The Toxic Labour Party

Here’s an interesting article about how Labour needs to detoxify its brand if it is to seriously stand any chance of winning at the next election. It is interesting because it accepts that Labour cannot simply coast to power, but I think its understanding of just how toxic Labour has become is limited.

Now, I don’t like any of the main parties, but Labour are the top of the pile when it comes to that dislike. When I think of the Tories, I feel a complete lack of enthusiasm combined with mild suspicion about their social conservatism. When I think of the Lib Dems, I get mildly amused by their ineptitude and amateur nature. But when I think of Labour, I feel rage and hate. I despise them for their continual raids on my wallet and the decimation of civil liberties during their long years in power. And I am enraged by their complacent arrogance, by their assumption that they should be in power, and that anyone who stands in the way of their project is in some way hindering progress. To my mind, none of the main parties have shown that they are capable of governing, but Labour have categorically shown themselves to be utterly incapable of treating the people of this country with any other than contempt. They have proven themselves to be utterly unsuitable for the task of governing.

And the fact that their party is now headed up by Miliband Minor and Balls – two of the most egregious minions of the worst Prime Minister we’ve had since Anthony Eden – show nothing more than absolute continuity with the Labour project of the last decade and a half. If they were in power, there’d be more of the same. Which would lead to a bankrupt country and far less freedom for its inhabitants.

So yeah, Labour needs to detoxify its brand. And it needs to start at the top, but finding a Leader of the Opposition and a Shadow Chancellor who are not synonymous with Nu Labour.

Why Ed Balls Should Be Labour Leader

In a sense, the last Labour government ended too soon. Not for the country - there is no way we could have afforded any more "leadership" from Gordon Brown. But for the Labour party itself, the fact that their last government ended before they were utterly discredited by having to make the same sort of cuts that they lambast the Tories for - and the fact that our warped electoral system meant that their disastrous showing at the last election didn't completely consign them to electoral oblivion - means that many think that their project was not wrong; it was just curtailed before the benefits could truly be seen. Consequently, the party is not ready to accept the implications of its defeat, and as a result undertake the sort of ideological change needed to make them once again capable of winning, and performing less than abysmally in, government.

Ed Miliband isn't the right man to show them this. A slightly chippy little prig, he has all the charisma of a depressed garden gnome. When the party loses the next election, its members will assume it is because Miliband Minor was leader, and actually they needed someone with just an iota of charisma and a little bit of fight in them to actually take on Cameron. As such, it will miss the point that its policies are just as atrocious as its leader. The Labour party has come to represent in political form the old truism that the very definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing while hoping for a different result.

Thus, the Labour party needs a more capable leader - or at least one able to do the opposing bit inherent in being leader of the opposition. Miliband can't do it; he's a black hole into which anything of any interest is sucked and lost forever. There is one man up for the challenge, though. One man ruthless enough to have forced himself to the very top of Labour party politics, despite having the personality of a smug, rabid skunk. Yes, this is the time for Ed Balls. He needs to be Labour leader.

Of course, he wouldn't change the party's course - he's as bought into Brown's plans as anyone, not least because he was Brown's henchman for so many years and helped to create those plans in the first place. And the people aren't going to warm to Ed Balls either, in the same way as no-one really warms to the angry man in the bar who is just looking to kick someone's head in for fun. But what Balls would be able to do - rather like Howard did for the Tories when he became their leader - is oppose. Balls would fight Cameron. He would fight the coalition. He would marshall his not inconsiderable talents at being a massive arsehole towards his opponents, and make life tough for the Con-Dems in a way that Miliband Minor seems utterly incapable of achieving. And when he lost the next election the Labour party would have no choice but to accept that their defeat wasn't just down to the failure to oppose; they would have to see that the policies they use to oppose the coalition were as much to blame as their choice of leader.

So this is Ed's time to shine - in as much as such a person is ever capable of actually shining. But I doubt whether Ed will ever become Labour leader. I rather think he is the Michael Hesletine of his generation and party; a high-profile, clear contender for the leadership of his party with only one fatal flaw - that the people in his party don't really like him, so aren't going to make him leader. Yet the Labour party could do far worse than Balls. Hell, they have done far worse through their choice of their current leader.

The Result

It's Ed, then. Woot. And the best thing? It was the Unions Wot Won It - and it was a massively slim win at that. Miliband's victory has already presented his opponents with a couple of sticks with which to whack him.

