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'...

TDiddy

The difference between Redwood and Balls is that dyed in the wool Tories love Redwood but core Labourites (excluding parts of UNITE) hate Ed Balls.

I suspect the reason you like Ed Miliband is precisely the reason he would be a very bad leader for Labour. He too is fond of using words like "sustainability" - not words which Mrs Duffy will relate to. Still, at least he seems to have passion. His brother seems so boring - and more importantly, is completely gutless.

Instead of either knifing Gordon Brown or giving him his wholehearted support, David Miliband on multiple occasions sat on the fence. That says he doesn't have the courage to take decisions.

Compare Cameron and Clegg - who had the audacity to form the coalition in the face of all the pundits. Compare Blair - who took on his party over Clause 4 and won. Compare Thatcher who, for all her faults, certainly didn't shy away from problems but dealt with them.

They are all politicians with guts. David Miliband is a coward.

She's unelectable. Remember Michael Foor??

The view from the Peaks:
D.A. - will never get elected, and thank f**k. Has her eyes on other things and would not be committed to it.
Ed Balls - to close to Gordon.( not a bad thing in itself).
David M. - have you seen anyone looking more Blair than Blair?
Ed M. - like him a lot, and as someone said before, Labour will not get in first time, and by the time they do Ed would still ahve his charm as well as some dirt under his finger nails.

Not a great deal of joy then. In some ways I hope that the current love-in at No.10 lasts for a bit, take all of the economic shit that's coming, and then Ed sweeps us all off our feet.

I sincerely hope Diane Abbot wins the leadership election, thus designating the Labour party to the political wilderness for years, where they belong!

do you remember how DM upset high officials in the Indian Government with his style and statements while he was a guest in India? Profuse apologies were offered, it was a near calamity. I think he also made a few faux pas in America with Hilary, can't quite remember that one. We'll have many amusing years with him as Labour leader, he won't waste any opportunities to put his foot in his mouth

PanMan- you are spot on in your analysis.

Longnails - you wouldn't find me defending ED Balls. Even his wife YC, would rather give up the hope of being PM to keep him away from reading bed time stories.

Actually the smart thing would for Labour to elect Harriet as care taker. Cameron is a very able operator and they might not get a look in for a couple of terms.

claig- forgive me for saying this, but your style is very tabloid! Or is it more daily Mail

Yes, Miliband is persona non grata as far as the Indians have concerned - and the Indians have also responded very positively to the very warm overtures made by William Hague.

However, Hillary Clinton and David Miliband got on famously well - she even said that she fancied him . The meeting between Hillary and William Hague seemed cordial but certainly not friendly.

At the leadership level, however, the body language between Barack Obama and David Cameron is very good - they seemed really comfortable with each other when he was in London. Barack Obama never seemed to gel with Gordon Brown.

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

I]]

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).

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

Sorry, the link got garbled

Here is it again

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzshQ8u91nI

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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

That's rubbish.

She speaks slow because she is.

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.

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 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??

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.

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.

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.