Not having stared at a ballot paper yet, I haven’t worked out my preferences. How are other Labour bloggers casting their preferences and why?
Copyblogger theme design by Chris Pearson | Hosted by ENTANET
The inside track since 2003
Not having stared at a ballot paper yet, I haven’t worked out my preferences. How are other Labour bloggers casting their preferences and why?
Copyblogger theme design by Chris Pearson | Hosted by ENTANET
30 comments ↓
Cruddas 1, for all the reasons we’ve all been going on about for the last few months. Blears 6, because she’s Blears.
Harman and Hain got 4 and 5 respectively, because I think they have been opportunistic and false in both their political positioning and their claims that they would challenge Brown where necessary. That left Benn and Johnson for 2nd and 3rd preferences, and I’ve gone for benn 2 because I think he’d be better for the party than Johnson would as Deputy PM.
Cruddas, Benn, perm any 1 from 3, Blears last.
Obviously Cruddas #1.
Not so sure whether I’ll bother using my other preferences. Will probably feel obliged to vote Benn as I prefer him to Johnson.
I am only voting for Hazel Blears as first choice, without any other preferences. I am disappointed that there are challengers to Blears at all: she is by far the best candidate, and any election is a distraction. She’s got work to do, and should not be hindered by the party.
Who is most focussed on rebuilding the party as a mass membership, solvent democratically run organisation able to win elections in local and regional government, the devolved nations, Europe as well as Westminster?
Enough said.
I suspect that people will draw different conclusions to that last question Peter. Go on, put us out of our misery. What are your preferences?
Blears 1, Johnson 2, Benn 3, Cruddas 4, Hain 5, Harman 6.
Dear Tom
Kind of you to ask about my deputy leader preferences. But have you ever had that sitting-duck feeling? After four years hard labour putting together the LabOUR Commission, I want to work with whoever wins this ballot. Sorry to disappoint.
More important than my personal preferences are the Brown remarks at the Oxford hustings about membership of political parties in general and the Labour Party in particular, about which I am just going to blog.
Peter
I don’t understand why saying who you have supported would stop you working with the winner if they were a different person. Once they are Deputy Leader, whoever wins will want to have a constructive relationship with people that backed the other 5, otherwise they won’t be able to do their job properly.
I agree with Luke on this one Peter.
I know you understand really. Suffice to say that post 24 June conversations with whomever wins the Deputy Leadership are going to helped enormously by the fresh leadership being shown by Gordon Brown, if those reports of his Oxford speech on Sunday are correct.
Among the real issues are about local Labour Party capacity to engage locally, which is covered in Angela Eagle’s covering letter to Mike Griffiths in his capacity as NEC Chair from the LabOUR Commission.
I’m backing Benn 1 because I think we need a deputy leader who doesn’t symbolically represent either an apology for the last 10 years of leadership (hain, Cruddas, Harman) or an apology for the change of leadership (johnson, blears). I think the fact that Benn has succesfully walked that fine line in this contest is about more than just political manoevering – it shows that he has in fact just stood as himself, standing up for simple Labour values and for being both proud of what we have achieved and convinced that we can do more.
I;m backing Johnson 2 because I’ve worked with him and I’ve got a lot of time for his openness to ideas and his common sense approach to difficult political choices.
I like Blears’ and Cruddas’ approach to Party renewal which is a massive passion of mine – but I don’t like either of their hard line Perfect/Regrettable views of the Blair legacy – nor do I totally agree with Hazel’s slightly consumerist view of Party membership or Cruddas’ dismissive approach to the strong youth organisations we already have. They’ll get 3 or 4 each but can’t decide.
I’ll be preferencing them both ahead of Harman (5) and Hain, who had my 6th preference sewn up 4 years ago.
Karim – forgive me but that first sentence is the most verbose and unconvincing justification I have heard so far. It’s nonsense, in fact.
Ok – well let me put it more bluntly. I think Cruddas, Harman and Hain have to a greater or lesser degree tried to appeal to those Party members who have misgivings about some of what’s gone on it the past 10 years by over emphasising those misgivings – which I think is a mistake. In fact, I think Cruddas has done this least of the three and has, where possible, emphasised postitive things that he’d like to do differently. Hence why I’m preferencing him above the other two.
Blears and johnson have, during the past 12 months both at different times been painted as/painted themselves as people who have misgivings about Gordon not being able to appeal to the centre ground, and I worry that electing either of them would send the message to the public that the Party shared those concerns. And I think that would be a mistake.
Benn has done neither of these things – and I make the case (which you may well disagree with) that this is because he has steered clear of any internal wrangling and got on with arguing a case for what Labour values, and hard work from Labour people both have done and what they could do in future if we – and that’s essentially what we need.
That’s much clearer. Sorry, my last comment looks harsher than it was meant to be.