Good luck, Miliband Minor. You're going to need it.

***EXCLUSIVE*** The Next Labour Leader is...

…*drum roll please*… apathy! Yes, the absolute winner of this leadership contest – the one who fought the best campaign, and really won people over – is apathy. Because despite this contest having gone on for ages, nothing really happened. In fact – despite the contest for the future of this party – the biggest Labour news story of the summer was around the sniping in Blair’s memoirs. It was about those who represent Labour’s past.

Seriously, the candidates could not have been more lacklustre in their campaigns. Ed Balls seemed to miss the point of what he’s meant to have been doing for the past five months. He’s been carping at the Tories but not really explaining to an understandably sceptical party (given his repugnant behaviour in the last parliament) why they should choose him as the new leader. The Milibands have sniped at each other like testy children in the back of a car on a long journey, while Burnham and Abbott may as well not have bothered. So much for having a big debate. All of the candidates have appeared to have nothing to say. Not so much making their cases to be leader, but rather being too afraid of saying something stupid that might cost them in their campaign. How cowardly. How Nu Labour.

The result of such a dull campaign is that people don’t care. Seriously, no-one out of the self-regarding and incestuous circle of Labour insiders cares about who’s going to be announced as the leader. They’ve failed to engage with the voters despite months of supposed debate about their future. In fact, they still seem to be struggling to understand that they lost the last election, and still think that they need to communicate their message better, rather than changing that message. 5 months of campaigning and debate about the future and they still haven’t reconciled themselves with the immediate past.

The next Labour leader should be worried – very worried. Because this contest has shown that they have a mountain to climb. The public doesn’t care about Labour – they’re just not interested. Meaning the next Labour leader has to get the attention of the people again before they can even consider making that public want to vote them again.

Labour, Opinion Polls, and their New Leader

Since the election, it has been quite common to read that the Labour party is doing reasonably well in the opinion polls despite not having a leader. This is, of course, wrong; what is actually happening is that Labour have been doing ok in recent opinion polls because they don't have a leader. And come Saturday, that will change.

Leaders and figureheads act as shit magnets. As soon as a group has a leader or a figurehead, others can start making the muck stick. It is happening right now in the US with the Tea Party and the really rather dreadful Christine O'Donnell since her primary win. And it will happen with the Labour party once it has got itself a Nu Leader. Don't believe me? Try it. David Miliband - complicity in torture. Ed Miliband - wrote the electoral bromide that was the 2010 Labour manifesto. Ed Balls - Gordon Brown's mini-me. Andy Burnham - pro-ID cards. Diane Abbot - opinions on Finnish nurses. A leader taints his or her party with every ill-judged comment and/or policy they have ever made - regardless of whether those comments/policies are indicative of the organisation they represent.

There is a way around this, of course - you elect a charismatic leader, who can convince people to follow them despite their flaws. But since the Labour party is poised to elect a Miliband, that isn't going to happen. Instead, they will elect a charisma-less geek to go up against a still popular coalition. And then, slowly, their opinion poll ratings will start to suffer again as it becomes clear that the cosmetic change in leader is not the sort of far-reaching change the Labour party desperately needs in order to become electorally credible again.

Another Non-Story

As reported on the BBC:

Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham is calling for a review of the leadership election rules.

Mr Burnham says the current contest is too heavily influenced by big donors and benefits the leadership favourites.

In other words, a probable loser wants the rules changed to make a future victory more likely for him. What a shock!

Skinner *hearts* Miliband

Odious leftie fire-brand Dennis Skinner has decided to back centrist Blairite weasel David Miliband in "race" for Labour leader. His reasoning, if you can call is that, is as follows:

“The big question is who are the Tories afraid of? Who is the best candidate to stand up against Cameron at the dispatch box? Who has the best chance to beat Cameron in an election?”

“For me the best choice is David Miliband and that is why I will be supporting him as next Labour leader.”

Three things arise from this for me. Firstly, Labour is not focussed on reforming itself or working out why it lost last time. It has only one thing on its mind - future victory. And Miliband Major is the sort of candidate who reminds them of the halycon days electoral success under Blair. Of course, this logic is more than just flawed; it is downright stupid, since at the last election the voters not just rejected Brown, but also Blair and Nu Labour. By harking back to Blair, they are harking back to what has been (finally) rejected by the voters. They need to find something new, and Miliband - a continuity candidate for Nu Labour if ever there was one - certainly isn't new.

