Now there are two

My choice of a Labour Leadership candidate to nominate has narrowed. For reasons I gave yesterday, I must deny fellow left-wingers John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott my support.

Andy Burnham has been a personable, able and adequate minister.   He has attractive personal qualities that could win votes. This exchange that I had with him in January makes it impossible for me to support him. The Nursing Times reported: -

“Was the threat of 65,000 British swine flu deaths an unscientific exaggeration that has cost the country dearly, not only financially but in terms of stress and distorted NHS priorities?” Paul Flynn asked.

Mr. Burnham defended the government’s response, saying: “We had to take every possible step to keep the country safe through what was declared a world health pandemic, not by this government but by the World Health Organisation.

 “There were understandably high levels of public concern, and I make no apology for making all the necessary preparations to keep the public safe through that. We have come through the pandemic because of the strength of the plans and preparations that this Government put in place.”

That answer was bunkum, as my report next month to the Council of Europe will prove.

Ed Balls have been an impressive minister. His speech to the NUT conference was a tour de force of persuasive idealism.     He is a fine politician. Far less impressive was has rambling, cliché-stuffed presentation of his leadership bid. It was repetitive and did not include one memorable phrase. Is he serious this time or is he just putting down a marker for a shadow cabinet place? I will not be nominating him but I look forward to his work in defenestrating the Coalition’s policies.

Then there are the two Milibands. Both are brilliant and charismatic. Either would do. Ed has impressed on energy.   He has been responsive and flexible especially in his acceptance of Alan Simpson’s crusade on feed-in tariffs.  At a deep level he is disturbed at the threat of global warming. Unfortunately he has yet to understand the false dawn of new nuclear. Ed wrote the little read and greatly under-valued Labour manifesto this year. It proved the far-sighted quality of his thinking across the broad horizon of all policies.  He would make a splendid Leader.

His brother David has been our best Foreign Secretary since Robin Cooke. My constant campaigning against the disaster of the Afghan war has brought me into frequents public and private clashes with him.

Not   from David did I hear the facile mantras of other frontbenchers of all parties. He listened, understood and responded to intelligent argument.  It would have been impossible for him to accept all my arguments without giving up his job. But in one moment of frankness, he said that I would be surprised of how many of my arguments he supported.

Both Ed and David have high political intelligence and dexterity that could re-shape Labour into an acceptable 21^st century party that retains the idealism of Classic Labour.

My name will be published tomorrow on one of the lists of nominations. 

Comments

[Jane]

Excellent analysis. Having read a number of political books - latest Andrew Rawnsley (birthday present) I would never - ever- ever support Ed Balls. I look forward to seeing your name tomorrow. For me, I think David Miliband is by far the best candidate. I will be devastated if he does not win the election.

(I will be buying your book but not for a few months. I buy so many books that I tend to wait until the price drops!)

[Chris Carter]

Good to see your support for David Miliband Paul!

[HuwOS]

LOL, hardly a surprise you supported him Paul, you signalled it quite clearly already.

"David Miliband defended the decision to topple Saddam Hussein today as he praised the millions of Iraqis who defied violence to go to the polls.

The Foreign Secretary suggested that the 2003 invasion had strengthened Britain's reputation in the Arab world"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23812821-foreign-secretary-david-miliband-to-face-iraq-inquiry.do

What an intelligent boy he is, perhaps he can be the next middle eastern peace envoy.

So he voted for the war, voted against any investigation to it, is for replacing trident, for id cards, for 90 day detention without charge or trial, supports new nuclear.

What is it swung it for you Paul, that he is telegenic for a politician and voted to ban fox hunting?

As far as I can see, he stands for everything that I despise about New Labour and so there is no change, and no chance of the Labour party recovering itself or redeeming itself.

I know you were fairly clear already Paul, so I am not really surprised but for some reason cannot help but feel a tad disappointed in you.

Bet that will make you lose sleep

[Patrick]

PF
I'm not in the slightest bit suprised that David Milliband has told us that "it's time to move on" over Iraq.

'We should all just push aside the millions of deaths , cover ups, and lies and vote in another Blair do a like so that we can do it all again some day.'

I was not suprised either that Clare Short and the late Robin Cook were the only ministerial dissenters as the New -Labour puppets put their careers before people's lives.

I wasn't even suprised that as innocent civilians were being stealth bombed at night ,killing babies in their beds ,that up would pop Blair to lecture us about christianity.

What i am suprised about is the anti-war backbencher should support this right wing Blairite.

No doubt it's because it's the only way to get Labour back into office.

If the only way Labour can re-gain power is to appoint another Tory leader, butter up the right wing press and appease the right wing middle England then What is the point of the party?