Share the Wealth, Share the Nominations
There is something really rather pathetic about contenders in an election begging their rivals for help, but that's exactly what is happening in the Labour leadership contest. Here is a video containing the risible Diane Abbott complaining about Miliband Senior getting lots of nominations (which is the point, surely, at this stage of the election), and here you can see the begging e-mail from McDonnell to the other candidates - clearly, he's realised that the best way for him to get on the ballot papers is if someone else does it for him.
Maybe they're right; maybe the Labour party does need to have a broad selection of candidates to choose from. But I can't help but think that if McDonnell and Abbott (and possibly Burnham and Balls) can't get the support from their fellow MPs to get on the ballot paper, then that sends out a message about their credibility. And I also reckon that relying on the goodwill of your rivals to get you on the ballot paper maybe placing too much faith in their philanthropy. The Milibands are in this to win it - they're even prepared to run against their siblings. I can't see either one of them helping out a floundering rival.
And even if they did, what would be the point in that? If Abbott/McDonnell can't even get the support from their peers, how the hell are they going to get the support of the party members? And in the highly unlikely event that either one of them gets on the ballot paper and wins, what sort of a leader are they likely to be? After all, they can't turn to Cameron and Clegg at the next election and say "look, you're both going to get more votes than us, so how about we share those votes in order to make things fairer, eh?"
It is typical of the complete lack of reality of the Labour left that they are seriously proposing this. More than anything now, the Labour party needs someone who can win an election. Not someone who needs fucking charity just to get them on the ballot paper.
Labels: Balls, Burnham, Charity, Diane Abbott, McDonnell, Morons, Next Labour Leader
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 7:48 pm
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Basically what they are asking for is open primaries rather than the norm of prospective candidates being chosen in smoke filled rooms.
Nope. There may well be a case for open primaries, but what these two are asking for is the right to stay in the election even if they can't even meet the basic requirements to get on the ballot paper.
....but leaving them all in the election would make it so much more entertaining for the rest of us. I think the Labour MPs should co-operate with these suggestions so we can all continue to enjoy the fun over the summer.
As is the culture of the left, they want to be selected not on the basis of popularity or competence; but on the basis of whatever category of minority interest they purport to represent.
It's like that old fetish for non-competitive sport... or the failed attempts at redressing the gender balance with all-woman shortlists, that gave us some of the worst politicians imaginable, just to tick a box.
Typical of the left - equality of opportunities isn't enough for them; they want equality of outcomes as well!
Labour is incapable of finding a leader of any charisma, presence, or competence... John Smith was their only decent leader since his Wilson (to whom he was protégé), and he went and died on them.
If Labour has a salvour, it's not in this crop... frankly, I think the days of the Labour movement being relevant any more are gone now, and they face a slow and inevitable self-destruction.
What is the point in the Labour Party?
If you want "social democracy", you can get that from the LibDems, Greens, etc...; if you want paternalistic protectionism, you can get that from the BNP or the small Socialist parties.
So who cares who leads them... they're finished once the constituencies are made equal-sized (not that they are likely to make rise from the dead next election).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home