A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left. Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.
This is some of the most useful analysis I've seen of the likely outcome:
posted by Luke Akehurst at 9:43 am
Labour Party activist since 1988 - firmly on the moderate wing of the party. Member of Labour’s NEC 2010-2012 and since 2020. National Secretary of Labour Students 1995-6. Parliamentary candidate for Aldershot (2001) and Castle Point (2005). Hackney Councillor (Chatham Ward) 2002-2014, Labour Group Chief Whip 2002-09, Chair of Health Scrutiny 2010-2014. Supporter of Europe, NATO/nuclear deterrence, Israel, electoral reform. Guardian reader. Dad. Oxford resident. Unite union member. Employment history as a Labour Party Organiser, Local Government Political Assistant, Director at a Public Affairs company. All views expressed in a personal capacity. The rest will become evident from reading the blog.
15 Comments:
The only fairly decent candidate was Dianne Abbott and she was far from perfect the rest are Right wing New labour slimes and not a lot different to the Con/Dems we have now
12:46 pm, August 25, 2010
The party can go for Ed M if they like but they will be confining us to opposition. We all knew that Brown would be a disaster but still the party rushed to crown him. Ed M's victory would be a pyrric one - he will never ever become Prime Minister of Great Britain.
2:16 pm, August 25, 2010
@Anonymous
Diane Abbott campaigns effectively on a range of important matters namely civil liberties, but has little to say on other matters, such as the economy or how to create jobs for instance, which has been displayed in many interviews and press conferences since the leadership election began. Furthermore she is hardly Ms Popular in Parliament so that was never going to work in her favour.
Not sure who would be most suitable to be honest. Ed M seems most sincere in his quest for change, but I worry that he moves too far to the left to become electable in any election, though personality-wise he seems more trustworthy than D Miliband. Tough call, this.
2:23 pm, August 25, 2010
"Ed M seems most sincere in his quest for change"
A sincere person does not denounce the very manifesto they wrote only 3 months before. I just don't believe Ed Miliband's prostestations that he is "the change we need". Wait until 2 months after he's leader and he'll move straight back to the right and even once he's done that the public STILL won't put him into no 10. At least David is consistent and respected by those who operate the levers of power in this country and abroad. David is also not as to the right as he is being portrayed - Blair shifted him for being luke warm about public service reform and David is fantastic and thoughtful on serious matters like education. The Tories are terrified of him. They are both "right-wing" candidates - Ed is just playing to the gallery. I want to see Labour back in Government and that's why I will be supporting David Miliband. I am not on the right, Diane Abbott will be my first choice followed by David and in the London contest I will be voting for Ken Livingstone...
3:33 pm, August 25, 2010
Whoever wins has got to be better than Cameron. Incidentally, will he be asking Clegg to baby sit the next time he and Sam have a night on the town?
3:54 pm, August 25, 2010
Whoever wins has got to be better tham Cameron. Incidentally, will Diddy David be asking to Clegg to baby sit the next time he and Sam have a night on the town?
3:56 pm, August 25, 2010
Whatever on personal preferences, Diddy David did for the Conservatives what Tony Blair did for Labour, he made them electable again.
Looking at the leadership candidates it is difficult to find one there who has that mass appeal or good media image. Dianne Abbott is not universally popular, has limited vision and would find it difficult to live down her choice of schooling for her own offspring.
Sadly some of the best potential leaders were lost during the Brown days, something I personally feel will take years to recover from.
David M would be best of a bad lot, in the electoral sense, though talent spotting should be a priority thereafter.
Step forward Luke, your party needs you.
5:20 pm, August 25, 2010
And Jon Cruddas also makes the right choice....
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/08/25/how-big-a-development-is-this/
9:02 pm, August 25, 2010
@M
Policy-wise, Miliband is probably the route to take, I agree on that one. But there is something about his personality, i.e. not sure whether he could be trusted to follow an kind of moral compass. Really, it's the whole torture thing that I cannot get past. I'd have respected him more if he was honest and said it was a risk worth taking in the interests of public safety.
12:42 am, August 26, 2010
Agree with TeonGordon on both scores. DM is best of the choice available but the torture bit is an Achilles Heel!
Media confuse confessions extracted under duress with information obtained and acted upon. There is a huge difference and, having been involved in an operation that saved many lives as a result of intelligence extracted questionably, I can see the justification for some interrogation methods.
David could have been honest and I am sure most people, excluding Amnesty International, would have appreciated that more.
8:44 am, August 26, 2010
None are very good and lack what it takes.
Oh Dear if Labour don't get its act together I can see a minimum of 18 years of Tory/Lib rule.
9:25 am, August 26, 2010
I agree. David needs to address the torture issue and fast. However, if we're talking about honesty he is head and shoulders above his brother who was a key lieutenant in the (nasty) Brown regime. I don't want to return to the Brown days thank you very much.
10:28 am, August 26, 2010
David Miliband also needs to explain why he opposed, in 2007 and 2008, a UN resolution supporting the de-alerting of nuclear weapons.
De-alerting has been identified by the likes of Henry Kissinger and George Shultz as a way of greatly reducing the dangers of accidental nuclear war. This so nearly happened in 1995 when the Russians mistook a satellite launch for the launch of a Trident nuclear missile.
If you like the idea of accidental nuclear war, then vote for David Miliband in the forthcoming Labour leadership election!
"January 95: Norwegian Meteorological Missile
On 25 January, 1995, the Russian early warning radars detected an unexpected missile launch near Spitzbergen. The estimated flight time to Moscow was 5 minutes. The Russian President, the Defence Minister and the Chief of Staff were informed. The early warning and the control and command systems switched to combat mode. Within 5 minutes, the radars determined that the missile's impact point would be outside the Russian borders.
The missile was carrying instruments for scientific measurements. On 16 January Norway had notified 35 countries including Russia that the launch was planned. Information had apparently reached the Russian Defense Ministry, but failed to reach the on-duty personnel of the early warning system."
4:17 pm, August 26, 2010
Nice try to blame David Milliband on the de-alerting question but, whatever the UN may propose on the issue, the chances of getting all the nuclear powers to go along with it are about zero. It effectively negates the deterrent value which is, to most sensible folk, the only justification for retaining nuclear weapons.
Over the years there have been many similiar alerts to the one described but, each time, fail safe systems have worked. It's the isolated nutters we have to worry about and as these have already ignored non-nuclear proliferation resolutions they are not likely to take any notice of any other from the UN.
8:32 pm, August 26, 2010
"It effectively negates the deterrent value which is, to most sensible folk, the only justification for retaining nuclear weapons."
No, not the case at all!
In 1998, the British government stated in its Strategic Defence Review that its nuclear missiles were de-alerted:
“The submarine's missiles will not be targeted and it will normally be at several days 'notice to fire'.”
So why should the Labour goverment oppose such de-alerting if its own missiles were already de-alerted?
The most plausible explanation is that it did not wish to offend the Bush administration.
5:12 pm, August 27, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home