My own view, less eloquently expressed, is that running for the deputy leadership obliges you to map out a direction you want to see the party go in.
Jon has done that: an inclusive policy making procedure; a full time deputy; a greater priority in housing and employment rights for temporary and agency workers. He’s done well. I’m proud of him.
Still baffled – at least four of them are excellent and the other two are pretty good so I’ll be happy whoever wins. Your MP’s vote counts for about 500 members’ votes, do you get one as a party member and as a union member as well?
I’ll probably go Benn, Johnson, Cruddas but I’d really quite like a woman to win. Oh dear. Also haven’t decided how to vote (internet, telephone, post) yet – this choice lark ain’t all it’s sometimes made out to be!
Johnson 1; Benn 2; Harman 3; Hain 4; Cruddas 5.
Verry happy with the standard of candidates, but I choose them on the basis of clout within the party and broader labour movement, and also sway with the electorate. there was a bit of personal like/dislike going on too.
Jon said he will voting for Harriet as his second preference (see Newsnight).
Harman-Cruddas-Benn, more or less in that order. Would be happy with any of those. Hain and Johnson are running for DPM so no preference from me. Blears 4 as she might have a stab at rebuilding. Though she is in that job at the moment with little or no effect and sadly she has a set policy agenda which is rather counter-intuitive for renewal of party synapses.
Reckon Benn and Johnson will be there out of the blocks, Hain and Blears will be the first two to go. Then Harman and Cruddas’ will mainly transfer to one another, then winner of that in close run off with whoever wins the Benn-Johnson battle.
I will be putting Benn as no 1 and Cruddas at no 2. Why? Becuase I want my party – indeed my country – run by people of integrity, honesty and ideas. Do the other candidates possess these qualities? Yes, but it is a matter of judgement as to the degree of integrity etc.
Benn – well respected across the various tents that make up the new Labour campsite. A man with a moral compass but does not feel the need to lecture people as to which direction they ‘must’ travel.
Cruddas – has proven himself to be someone of ideas and principle. Not easily ‘pigeon holed’ – he is against Trident but for ID cards, against selection but a supporter of faith schools. He makes people think.
I’m voting Cruddas 1, Harman 2, Johnson 3, Benn 4, Hain 5, Blears 6.
And, in a desperate attempt to drive up traffic, my reasons are here: http://unoriginalname38.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-i-am-voting-jon-cruddas-for-deputy.html
I was going to vote 1. Cruddas until his lot utterly reneged on their promises to help the McDonnell camp and all nominated Brown.
So it was 1. Hain ( at least he has a credible left past and good work in Northern ireland) 2. Harman ( we need a woman candiate and Blears is unspeakable). 3. Benn (honest, decent,no grandstanding). IMHO it will ultimately be between Benn and Johnson I hope it’s benn…..
I have decided
1. Benn
2. Harman
3. Johnson
4. Blears
5. Cruddas
6. Hain
Not that I’m a card carrying Labour member but Jon Cruddas is the only candidate that has actually made the party more attractive to me. The rest only repel me (apart from Harriet Harman, who is alright).
Vote Cruddas!
Cruddas
Benn
Harman
Hain
Johnson
Blears
It was easy in the end. 1,2 and 6 picked themselves. Harman might win the party some votes and she voiced some strong anti-Tory feelings at the Coventry hustings. Johnson likes academies so he drops a place leaving Hain above him. As I say, easy!
Mrs D voted for Cruddas and no-one else, she likes things in black and white!
Well all the candidates keep telling us all how they want a reconnection with the members. Heard all that before i thought as no-one from the Westminster Village has ever tried to connect with me. Maybe I missed their call when out leafleting on Jubilee Drive. But I thought here is a ‘connection’ test put a call into each camp and see which one of them would take or return my call. Result Johnson – 1 end of.
1. Cruddas, 2. Harman, 3. Benn, 4. Hain, 5. Johnson, 6. Blears
I’ve gone for: Cruddas 1, Hain 2, Harman 3, Benn 4, Johnson 5, Blears 6.
Have been impressed by the way Jon has shifted the focus of the debate – somehow I don’t think housing would have been on the agenda to anything like the extent it has been had Jon not raised it so forcefully. Also Party organisation is being talked up by most of the candidates now, although no one else really seems to have grasped how much this needs to be bottom-up.
I’m not sure if I would describe myself as a “Labour Blogger” but as a lurker on your blog and occasional LJ’er who is a Labour Party member my preferences are 1. Cruddas 2. Benn 3. Harman.
I couldn’t bring myself to vote for anyone else.
There’s a lot of talk about how member’s preferences are transferring – won’t the interesting bit, given hte electoral college weightings, be how the MPs transfer?
A lot will ride on the order of elimination and it will be interesting to see how votes transfer, particularly between Harman and Blears, and whether any of the payroll vote will transfer to Cruddas.
Leave a Comment