And I'm not sure whether Miliband Major is the one the Tories are afraid of most. I mean, he's always struck me as a total dweeb; the sort of chap Cameron (and possibly even Clegg) could make mincemeat of at the dispatch box. I will say this, though - if the Tories do fear Miliband the most, that doesn't mean that they are actually afraid of him. It could be that they just see him as the most credible opponent Labour have running as leader. Which, given the dearth of talent in the line-up, is a backhanded compliment at best.

Finally, if the likes of Skinner are supporting Miliband, who the hell is going to vote for Diane Abbott?

Skinner backs Miliband Major - further proof that the Labour party has utterly lost its way.

A New Way of Campaigning?

Through behaving like a total nut-job:



Now, if the Labour leadership had seen some speeches like this, it would have been far more entertaining. But enough of that. I think that if Sarah Palin becomes the Republican nominee for President in 2012, this guy should be her Vice-Presidential pick.

The Labour Leadership Contest Summarised.

Good God will this infernal Labour leadership contest never end? The candidates are not saying or doing anything new, and if you're a Labour party member who hasn't figured out which one of these non-entities you want as leader despite the months of campaigning, then you're thick as pig shit. Then again, if you've got a vote, you're a Labour party member so you're probably not blessed with intellect anyway.

If you want my advice (and I'd imagine that the paragraph above would alienate most Labour party members), then you should vote for Ed Miliband or Andy Burnham. Both of those are anodyne, bland and immensely tedious, but they would at least represent some sort of a change. David Miliband - a charisma vacuum and total geek - would be destroyed by the media and would be demolished each and every week in Prime Minister's Questions. Plus he's the continuity candidate, and there's no point in continuing with the type of politics comprehensively rejected by the voters at the last election. Ed Balls and Diane Abbott are both electoral bromide. You may as well dig up Michael Foot's carcass and make that Leader of the Opposition; he'd be more popular than Abbott or Balls. Yes, I know, a choice between Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham is a bit like choosing between different types of mild soft cheeses, but effectively, that's the choice you've got. Enjoy.

The "Successes" of Tony Blair

As Blair once again prances around in the limelight like a two year old looking for attention, those old rose-tinted glasses have come on for some. For there are those in the Labour movement, probably still in shock that they were booted from office earlier in the year, who look to Blair and remember that he managed to do one thing that his successor (and many of his predecessors) failed to do - he could win elections. Three of them, in fact. Making him - for some - the most successful Labour leader of all time.

But let's interrogate this idea a little more. How successful was Blair actually? He won three election victories, sure - the first one against a Conservative party more hideously unpopular than it had ever been before in its history, the second against a Conservative party broken by the electoral drubbing they got in '97, and the third one was a much less convincing victory against a Conservative party only just starting to recover. Furthermore, the local election results of the final Blair years don't show a popular leader at the peak of his powers; they show quite the opposite. Had Blair fought the 2010 General Election, he'd have lost.

So yeah, three election victories - impressive, but not as impressive as it might first appear. I suppose Blair looks good compared to other Labour leaders and their electoral performances. Take Kinnock - fought 2, lost 2. Foot - fought 1, lost 1. Callaghan - fought 1, lost 1. With this in mind, the norm for a Labour leader is Brown rather than Blair; of course he looks good by comparison. In fact, since World War Two, only two other Labour leaders have been able to win general elections (compared to seven for the Tories); Attlee and Wilson. Yet Wilson actually did better than Blair, if winning elections is the key qualification for success as a Labour leader. He won in 1964, 1966 and managed to scrape into government in both of the elections in 1974. By this logic, Wilson should be the example the Labour party should follow, not Blair.

Furthermore, those in the Labour party wishing to venerate Blair for winning elections should remember precisely how he did it. It wasn't through being a crusading politician, winning people to his cause through brilliant oratory and ideological commitment. No, he won power by stripping his party of any real ideology and instead selling a bland empty shell of a party to a country that just wanted the Tories out. Blair made Labour non-threatening for some, but in doing so he also made it practically worthless.

So, yeah, wear your rose-tinted glasses and praise Blair 'til you're blue in the face. But his only real success was replacing a moribund Tory government with an empty facsimile of the Labour party. Which is hardly the blueprint for a brave new Labour party now, is it? Honest to God, winning elections is not the be all and end all of politics - particularly not if a grinning homunculus has to sell the soul of your party in order to achieve it.

