what do we think of diane abbot's bid to be Labour leader?

diane, on newsnight. just not much cop.

Apparently Diane Abbott has made the 33 nominations!!

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2010/06/historic-moment-labour-abbott

shame, I would have liked him to continue putting his left foot in his mouth

John McDonnell has pulled out! If his nominations go to Diane Abbott she will have a decent chance of making the 33 nomination cutoff.

nonsense. HH must just be making a point about the lack of women in the leadership race

shows how little faith she has in the rest of them.

Apparently Harriet Harman has nominated Diane Abbott!

With regard to the crazy timetabling of the Labour Mayoral candidate selection, I suspect that the Powers That Be within Labour, who Diane Abbott has annoyed time and again, are set on fitting up the Labour nomination so she can't stand.

They have done so in the past - most notably with Ken himself in 2000.

I think this article in the Guardian is mostly correct
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/20/ed-balls-next-labour-leader

"I am well aware that Ed Balls is not the most popular candidate for Labour leader. Vilification by the rightwing press has led to an image of Balls which many who know him personally, many of whom I've spoken to, do not recognise. This will be an opportunity for the public to see the real Ed. Quite simply, it will be a cold day in hell when Labour party members choose our leader based on his popularity in the sections of the media we rightly loathe. Ed has the hunger, the drive and the fire in the belly to lead our party back into Downing Street. It is perhaps just that which the rightwing media fear."

The media always attack people they fear. No one fears Miliband, that's why he gets a free ride. The lefties feared Tebbit, Widdecombe, Thatcher and Redwood. That's why they were singled out for abuse. The right-wing media feared Prescott, and aided by Blair and his cohorts, they neutralised him by turning him into a laughing stock. They feared Red Ken, so they turned him onto a red devil. They fear Balls too, because they know he has the fire, drive and belief to take the Tories on. The others are OK in a room full of Fabians, but wouldn't have a clue how to reach out to ordinary people.

According to that article Ed Balls believes in "progressive universalism". The sooner he stops mentioning that in public the better. If they are smart they will start listening to the people and stop being arrogant about right-wing papers, which have the pulse of much of the public. They have to ditch their arrogant know-it-all attitude and start rethinking and listening to what real people are saying outside the cosiness of Fabian meeting halls.

I don't know his background, but apart from his eyes, when I see him on TV, he comes across as a human being who gets angry, who cares, who believes, not a political automaton like the rest of them, who are wound up by a key in their backs and then spout a stream of pious political claptrap about their dreams and values. The public want to know what the dreamers are actually going to do for us, we don't care about their dreams and fairy tales. Ed Balls actually mentioned globalisation and the effect on people's jobs, he has opened his eyes, taken off his progressive blinkers and broken free from the fables of the Fabians. I want a good opposition, I want someone who "gets it" and who can put some pressure on the Tories. That is a healthy system. The other automatons are a joke and will hand the game over to the Tories. They will carry on debating their progressive agenda and not realise that the people have tuned out and sent them to Coventry.

Ed Balls is just as much (if not more) of a "policy wonk" than any Miliband, but he is also a down-and-dirty fighter.

Unfortunately for him, he is utterly repulsive. People everywhere on the political spectrum and beyond hate him viscerally. Unfortunately for the Tories, he won't get elected leader.

You are right to point out the vacuity of David Miliband's article though. A different, not just a better society? What the hell??

great links longfingers. Agree with you about Ed Balls. Great understanding by him. They lost the ordinary people, they failed to communicate with them, they were arrogant in their ivory towers talking about climate change instead of what really concerns people. Balls has passion, he has spirit, he is a fighter, he wants to get out of his comfort zone and meet ordinary people and pensioners and listen to what they are saying. He would speak to Mrs. Duffy and understand her worries rather than just dismissing a life-long Labour voter as a "bigoted woman".

In contrast David Miliband thinks the answer is "progressive reform". The university educated spinners have told him that their new word is "progressive" and he is so naive that he thinks it is a good word to use at every opportunity. Can you imagine Mrs. Duffy's eyes glazing over as he tried to communicate the progressive reform agenda to her. That is OK for a handful of politically correct Islingtonistas, but would be laughed out of court by the rest of the public. A quote from his "vision" is "We should dream of a different not just a better society", poltical goobledegook cliches that no one will be fooled by.

