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

[grumpypants]

thought Question Time editor bloke v rude to bring up nigel havers' letter, but otoh she is a bit 'feisty'...

The Labour aristocracy won't let her anywhere near it.

You have to be descended for a communist, or prove yourself through slavish devotion.

She would be a brilliant candidate for the leadership, though obviously an awful choice (from Labour's perspective).

from not for

I like Diane, but she stands no chance as longfingernails says. Have just listened to Kate Hoey on Any Questions. She was fantastic, full of principle. She stands head and shoulders above all of the other progressives in the Labour leadership race. She is probably ineligible to stand, but as longfingernails says, Kate would also stand no chance, she speaks far too much sense and would expose the policies of the progressives for what they are. Cameron should offer her a top job immediately, I would trust her more than one of those Mr. Integrities.

Yvette Cooper and Harriet Harperson are Labour women who have the stature and potential to go all the way but neither is standing.

Diane Abott is improving with age and after spending much time with Portillo but I used to find her sanctimonious in her earlier days. At the time that Blair was standing for leadership I saw her a few times at a certain location and DW had to restrain me from approaching her and telling her how much I disagreed with her views.

Just another typical labour hypocrite imo.

She is very happy to tell us how to run our pathetic little lives but her own system isn't good enough for her pfb.

true she is another Labour hypocrite, but she is slightly better than the rest of the sanctimonious hypcorites.

I like her as a character/personality (but of course she's a Labour politician so she's fatally flawed )but she is (as Alouiseg pointed out) a first class hypocrite. Unforgivable behaviour. Can you imagine the outcry if Call-Me-Dave did the same?

Her actions just sum up how the last 13 years were all about 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

I like her. And I think it is less hypocritical to pay to send your child to a private school than to use your house-buying power to manipulate the state system.

She's as mad as a box of frogs and ever so slightly dim.

That said, I kinda like her!

Mad as a box of frogs and ever so slightly dim? Perfect then. Fits the brief!

She is a hypocrite when it comes to the private school, but all politicians are hypocrites.

However, her hypocrisy really hurts her with her natural constituency - the left of the Labour party - so I don't think she will muster up the 33 votes.

A shame. She wouldn't win the contest but bring a lot of interest to it, and force the mainstream contenders to confront some awkward questions.

Sorry, 33 MP nominations, not votes.

"mad as a box of frogs"
that's the most apt description of the Labour shadow cabinet that I've heard yet.

She has a natural connection with the electorate - even those of us whose politics are completely different.

The Milibands only appeal to middle class Guardian readers - people who bandy about policy wonk words in everyday conversation.

They could never reach the white working class voters who have defected to the Tories.

Ed Balls is utterly voter repellent. I would dearly love for him to win the Labour party leadership. I can only hope his connections in the UNITE union swing it for him - but surely even Labour couldn't be that stupid?

I think Labour's best choice would be Andy Burnham. He isn't too close to either Blair or Brown, speaks "normal" instead of think-tank, and hasn't had any major ministerial cockups that I can remember, and no-one knows what he really stands for - which is a good thing because it gives him political space to set out his stall. But for some reason he doesn't seem to have enough MP nominations - maybe the Parliamentary Labour Party just don't like him?

I think Diane Abbott might be using the Labour leadership bid as a launching pad to become Mayor of London.

She would fit the bill as a good Labour mayoral candidate. She is very independent from her Party, as all mayors must be; she has been a London MP for ages; she is a "character", and doesn't come with all the baggage of Ken.

She would definitely be a million times better than Oona King!

I think Balls is the best of the lot of them. It's only his staring eyes look that I don't like. He sounds like he half believes what he says unlike the rest of the card sharks. Balls is the only one who could offer any sort of challenge to the Tories. David Miliband was boosted by the BBC today as they put him on with Marr. He was dire, but it is as plain as day that he is the anointed one and will win the charade. Burnham is like a keen schoolboy running for election as prefect, no one takes his claims of how much he cares seriously.

Yes, I too get the impression that David Miliband has all the momentum and will probably win - but he seems so boring.

He is meant to be "Blairite" but Cameron is much more like Blair than David Miliband could ever be.

I agree that Ed Balls is the only one of the lot, apart from Diane Abbott, who really has fighting spirit. His main problem is that his style, like his mentor Gordon Brown, is to smear, spin and obfuscate - a strategy which has made him too many enemies within the Labour party, and is very unappealing. His constituency results speak for themselves - he almost lost his seat despite his huge media profile, and the whopping great majority he had last time!

Prolesworth Do you agree that she would be a good Labour candidate for Mayor of London?

She has more name recognition than most Labour politicians, because she is on TV so much. And she isn't tainted by her voting record because she has always voted in accordance with her principles.

yes but as you say he is a fighter, and he half believes what he says. We do need a good opposition who will fight their corner and who do believe in some sort of ideals. Democracy needs people like Balls. He was targetted by Ashcroft money by the Tories who hoped to topple him on the back of boundary changes. The media criticised his defiant speech and said he was ungracious when he thanked his constituency voters who had re-elected him. I liked his speech, even if it was ungracious. It showed that he cared, he was pleased that he had fought the Tories off, it really meant something to him. He had convinction and it wasn't a game. I would rather have people of principle and conviction, even if they are misguided, than have Blairites who constantly ask which way the wind is blowing.

claig Being a fighter isn't enough. Balls repels voters - especially Middle England swing voters - more effectively than any other politician I can think of.

I haven't heard of that, but you are more up-to-date in what goes on in politics. I tend not to believe what the media says. They often try to denigrate capable opponents. They made a laughing stock of Prescott, but I thought he was good. He was a battler and used to hold his own against any Tory minister such as two brains Willets on Newsnight. He wasn't as educated as the rest of them, but they hardly ever got the better of him. They denigrated Tebbit, who was very capable and they were frightened of him. They denigrated Red Ken, but he was an extremely talented politician. If they are attacking Balls, it means he is a danger to them. When they all praise Miliband, you know that he is no threat at all.

Redwood is excellent, which is why the socialists targetted him as an out-of-date Vulcan. Anyone they all heap praise on, such as Clegg, is best avoided.