A Re-Cap of the Labour Leadership Contest So Far

Amazingly, the Labour leadership contest is still going; farting along like a bout of food poisoning - it is unpleasant, it is pretty boring, and you just want it to be over with. But for those of who haven't been paying attention or for those of you who have been paying too much attention, I though I'd give you the summary of how each of the candidates is doing from the perspective of a cynical armchair analyst:

Andy Burnham: It is a complete mystery to me why Andy Burnham bothered with his run for the leadership. He's got precisely nowhere, and despite his claim to be the working class candidate (yes, you're from Liverpool, Andy, but you're hardly Nye fucking Bevan, are you?). In fact he's rendered himself largely indistinguishable from the already beyond bland Miliband sprogs. Well done, Andy, you've become the least charismatic Miliband despite not actually being part of that family.

Diane Abbott: Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Diane Abbott meant to be in the Labour leadership contest in order to make the left-wing case? Because if she was, then I really do wonder what has gone wrong. Because after the brief glare of publicity after Miliband Major patronisingly gave her a way into the contest, we've hear nothing from Abbott. Nada. Zip. Silence has fallen. Which leads me to believe that the left-wing of the Labour party have nothing to say. Which may well be the case, but I don't think John McDonnell would agree with that one. And he must be fucking fuming, since he stood aside to let Abbott into the race.

Ed Balls: Listening to the rhetoric of the Balls camp is wonderful; they all talk about how he's the one that the Tories are afraid of. Whereas the exact opposite is actually true. Balls is the one the Tories want. He's an utterly repugnant individual who would be the one most likely to lead Labour to electoral oblivion - no mean feat, given he is running against Diane "racist hypocrite" Abbott. Balls may have been the one who has been taking the fight to the Tories, but that has achieved remarkably little and revealed only that Balls is a nasty little attack dog; incapable of espousing a positive view of the future and only capable of throwing poisonous barbs at the other parties. Whatever Balls may be, he most certainly isn't an electable leader. And it looks like he'll prove this by not being elected leader.

The Miliband Brothers: I lump them together because they're hard to tell apart. But I think I've found a way. David, with his faintly pained expression and little tuft of white hair, resembles a baby badger with constipation. Ed Miliband appears to have a head that looks like an overcooked baked potato with hair crudely stuck on it. This is the best way to tell them apart, IMHO, since there's been nothing in the campaign so far to aid with it - despite the fact that Badger Boy and Potato (now, there's a pitch for a TV show for kids, right there) have been running against each other. This week, there seems to have been greater attempt to put clear divides between them, and it appears the Badger Boy is the continuity candidate who doesn't mind change while Potato is all about change but won't do away with continuity with the past. Clear? Thought not. Personally, I just wish they'd get the hell on with it and decide which Spawn of the Miliband they want as leader.

Of course, with a long campaign to choose a leader, you're bound to get some fatigue - each primary season in the US drags on, for example, even if it is actually quite exciting. However, this contest has not only never caught on fire, it has been almost completely devoid of incident, event and anything that might provoke something resembling interest for the casual observer. The most memorable thing about this contest is the McDonnell jibe about Thatcher - and that came from someone who didn't become a candidate before the contest even started. Despite having five candidates in this election, there's no-one with personality and no-one with ideas. It speaks volumes about the moral and intellectual redundancy within the Labour party that a Miliband will almost certainly be elected their leader - neither Badger Boy or Potato are leaders, but then again, Labour doesn't appear to have any leaders - or ideas - left in it now.

Ed Balls Talks...

...good Christ help us. If you want to find out what he has to endlessly gibber on about say you can head here. It is chock full of borderline insanity and clearly delusional statments. One striking example is the spin about the close call he went through at the last election - apparently he knows how to fight the Tories based on that election. Bollocks, young Ed - the only reason why your re-election battle was so close is because you are such an absolute wanker that you have managed to alienate so many people in your constituency.

But the pièce de résistance in Balls' crapitude comes when he says this:

"...we've got to believe in government..."

It is pretty clear that I'm not going to agree with that - as a Libertarian, I believe that government is not something to believe in. Quite the opposite; if you want something to believe in, then go with the idea that the government is incompetent and more often than not malign, intentionally or otherwise. But my opinions aren't that relevant here - we're talking about Balls, and he is clearly someone who believes in government.

