Rebecca Long-Bailey and the Labour Leadership Contest

I was a bit concerned today to learn Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey said she would have rated Jeremy Corbyn "10 out of 10" for his four-year tenure as leader of the party.

As someone who supported Corbyn as leader, I certainly wouldn't have given the man 10 out of 10 and I'm not sure anyone would if they were honest with themselves. From equivocating on Brexit, to poor handling of reports over antisemitism, to – let's be honest – skeletons in the closet that he never managed to get ahead of in the press, there's a lot to criticise about Corbyn's leadership.

I know these 'gotcha' questions are awkward and difficult to deal with, but would it really have been so difficult for RLB to circumvent it? She quite easily could have told ITV News that a four-year leadership, during which two general elections and a referendum were held, might demand a bit more nuance than a rating out of 10. But instead, she gave a perfect score to a man who, like everyone, isn't perfect, didn't do a perfect job, and is largely viewed by the British public to be a very, very long way from perfect.

This is what worries me, a person to the left of the Labour Party, about RLB. She's already being labelled the continuity candidate for a leader the public mostly dislikes. In her official pitch, published in Tribune, she uses the language of radicalism when it's clear that, despite support for specific policies, the public still doesn't trust Labour on the economy. She speaks of an insurgent force and war with the political establishment when it's unclear whether that sort of language will resonate with the public from the left. I know that this is a pitch to labour members and not the electorate, but I worry the tone will alienate huge numbers of people in an election setting.

Despite its shortfalls (and there were many), Labour did manage to point out something really important during the election campaign: that a huge portion of the manifesto actually wasn't radical at all, and would simply have brought the UK into line with the rest of the world on a number of issues. This had the potential to comfort voters who didn't trust Labour to carry out its pledges, but it was drowned out by policy overload and the rhetoric of radicalism.

What about the genuinely radical policies in Labour's manifesto? How to account for them? One way would be to swap "radical" for "necessary". Was Labour's environmental policy radical? Arguably – and to say as such risks scaring off voters. Was it necessary? Well, if you believe ecological destruction is an urgent problem that demands solutions beyond tinkering around the edges of the system causing it, then obviously it is. Things start to look a lot less radical when put in context – and that's exactly what Labour should have done, and should endeavour to do so in future. 

In my view, RLB and the other left candidates in the leadership contest would do well to keep this in mind. That said, the next election isn't for another four years, and the world could look very different by then.