Ed Miliband is similar, his vision is full of cliched claptrap that the progressives have used for the last 13 years and they still haven't cottoned on that we no longer believe them.
"we must ensure that our values shine through: a belief in equality, that everybody deserves a fair chance in life, and that the gap between rich and poor matters; a commitment to the dignity of work that is properly rewarded; a belief in fairness, based on responsibility, at the top and throughout society, as well as need; a commitment to values beyond work, like environmental sustainability, time, love and compassion."

Ed Balls is the only one who "gets it". They have to cut the crap, spin and patronising progressive preaching and show us that they actually "get it". Ed Balls says
"We must find the right language for our policies and show that we "get it"."
First off he should fire all the university PhD wonks who dreamed up the progressive strategy, and ask some people from the local hiusing estate for advice.

They've got to start listening to Mrs. Duffy. Ed Balls is the only one capable of communicating with us, he's not a policy wonk with a degree in patronising political gooblededook, he's one of us. He's half trustworthy, he's the only one of them that stands half a chance of convincing us that he gets it and that he is on our side. You never know he may even have the sense to realise that scrapping bin fines is the first step in showing us that he "gets it".

Ed Balls has exactly the sort of constituency where immigration was a major issue.

I'm surprised to hear him attack Gordon Brown though; it just feels wrong.

The hustings articles in the Guardian were very interesting

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-diane-abbott

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-ed-balls

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-andy-burnham

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-david-miliband

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-ed-miliband

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-john-mcdonnell

I am very scared - of the main contenders, Ed Balls' article was the most direct, and the only one in plain language. His analysis of Labour's failure is spot-on - whilst the middle class luvvies stayed loyal to Labour, the working class deserted them completely.

If I didn't know who he was, and only judged on the basis of those articles, I would have thought Ed Balls was the natural candidate .

In comparison, David Miliband's article is twaddle from top to toe.

You know she speaks kind of slow? Like she is being measured, mature.

That's rubbish.

She speaks slow because she is.

Funny to hear Ed Balls thrying to distance himself from Brown...he seems keenest to point out BGB's mistakes for obvious reasons. He won't win...

Longnails- Agree on the inherent event risk of foreign affairs. Though, I doubt that Obama will invade Iran even if they make a bomb. CIA led operation more likely. US can't afford/cope with three war fronts although that was the ultimate test that Cheney said/hinted at.

Obama just wants Britain to stay with him in Iraqi and Afghan wars - that must be his key issues with Britain.

TDiddy

I agree; I can't see foreign affairs being an election issue either - whilst of course they are of course very important, there is nothing important enough in the pipeline to swing votes. Iraq has largely been forgotten.

But foreign affairs have a habit of becoming very sticky, very unexpectedly, and very fast. September 2001 was completely out of the blue, and though they were unrelated, that focussed attention on Iraq. I remember being totally shocked when Russia invaded Georgia, and when they turned off the gas supply for continental Europe.

If Iran manages to make a nuclear bomb then I really think it could destroy the coalition. The Conservatives would definitely join any US-led invasion, whereas the Lib Dems would definitely be against.

claig - and before you say it, I don't buy the Guardian; I subscribe to the FT (on the cheap)

Clearly Cameron is far better at being smooth and charming than GB is. I don't think that the relationship with Obama counts for much though. Next election will be on the UK economy and a straight Cons vs Labour fight with the LibDems being a spent force for a generation. I am not blaming Clegg for being pragmatic etc. but I think they will get squeezed next time round. Doesn't matter too much for him as this was the best perhaps only chance to implement some policies and be Deputy PM.

Sorry, the link got garbled

Here is it again

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzshQ8u91nI

TDiddy, I take that as a compliment. The Mail is my favourite paper.

I too think Harriet would make a very good leader for Labour. I don't understand why she's not standing.

She was rubbish against William Hague in deputy PMQs - watch this and look at the way she picks up her papers in complete confusion and despair at the end

But she really seems to have found her feet against David Cameron. And she is definitely a politician with guts, and a politician who has real beliefs (however misguided).