Except he isn't. If he did believe in government, then he would believe in the government we have in this country at the moment - but if there is one thing that is clear, it is that he doesn't believe in that government. No, what he believes in is government run by his cronies or, even better, by him.

Which is simultaneously the reason why Ed Balls is so dangerous and why statists are so flawed in their arguments - those seeking to become the government are those least suited to being in government. Balls is arrogant - in fact, he is more than arrogant. Not only does he think that he knows best, but he wants to force what he knows on everyone else in this country. Of course Ed Balls wants us to believe in government (under the right circumstances) - he wants us to believe in him. The arrogant, almost delusional, fucker.

On Miliband Major's Championing of the Pub

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present David Miliband - Bananaman and champion of the pub! Or at least that's what he's vying to be with this press release. Let's break down the "actual words" of Miliband Major as they appear in this communiqué:

“Last orders are being called for good at around 40 pubs a week as they come under pressure from supermarkets selling cheaper beer.

Heh. Well, supermarkets may be part of the problem, but they certainly are the problem in its entirety, but more on this later. What I would point out now is that Miliband is printing something that has been happening for years, if not for the best part of a decade, as if it is breaking news. Pubs have been closing at a rate of knots throughout the Nu Labour years. If Miliband doesn't know this, then he is either highly unobservant or a bit dumb. And neither is ideal in a prospective Prime Minister.

This is not just bad news for those who enjoy a pint at their local – in many villages and towns across Britain pubs are the life and soul of the community.

What a wonderfully quaint view Miliband Major seems to have of British pubs. Sure, some of them are the life and soul of their community - the one in my parent's tiny village could be an example of that. But they are also places where people go to get arseholed or laid (or both) - like many of those in central Nottingham. That's not to say that we shouldn't support both types of pub, mind, since they both make a contribution to the economy. But it does leave me wondering when Miliband Major last actually went to the pub. I suspect he's more used to supping a glass of tax-payer subsidised Sancerre in the Commons bar.

“As we enter the holiday season its important we stand up for British tourism and the importance of pubs to our tourist industry.

Yeah, we should only stand up for British pubs as we are entering the holiday season. We don't have to bother to stand up for them for the rest of the year now, do we? What a wanker.

For too long we have tolerated this decline as the result of inevitable market forces.

This, ladies and gentleman, is what we call bollocks. I have not come across anyone else arguing that the decline in pubs is down to market forces. Rather, I'd argue that the decline in pubs is down to government intervention in that particular market, particularly in the form of the smoking ban. You want to know why pubs are going out of business? Because smokers now find that there habit has been criminalised by the Nu Labour government in their local. You want to help save the pubs, Mr Miliband? Argue for the repeal of the smoking ban. But I reckon Miliband's ersatz support for our pubs is not quite going to go that far...

And finally:

But we can and should stand up for the local pub – and the community links and civic life they sustain. Local pubs are great British institutions – and as Labour leader I would stand up for them.”

Unfortunately, the sole reason why Miliband Major is standing up for the British pub now is because he is desperately trying to distinguish himself from the other non-entities running for Labour leader. He doesn't give a fuck about pubs. If he did, he would have done something about it when he was a senior government minister with some influence over actual practical politics. The fact that he has discovered his "stand" for the great British pub as he is running for election as leader of the opposition speaks volumes about his actual lack of commitment to this cause.

Backing Balls

As the Labour leadership contest rolls on with all the speed of a melting asthmatic glacier with a limp, people are making up their minds on who to support. And I've finally decided who would get my vote (if I had one). Yep, as you might have guessed from the title of this post, I'm backing Ed Balls.

It's not just because he's the person who is most likely to sink the Labour party - although this is both true and also a factor. However, there is another reason. See, out of all the Labour leadership candidates, I truly understand what Ed Balls stands for.

The Milibands have failed to distinguish themselves from each other. I cannot make out one from the other, and often seem to be running to establish not who could be Labour leader but who is the blandest of the pair. The same applies to Andy Burnham - he is indistinguishable from the Milibands, which is no mean feat given he isn't actually a Miliband. And as for Abbott - her entire campaign is based on her ethnicity and her gender. She hasn't given any other reason why she should be Labour leader. She doesn't appear to stand for anything other than the broad parameters of her own identity.

