In case you are referencing me, Sunny, I haven’t claimed anywhere there should be a more ‘plural’ debate when it comes to the leadership. I’m backing John for his politics – and I expect others to do the same. Conversely, I’m not backing Diane because of her politics, and expect others to do the same.

If we can’t make arguments about respective merits, without getting caught in pointless meta-debate about how wide a field of candidates we need and how wonderfully diverse having one black woman and five white men standing is, then it’s really time to be worried about the political sophistication of the Labour Party.

I think it’s good that she’s standing.
The more th emerrier, as long as it’s not more New Labourite clones.

Dianne Abott is an excellent candidate. She’s got a good voting record, she speaks intelligbly and without weird ivory tower soundbites, she’s a maverick, she’s got a fairly high media profile and she is a woman, which – I never thought I’d say this in 2010- in British politics is now remarkably unusual…!

In 2007 McDonnell and Meacher made a similar agreement. The one that gets less votes will support the other in the end. I don’t see why it can’t be the same between Abott and McDonnell.

The Empress of Hackney? That principled socialist that sends her daughter to the 10,000 quid a year St Paul School?

OK maybe low blows but I like fighting dirty.

Otherwise, Dave Semple. What he said.

she may speak “intelligbly” [sic], so does Postman Pat; whether or not she speaks with intelligence is something else.

The left should welcome it…and so should the right.

“I’m backing John for his politics – and I expect others to do the same. Conversely, I’m not backing Diane because of her politics, and expect others to do the same.”

I agree with Dave Semple on that bit of his comment. I too am backing John McD (John McD. has welcomed Diane’s candidacy).

But this decision by Diane will inevitably split the vote on the Left as the two of them, whether you like it or not, can’t end up on the ballot paper. If the Labour Party rules were about creating vibrant debate between the various points of view that are bound to exist in a “broad church” Abbott’s standing would have been a good idea.

The problem is that she has seemingly entered the contest without any comradely discussion with anyone. Does she anticipate getting votes from the Left? How does she propose to deal with the right wing? Where is her record of teamwork in organising with ordinary party members? To whom does she see herself as accountable? Etc. Etc.

It can only be a good thing to have a wide range of positions represented in the leadership race, but I share your concerns that there is a danger of Abbott’s bid being seen as tokenism. The fact that so much has been made on the left about the current cabinet’s backgrounds will only fuel that suspicion, which is a shame because I find myself agreeing with Abbott a lot of the time.

Diane Abbott refused to answer whether she thought she could win on This Week last night.

She also got minced by Digby Stewart on business.

Not exactly serious candidate material.

Isn’t her sending her child to a private school canceled out by her voting record, in particular her opposition to the Iraq war?

I hope Diane’s entry into this race will at last force the other candidates to face up to what is going to be one of the main issues in the coming months and years, but about which the likely lads – the Milibands and Balls – are weirdly reticent.

I mean, of course, how to cut the deficit.

What makes this whole travesty of a leadership election such a farce is that the four candidates who were cabinet ministers under Brown voted to approve Alistair Darling’s package of nearly £50 billion in cuts over the coming years. Uh-oh: the Unions whose votes they now seek to secure the leadership are utterly opposed to ANY cuts.

Let’s see how they get out of that one.

On the child issue, would you prefer a candidate who chose to send their child to schools they recognised were underperforming? Because I am sure you want the sort of politician leading Labour who would sacrifice their child’s future (I know its a simplification, but not that much of one) for their own career?

@8 Indeed. She was extremely weak and stepped out of the discussion completely after failing to answer the first direct question.

Vote Abbott!

cjcjc – honest question here: Why do you even give a shit? Wouldn’t your effort and shrewd insights be more effective if directed toward the ruling coalition?

#7 “there is a danger of Abbott’s bid being seen as tokenism”

It was tokensim that made her an MP, I can’t believe that anybody can seriously consider her as leader of the LP.

@12 exactly! How can you bugger up your leadership campaign on your own weekly TV vehicle?

Should make for some car-crash telly over the next few weeks!

If there’s a problem with a split vote, then possibly Labour should consider moving to AV for their election process…

@13 I give a shit because I want to see Labour screwed.

Whatever you think of me personally (not much I imagine) you should certainly care what people other than Labour cheerleaders think of your leadership candidates.

The split vote argument doesn’t work, Labour’s selection process does actually use AV!

cjcjc – if you’re going to spend the next 5 years on here just trolling and saying ‘ha ha, I want to see Labour get screwed’ then perhaps you should go to another website. It’s getting tiring very quickly.

That principled socialist that sends her daughter to the 10,000 quid a year St Paul School?

Anyone gong to have any real and proper criticisms?

That principled socialist that sends her daughter to the 10,000 quid a year St Paul School?

And if it wasn’t that, it would be that once she had her living room painted blue instead of red or similar stuff.

“there is a danger of Abbott’s bid being seen as tokenism”

Yes, we should never allow a black woman to run for leadership, as we might be accused of *gasp* tokenism.

@sl, do you have any justification for your statement that she was only elected for tokenism? Or if that was true, how she has won in the five general elections since then?

“@13 I give a shit because I want to see Labour screwed.”

I don’t know if you got the memo from HQ, but we had an election, and Labour were screwed.

