Unintended endorsements
Former MP Harry Barnes is on good form over at http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/
Perhaps unsurprisingly he's 6th placed Hazel. But the reason he gives sounds like an endorsement from where I'm sat:
"Last Of Them All - Hazel Blears
She is the most Blairite of the candidates and willingly grabbed the appointed Party Chairmanship when it was offered to her. She is a loyalist to the hilt. More dangerous still, she is an able loyalist. Give her a script and she will ram it down your throat. "
Exactly why I'm putting her first of them all.
posted by Luke Akehurst at 8:09 am
9 Comments:
I think hardcore loyalists like Blears tend to annoy people after a while, Luke, whether one agrees with them or not. After 13 years of Blair and ten years in power, I think there is a mood for a little critical thinking in the Labour Party right now; members would like someone who thinks the Deputy Leadership is two way conduit between the Leadership and members.
I think the fear is that Blears see sit as a one-way funnel down which the latest missives from the Leadership are funnelled.
8:26 am, June 08, 2007
So you're backing Hazel because you agree that she's the most likely to ram whatever Gordon is thinking down our throats? Great.
The reason I'm not ranking Hazel is that she's the LEAST likely to actually tell Gordon what we're thinking, rather than the other way round.
Loyalty may be a virtue, but in politics blind loyalty is dangerous.
9:30 am, June 08, 2007
Ian - This is a question out of genuine curiosity. How would we know if Cruddas was telling Gordon what "we" actually think? Would he do it publicly? Or would it be done behind closed doors - a private chat of some sort? If so, how would we know that he was doing it - would it be based on a few winks or nudges here and there? And indeed what would Brown's reasons be for listening to Cruddas given that Brown has all the policy-making powers and has explicitly ruled out a change in political direction? Would Cruddas still publicly be declaring his support for all the various policies he's been promoting - even though they'd be at total variance to the Government's own policies?
9:58 am, June 08, 2007
But how can HB be the voice of the party at large to whisper in Brown's ear if she is in fact a rather Hodge-esque mirror of the reactionary working class and an uber loyalist?
She just doesn't fit the job description. And to be blunt she has had quite a bit of incumbency in the communication channel, rebuilding membership role as Chair without doing any good.
She's got my 4 of 4 cast. Because she could grow into the role, ditch the policy, be a trojan.
10:19 am, June 08, 2007
Ian
has it ever crossed your mind that the reason why we have had Blair and Brown as leaders is because the majority of the Labour Party broadly share their politics? We are loyal because we agree with them not because we are all sheep.
10:36 am, June 08, 2007
I can't believe someone is actually First preferencing Peter Hain! He is so awful.
11:44 am, June 08, 2007
Luke, I don't doubt that Blair and Brown do command the broad support of the party, as between them they done a massive amount of good and won three elections.
However I don't think that 'we' meaning the party do share there views on a number of key issues. You yourself have expressed reservations over the choice agenda in public services. The party is clearly at variance with the leadership over the fourth option for council housing. The party has had no say on trident replacement. I believe the overwhelming majority of us don't want any more privatisation in the health service.
We need a more mature style of politics where people like Hazel Blears don't paint anyone who has the slightest disagreement with the leadership as 1980s militant style wreckers.
Owen, I want Jon to advocate the sorts of issues he's been raising during the campaign especially on social housing and employment rights. Policies should be debated before they're decided, and in those debates Jon can argue his case. No one expects that Jon or any other deputy leader will single-handedly change government policy, but ultimately we'll have to judge him by whether he shifts the agenda on those issues.
12:22 pm, June 08, 2007
Luke, I don't doubt that Blair and Brown do command the broad support of the party, as between them they done a massive amount of good and won three elections.
However I don't think that 'we' meaning the party do share there views on a number of key issues. You yourself have expressed reservations over the choice agenda in public services. The party is clearly at variance with the leadership over the fourth option for council housing. The party has had no say on trident replacement. I believe the overwhelming majority of us don't want any more privatisation in the health service.
We need a more mature style of politics where people like Hazel Blears don't paint anyone who has the slightest disagreement with the leadership as 1980s militant style wreckers.
Owen, I want Jon to advocate the sorts of issues he's been raising during the campaign especially on social housing and employment rights. Policies should be debated before they're decided, and in those debates Jon can argue his case. No one expects that Jon or any other deputy leader will single-handedly change government policy, but ultimately we'll have to judge him by whether he shifts the agenda on those issues.
12:23 pm, June 08, 2007
Harry Barnes is one of the few people left in the Labour party whom I actually respect and would consider voting for. He was a good MP in his time.
12:25 pm, June 08, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home