Whereas Balls... well, Ed stands for something. In fact, he stands for two things. He stands for naked self-interest based on a completely undeserved and arrogant sense of entitlement. And he stands for a pig-headed inability to understand that the game is up and he should give up. There is something honest about Ed Balls - what he stands for is written all over his porcine face and in every stuttering statement. For Ed, it is all about the Balls, and that's why I'd urge all Labour supporters to back him. Besides, naked self-serving transparency would probably be something that a lot of those who can vote in this leadership election can emphathise with...

David Miliband - Winning the Bigot Vote

His campaign must be doing well, because Miliband Major has only gone and won the support of "that bigoted woman":

Gillian Duffy told the Daily Mirror that David Miliband would make a "great prime minister" after he visited her at home in Rochdale.

...

She said of David Miliband: "He's a really nice man and obviously very intelligent but also down to earth. I think he would be a great prime minister.

"I felt David really listened to my points of view and shared my concerns on the issues that matter to working people."

Good-o. An important supporter for Miliband Major. I wonder where his campaign will go next. Maybe he can go make peace with Sharon Storer. Or have a pint with that mullet-haired yokel who Prescott lamped back in 2001.

It is this sort of thing that really brings home just how much Miliband Major is the continuity candidate for Nu Labour. Fuck the issues, fuck the attempt to redefine Labour for a changed political landscape. Fuck all that, we've got to get on with this: the cheap publicity stunt with no real importance beyond a quick soundbite from someone no-one should really care about at all.

Diss of the Day: Andy Burnham

A wonderful, and presumably unintentional, diss of Andy Burnham by the BBC in this article:

Mr Balls' rival Ed Miliband now has the support of Unison and the GMB unions as well as Unite. His brother David has won the support of two unions - Community and Usdaw.

Diane Abbott is currently being supported by two unions, the Transport Salaried Staff Association (TSSA) and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF). The fifth candidate in the election is Andy Burnham.

Poor old Andy. He's doing so badly in this election of non-entities that the BBC can't even talk about who is supporting him. All they can do is briefly remind people that he is still running.

Let's face it, he should just drop out now, because the longer he stays in this contest, the more embarrassing it becomes. He can't say he's in it to win it - the best he can say is that he's (barely) in it. He can't claim he's laying down a marker for the future, since this campaign will not leave him as a potential candidate of the future, but rather as someone synonymous with failure.

This is the least inspiring line-up of potential leaders that I can remember in a long time, and Burnham is proving himself to be the least inspiring of those insipid candidates. Andy Burnham is a non-entity fighting to get survive in a field already clogged up by non-entities, and perhaps the most damning indictment of Burnham's campaign is the realisation that if he pulled out now, no-one would really notice he'd gone.

A Manifestation of the Totally Boring - the Labour Leadership Election

Has there ever been an election more boring that the current contest to become Labour leader? If there has, then I've not come across it. Even Diane Abbott - a cretin but at least a cretin with opinions - has shown herself to be a damp squib in this contest. Miliband Major must be very pleased that he helped her into the contest; in doing so, he has made sure that the left is technically being represented without actually having a left-wing voice in the campaign. Basically, this leadership contest has become about five boring people in a room being boring. In silence.

Part of the reason for this is down to the candidates running. They are all lacking in charisma. In fact, for this lot, charisma is something that happens to other people. The fact that David Miliband - a man who makes IDS look like an eloquent, fiery demagogue - is leading this contest perfectly sums up the dearth of talent involved in it.

But there is a further problem; barring the surprisingly silent Abbott, the other four are so far immersed in the recent history of the Labour party that they are practically drowned by it. This extract from an article on The New Statesman perfectly sums it up:

Ed Miliband has ditched Labour's manifesto commitment to a 2:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises, and has hinted he would prefer a 50:50 split. I pointed this out to a former cabinet minister, now backing the elder Miliband, who rolled his eyes and said: "You mean the manifesto that Ed himself wrote?"

Which rather nails it for me. The Labour leadership candidates can all claim to be the bold new pioneers trying to drag Labour away from the now utterly discredited Nu Labour project, but barring Abbott they helped the creators of Nu Labour and did their level best to keep it afloat for years. And Abbott isn't about a bold new future for her party; she would drag it back to the days of Michael Foot. When it was even less popular than it is right now.

