THE ONGOING entertainment saga that is the Labour leadership contest took a new turn last week, when three of the candidates complained to the party that the election was unfair.

Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham’s campaign managers were co-signatories on an email sent to the party, complaining that they would not receive a list of who was eligible to vote until ten days into the election.

Their claim was that Jeremy Corbyn, who has the support of major Unions, will know which union members have voted before this, and will be able to target them accordingly.

These claims have been denounced by members of ‘Team Corbyn,’ who say that everyone will receive the data at the same time.

This was the latest in a series of attacks from the two ‘centrish’ candidates, and Liz Kendall. In the early days of the campaign, there was an almost gentlemanly feel to proceedings. The candidates publicly disagreed, mostly with Mr Corbyn, while failing to say or do anything to differentiate themselves from the Labour party which lost the last General Election by a margin that even took YouGov by surprise, other than to subtly blame Ed Milliband’s bacon sandwich malfunction.

Mr Burnham said at an early stage that the unexpected show of support for Mr Corbyn was a sign that the Labour party had misread the mood of its members and would-be supporters. He was also the only candidate who, when asked whether he would serve in a Corbyn-led cabinet, said that he would, if it was the will of the party.

However, of late, he has started to question the frontrunner’s policies, claiming that the figures don’t add up. This has not stopped Yvette Cooper issuing a statement to the effect that he should leave the leadership race for not providing an ‘effective alternative’ to Mr Corbyn – a move described as ‘panicked, desperate, and straight out of the Ed Balls handbook,’ by one of Mr Burnham’s staff.

Yvette Cooper has also taken many a swipe at Mr Corbyn’s policies over the last week, describing them as ‘subversive.’ She also claimed that her policies were more radical than those of Mr Corbyn:

“So tell me what you think is more radical. Bringing back clause IV, spending billions of pounds we haven’t got switching control of some power stations from a group of white middle-aged men in an energy company to a group of white middle-aged men in Whitehall, as Jeremy wants? Or extending SureStart, giving mothers the power and confidence to transform their own lives and transform their children’s lives for years to come?” she asked at a speech in Manchester last week.

Liz Kendall, meanwhile, has been in a class of her own. For some ‘unknown’ reason, in spite of consistently finishing fourth in polls, which initially may or may not have been a ploy, the unrepentant Blairite is gaining at least as many if not more column inches than Ms Cooper and Mr Burnham. Her sentiments appear consistent, and can be summed up thus – ‘something something if Corbyn wins, warns Liz Kendall.’ Ms Kendall has also described the prospect of a Corbyn victory as ‘a resignation letter for Labour.’ She has advised her supporters to omit Mr Corbyn’s name from their other choices on the ballot, and cast a block vote for a second choice candidate in an attempt to stop Mr Corbyn should he fail to get 50 percent of the vote on the first count. Such democratic transparency is exactly what the Labour party needs to avoid alienating the new members and associates who have joined since the last General Election.

The most common issue raised by ex-Labour grandees is that Labour should be a party of government, not a party of opposition. This is, on the face of it, confusing when one considers that a party of opposition is exactly what it is going to be for the next five years. Ed Milliband was accused of taking the party too far to the left and, in the words of Chuka Umunna, not being business friendly enough.

This raises two points. Firstly, whether or not anyone actually read the manifesto for the 2015 election bid. The only reasons that Mr Milliband, and especially his Osborne-lite shadow Chancellor Ed Balls could be described as left-wing were:

• In comparison to David Cameron and George Osborne
• As a result of Unions backing him in the last leadership campaign
• Because red rhymes with Ed

The ‘pro-business’ idea is also, on the face of it, rather concerning. It evidently means more than the obvious definition, ie, in favour of businesses. It appears that the return to the Mandelson era of people being encouraged to get ‘filthy rich’ as long as they pay tax is being encouraged.

However, what many commentators seem to be wilfully failing to acknowledge is that the political landscape has changed. Basing policies on the infamous picking up of votes in Nuneaton worked very well when Labour could still hold all their heartlands unchallenged. No one appears to have asked why Labour got wiped out in Scotland, and whether or not those seats were lost due to not being pro-business enough, or possibly as a result of a popular Nationalist movement with a definite Socialist flavour.

As we have pointed out before, voter apathy and UKIP could well be far more important to the future of the Labour party than aforementioned businesses and Nuneaton. Mr Corbyn has been acknowledged as injecting some life into the Labour leadership contest, largely because based on the performance of the other main candidates the party faithful would be torn between an Everton-supporting ‘man of the people’, a ‘feminist’ and a Blairite who missed the glory years. These would have campaigned on a platform of how much better they were than their two opponents. It is hard to imagine a less edifying spectacle. Thankfully, they have been able to unite in the face of a common foe – the Labour left who persist in ‘voting with their hearts.’

Whether or not Mr Corbyn becomes the next leader, this contest has exposed a deep divide between what a number of Labour voters want, and what they are being told by the party leaders that they need. This is something that will have to be addressed. It is commonly accepted that Mr Corbyn will be doomed by a Murdoch-led right-wing media; this ignores the fate of arch-Blairite Gordon Brown. It is safe to assume that whoever gets the nod will fail to get mainstream media backing, unless Mr Murdoch needs a new godfather and David Cameron’s mobile phone is turned off.

If whoever leads Labour can somehow connect with the 45 percent of the population who either voted for no one or UKIP, the gap between everyone digging out their D-Ream CDs in 2020 or Boris Johnson PM could be much closer than is currently suggested.