You can go home and get on with your life now.

You can go home and get on with your life now.

For cjcjc – I don’t think that’s possible. He’s still in a bet with me about rising global temperatures, and losing. But still carries on being a denialist.

“The split vote argument doesn’t work, Labour’s selection process does actually use AV!”

You’re not understanding where the problem lies, and it’s much the same place as with Michael Meacher and John McDonnell in 2007 (although that didn’t come to pass because there wasn’t enough support anyway). It isn’t the actual ballot that’s the problem, it’s getting a candidate onto the ballot – the problem is with the nominations. When the left talks about Abbott splitting the vote, they mean she’s splitting the PLP left and could prevent ANY left candidate from being nominated because of the bloody stupid threshold of open PLP support required.

That principled socialist that sends her daughter to the 10,000 quid a year St Paul School?

A socialist who has money? No wonder tory brains are exploding like so much popcorn. Making them look like selfish tossers in this way is just unfair! The injustice of it all!

Ms Abbott doesn’t send her son to St Paul’s. He goes to the City of London School. I think it’s Labour’s Baroness Symons who sends hers to St P’s.

I don’t know if you got the memo from HQ, but we had an election, and Labour were screwed.

You can go home and get on with your life now.

Didn’t Labour murder his family in front of him because he wouldn’t denounce the Conservatives, causing him to spend thirteen years training in the mountains waiting to have his revenge? Maybe I’m remembering some bits wrong, but he has a good reason for his blood vendetta against a bunch of dudes he’s never met.

@26 – this summer’s blockbuster: “When Trolls Go Native”

No, they merely murdered the public finances.

I was never physically threatened.

“Yes, we should never allow a black woman to run for leadership, as we might be accused of *gasp* tokenism.”

To clarify, I don’t think her career is down to tokenism – just that the accusation will get thrown around. Especially since in her piece for the Guardian she uses the diversity angle as one of the key reasons she’s standing. Personally I reckon she’d do better to downplay that – it worked for Obama.

Yeah, man. Slasher Brown knifed the treasury right in front of you and you did nothing to stop him. You didn’t even call for help. Bet you still have nightmares. I bet you’d do anything to forget the screaming.

Re: 29

To be nitpicky, Obama downplayed it because his heritage is basically mainstream American Dream stuff, as opposed to the horrors of slavery. He’s more Kennedy than King.

I thought her friend Andrew Neil was funny when he said he was delighted that Diane was standing ……… and that her chances of winning were about zero.

Which has to be the case.

Sorry Sunny, but disagree it will split the left vote as one of them (Abbott or McD.) will have to stand aside. There should have been one Left candidate.

Well, Abbott supported the privatisation of the East London Line, is that an argument?

In an ideal world the threshold would be reduced and all six candidates would get on the ballot paper.

Fair enough if Abbott is serious about withdrawing in favour of McDonnell before MPs have cast their nominations in a situation where he had more promised and neither would get on the ballot paper if both stood. But it’s very difficult to gauge how serious she is because it’s difficult to prove someone intends to nominate you unless they’ve said it publicly.

Sorry Sunny, but disagree it will split the left vote as one of them (Abbott or McD.) will have to stand aside. There should have been one Left candidate.

If either candidate is happy to nominate the other if they don’t get enough votes – what is the problem?

And why should it just be John McDonnell? He tried last time and he didn’t get enough nominations. Why not let someone else have a chance?

Typical sectarianism from socialists – which is why I left them ages ago.

The point about privatisation of the East London line is not straightforward because the Govt made it clear that the extension up to Dalston would only happen if the line was handed over to a private operator. I somehow doubt that Dianne was a cheerleader for privatisation, more that she wanted the line extended.

“At the time she said that if she were to stand, and get less nominations than John McDonnell, then she would be happy to endorse him. This is the right approach because the last thing we need is a split on potential nominations for a left candidate.” This is a good approach to take.

I think Harpymarx’s comments prove what a mess the far left of the Labour Party are in. If anyone dares to challenge the one with the most vocal activist base, even from the same wing of the party, they are criticised as being not left enough.

Not living in the hothouse of metropolitan sectarianism but in the remote and dreary (rural) provinces, I must say that to most of my friends and family – many of whom are left/Lib Dem voters – Diane Abbot is the one candidate who any of them a/ know, b/ have any enthusiasm for. She is widely known and liked. Several of them stay up specially to watch her TV programme.

They don’t know who John McDonnel is. I don’t know who he is. For them (and for me) the other candidates are a blur of indistinguishable Nu Labor robots (most of them with blood on their hands and bankers hands up their back sides).

Diane gave what is widely recognised to be the finest speech of the last parliament on the 42 day detention bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VtW0uDJbUg

(I’ve also seen her do superb work on an education committee).

I’d like to second what Johnf has said.

I’m a bit hazy as to how this election will work (especially regarding the influence of the unions) but I like to think that Diane Abbot might actually stand a chance.

The only alternative seems to be a pretty much interchangeable pack of war-mongers, immigrant-bashers and charmless apparatchiks.

For all her faults, Diane does actually seem to have some sort of soul. And bravo that she sent her son to a decent school rather than sacrificing him on the altar of her political ambition!