Whoever wins this leadership election almost doesn't matter; they will end up being the compromise leader of a compromised party. They cannot take the party forward into the future because they cannot escape the past. For better or for worse, the political zeitgeist belongs to Cameron and Clegg - the Scaramanga and Nick Nack of modern politics. The result of this leadership election will not change that.

Abbott and Obama

Apparently, Diane Abbott isn't comparing herself to Barack Obama:

"I'm not comparing myself to Barack Obama because he's a once in a life-time figure but two years ago no-one could have imagined a black man as US President. If that was possible in the US, I think people can change their ideas in Britain as well."

Finally, I can agree with Diane Abbott. She's not like Barack Obama. In reality, all they share is the fact that they come from ethnic minorities in their respective countries. Aside from that, they share nothing. Obama is an intelligent, politically savvy with a certain quiet charisma and, for the most part, a very measured approach to political action. He is also, for a politician, relatively good looking. Unlike Ms Abbott, who is fat, earnest, hypocritical cliche and a charisma vacuum to boot. Seriously, watch her on stage with the other four candidates for the Labour leadership. She is the only person - bar Gordon Brown - who seems able to make Ed Balls look quite personable by comparison. The differences between her and the incumbent US President could not be more pronounced: somehow, Obama made himself synonymous with hope. Abbott is synonymous with nothing that even approaches hope.

So no, Diane Abbot is not like Obama. The very fact that she would compare herself with Obama highlights just how much of her political identity she equates with her ethnicity. And for the record, I think people in Britain probably would change their ideas and elect someone from an ethnic minority as a party leader, and potentially even Prime Minister. However, it isn't ideas around ethnicity that would have to change in order to put Abbott in Number 10. It is also our ideas around why it isn't a great idea to elect an inarticulate, hypocritical, socialist idiot as Prime Minister.

The Labour Party: Patronising Paternalism

The more I think about Diane Abbott's elevation to the status of Labour leadership candidate, the more it bothers me.

They'll be some who treat this as a triumphant breakthrough for women (despite the Tories having had a female Prime Minister decades before the Labour party allowed Abbott onto their ballot paper) and for ethnic minorities. We have a black female candidate for the Labour leadership. What a mighthy step forward.

Except, of course, it is not. Because Abbott's elevation to the status of real-life Labour leadership contender has next to nothing to do with her ethnicity, her gender, or her ability. The reason why she is being able to run for Labour leader is because an aging white man dropped out of the contest, and because a middle-aged, middle-class white male decided to nominate her.

And why did Miliband Major effectively let her into the race? Sure, to make the leadership contest look more diverse in part. But also because he - and the other candidates - just don't see her as a threat. In many ways, it is easier for Miliband Major - and the other three - to have Abbott in the race than it is to exclude her. For all their talk of having a wider debate, this looks like tokenism - they have a black, female candidate, so there can pay lip service to a very nebulous idea of inclusion as they canter towards crowning a middle class, middle of the road white male as Labour leader.

I have no doubt - not a shred of doubt - that the Labour party will promote Abbott's presence on the ballot paper as proof that they are progressive. That is, of course, utter shite. As this action shows, the reality is that they are the party of smug, patronising paternalism.

Abbott - Could She Win It?

Given the sudden surge of nominations for Abbott yesterday, and the media hoopla about her (eventual) arrival on the ballot paper, it is worth asking the question "can she win the Labour leadership?"

The obvious answer is "no, of course she can't. And don't be so bloody stupid". As Charlotte Gore rightly points out, there is something amazingly patronising about how Abbott got onto the ballot paper. The other candidates helped her so they could look more inclusive and because they don't see her as a threat to their own chances. Anyone who thinks otherwise should consider things like this - Miliband Major cares so little about Abbott that he can't even be bothered to spell her name right when he announces that he's nominated her.

Yet she's on the ballot paper now, and as far as I can see there is one way in which she might just pull off a win. She's got onto the ballot paper because of who she is - a black female. Now, if she wants to win, she needs to stress what she's not. Because, unlike all the other candidates in this election, she isn't a middle-aged man trying to pull off an impression of Tony Blair, and she isn't tainted by close association with the disastrous Brown administration. These are her strengths - perhaps her only strengths - in this election, and she'd be idiotic not to play to them.

And I'll allow my readers to insert a pun about "Dianne" (as Miliband Major would write her name) and idiocy in the comments section.