Hello. Yes, I know it's late, but I got back from the UK School Games very late indeed, after a trying and exhausting last day. I slept until 11.30 this morning and moved very slowly even then.
The first order of the day is to vote in the Labour Party election. Despite being a socialist, I'm still a member of this benighted party, which seems to exist mostly to treat its members like dirt. Ben and I are having a little disagreement over the election. He's voting David Miliband first and Diane Abbott second, on the basis that DM is most electable and Abbott opposes Trident. I don't see the point of making an anti-nuclear weapons gesture by giving first preference to someone who does think retaining the ability to kill millions of civilians is a good thing - and I'm a loyal member of CND - and I don't quite see what makes David more electable than Ed. They're both bright, confident, thoughtful people.
I'm voting for Ed Miliband on the depressing basis that he's minutely more left than his brother and shares all of David's better qualities. They all thought the war, and benefits cuts etc. etc. were brilliant at the time - they're all tainted except for Abbott, who's not convincing as a serious thinker despite my sympathy for her proper leftwing instincts.
Update: I've had loads of promotional material, but David Miliband's people just phoned me. If I hadn't already voted, they'd have been happy to talk policy, which was nice.
6 comments:
Just to clarify my position. If everyone voted the same as me you would have an electable leader (Miliband) and a representitive of the left given a vote of confidence by the party.
Not seeing the difference between the Miliband brothers: a perfect illustration of how you know almost everything about politics except how it actually works.
I know that last comment will annoy you enormously but I would ask you to remember how you thought Tony Blair was going to be EU President. You and Tony Blair were perhaps the only two people on earth who thought this was a genuine possibility.
http://i32.tinypic.com/1670d5k.gif
Ben, that is a bit patronising. I'm not as theoretical as you make me sound. That's why Abbott doesn't get my vote.
You've got it wrong. I didn't think Blair would become EU president - I said that he wanted it, and that he didn't understand how hated he was in Europe.
I do understand politics as well as you, but we disagree on things. I don't think DM's personal style is any better or worse than Cameron or Clegg's. He will, of course, deliberately pitch his appeal solely to floating middle-class voters which may be what you're driving at, which is an argument I recognise, but you still haven't really said what the core of his appeal is. I haven't strong feelings either way about the Milibands.
Ewar:
Nuclear weapons are ridiculous. Serious military figures oppose them because they know they won't be used, while soaking up massive amounts of money which could be spent on usable military activity/materiel. I oppose them morally too: Blair's new book claims that he accepted the military uselessness, but retained them for international prestige purposes. I think Britain would gain a massive amount of prestige and influence if it renounced nuclear weapons rather than claiming to be one of the Big Four simply on the grounds of possessing the means of mass murder.
I agree with you about the uselessness of the other candidates, though for slightly different reasons.
Did you know Jamie Carragher gave Burnham's campaign £10,000?
Good picture!
If I had a vote I would vote for Abbott first and "the Northern one" second. The Milibands are both repulsive middle class individuals who have never had a proper job as far as I'm aware. David continues to do his Blair impression, and Ed will just be a hapless pawn of the unions, while pretending to "get" the working class to win their votes; and poor old gor(mless) Balls has no redeeming features at all.
Harsh. I think Abbott's on too much of an ego trip, though her politics are closer to mine than the others.
I don't think the Milibands are repulsive, but too cold and self-assured. Their dad would have been much better, but his book Parliamentary Socialism asserts that the Labour Party will always become a promoter of capitalism against the interests of the working classes.
I wish Ed was controlled by the unions. He'd be much better. I also wish the unions were as powerful as you all seem to think. Mine (UCU) is pretty much useless on a national level.
I totally agree on Balls. Burnham though - a charmless rightwinger who'd be very much at home in the Major government. Being Northern and working class (originally - he's got the same Oxbridge and party-machine background as the others) is no help if your every political instinct is reactionary.
Post a Comment