK and RFK. But that was only viable had DM won. As it was he is right to take a break.

Most importantly aspiring leaders should learn that the company you keep matters.

David Miliband’s election was lost for four reasons:

• He could not represent change – he wasn’t new enough. This was a fundamental problem without this Ed had no traction.
• People associated with him unhelpfully dug up the pitch. Most notably the party establishment appeared to huddle around David. This was unhelpful with enough people to have tipped the balance.
• Nominating Diane Abbott was a fundamental error as it made it less clear that DM led clearly among the PLP removing a powerful argument. This was also enough to tip the balance.
• David, for whatever reason, didn’t motivate enough people beyond the activist tier of the Trades Unions.

And here we end as we began, none of that was Ed’s fault. Ed’s success will be judged by his performance in the polls if, by May 2012 he is not cutting it Labour can’t afford to be sentimental.