Friday, May 28, 2010


Who Will Make the best Labour Leader?

Labour is not in as bad shape as some of us feared it might be six months ago: 258 seats and a grandstand seat while the coalition possibly digs its own grave. And Gordon has gone. Martin Kettle pointed out yesterday that Labour has not been very good at looking after its own interests; it allowed Gordon to insist on that no contest 'oronation'in June 2007 and then, when it realised its mistake, was unable to screw up the courageto get rid of him. I just hope its sense of preservation is a bit sharper when it comes to choosing his replacement. What of the candidates?

John McDonell: a worthy leftie who has tried before to raise the required number of signatures but failed. His candidature is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win.

DianAbott: something like the same applies to her chances of gaining nominations and maybe she is also the 'symbolic woman'? I used to be quite impressed by Ms Abbott but less so since she has been pitted against Michael Portillo on Andrew Neill's programme. By comparison she seems ill informed, lightweight and lacking in insight. Labour really needs an able woman to contest the leadership- I don't think Diane is she.

Ed Balls: I'm trying hard to like this Ed as I'm awre I'm prejudiced by his closeness to Gordon Brown and the role he played as Broon's acolyte, spreading negative briefingsand slavishly doing his masters darker political deeds. I hear from other sources that he is not really like that and is a committed politician who wants to achieve a fairer society. I'm not sure and I'm not impressed by his level of articulacy either. As a top flight politician he should be better with words.

David Miliband: this is a very able and articlate guy who is also likeable and quite funny. But I wonder if he is able to connect with voters in the right way. I fear he is a bit too cerebral and unable to enter different strata of social communication. Also I wonder if he really has the temperament, given that he bottled standing against Gordon in the autumn of 2008 and June last year when James Purnell bravely showed the way. Still unsure about David but would accept him if he won as someone who might succeed and become the next Labour PM. And a successful one too.

Ed Miliband: not as experienced as his big brother but I think more talented politically. He is able to transcend the Blair-Brown divide and the unions like him. Heis also funny, clever and communicatesbetter than his brother. On balnce I'm for him at the moment. But lets see how their campaigns shape up. Should be fun.

Ed Balls - your other sources say he is not at all the demented slave of Brown ?

Shome mishtake shurely ?

It is difficult to imagine a more suitable leader for the discredited
party that is ZaNuLiebore.

Miliband D - cerebral ? Don't think so.
Never had an original thought in his life.

Miliband E -If the unions like him, is that not someone totally unsuitable to be let near any of the levers of power at the local guvmint (a wholly owned subsidiary of Brussels) in Westminster ?

I look forward to the forthcoming court case implicating all three of the above in their disgraceful association in the plot to bankrupt the country in the runup to the GE.

Why do socialists so hate this country ?

Kind regards
I have to ask in turn: why are true blue Tories so barking bonkers? Local goverment controlled from Brussells? you must be havin a larf.

And as for no original ideas? Your litany of complaint could be lifted from just about any knee-jerk Tory I've heard since the time of the Leaderene.
PS David
You are so old fashioned re 'socialists'. Only two of the contenders for Labour leadership are 'socialist'; maybe McDonnell and Diane Abbott are but certainly not the others. That thinking went out with Blair, much to the regret of old Labour. Labour are now a social democratic party more like the German SDP or the Swedish SAP.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?