Meg Hillier: proof Ed Miliband doesn't care about climate change

The more I think about Meg Hillier the less I like her, that's nothing to do with her attitude to foxes mind. Nothing personal, I'm sure she loves kittens and can make a crying baby sleep at fifty paces but, as the main person responsible for holding the Coalition to account on climate change she is the just the wrong choice. 

Yesterday I posted a link to the new shadow Minister of Energy and Climate Change's Public Whip account which shows her woeful voting record. Stuart has summarised it here.

To summarise Stuart's summary it appears that she's voted against improvements in housing energy use efficiency, she's voted against limiting civil aviation pollution, was for Heathrow's expansion, in fact according to Public Whip she has a poor voting record on the issue for a Labour MP, let alone compared to the Tories, et al.

Don't worry though, she's 100% for nuclear power. That will sort things out. 

Today the Guardian summed up her record so far like this;

As for the real Meg Hillier, she's not known to have had a deep interest in climate change. A former journalist (like climate secretary, Chris Huhne) and privately educated (like Huhne), she was elected for the first time in 2005 as MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, having been mayor of Islington and a member of the London assembly. Probably most useful for her new job among her interests are the work she has done on housing and transport (well, bus routes). In government, she spent a year working for Ruth Kelly at the Department of Communities and Local Government, then three as a Home Office minister juggling the identity card hot potato.

Just checking to see if she has any interest in climate change...

Yup. That checks out then.

So we've been told that Ed Miliband was the best candidate on climate change, but if that's the case why has he appointed someone who has no interest in climate change to shadow the issue? What possible justification could there be for appointing someone who votes against climate change measures to spearhead your approach to climate change?

Where's this fresh new Labour Party then?

Personally I think Labour is going through a bit of an opposition bounce. They seem happier in themselves now they're not in charge of any wars or recessions, which has resulted in a detectable spring in their step in some quarters. Also some voters who had strayed from the fold seem to be tentatively returning to their old pastures.

I'm not detecting any specific Ed Miliband bounce though among party members, which is hardly surprising as he wasn't the members' choice for leader.

During the leadership election there weren't many highs or interesting points, but one of them was certainly Ed Balls' clarity over taking a new direction on the economy. I have many critical things to say about the man, as we'll come to, but I think he showed himself to be both an articulate and passionate advocate for a more left field economic strategy.

He seemed to want to put investment in public services and protecting ordinary people from these devastating cuts before this imaginary 'need' to cut the deficit right down, right now. I even developed some respect for the man. I think we can do much better, but he won a great deal of respect from former critics for his robust and brave approach which cut against the Westminster consensus.

Sadly, his virtues were seen as vices to the new leader, and having outlined an entirely different economic approach to New Labour's coy 'not quite so hard, not quite so fast' rhetoric Miliband was in a position where he either appointed Balls as shadow treasurer and adopted his position, or appointed someone entirely unBallslike in his stead in order to keep ploughing the same furrow. Miliband chose the steady option with Alan Johnson.

So where to put him?

Having refused to place the best candidate for chancellor in the shadow chancellor slot he faced a new problem - where to put Balls that was high enough that it didn't look like a purge of his rivals but where Balls could not pronounce on the economy. The Home Office.

Sadly Ed Balls is bloody awful on immigration and has a track record that would make any decent person blush on the issue. During the leadership race he raised the 'immigration problem' more than once and came up with such delightful ideas of preventing 'remittances', where immigrants send money home to their families living in poverty, which would directly result in misery in some of the poorest communities on Earth.

So now not only has Ed Miliband in one stroke refused to take a more left leaning approach to the economy he's appointed one of the most anti-immigrant Labour candidates to make pronouncements on immigration. Where's Miliband's fresh new approach?

To make matters worse Phil Woolas, who is utter scum, and has been at the forefront of Ministerial racism for some time has been appointed to hold Balls' coat while he kicks the heads of migrant workers. The man should have been expelled from the party years ago, not rewarded with a shadow cabinet post.

What a disgrace that Ed Miliband has taken a conscious choice not just to reject fresh new thinking on the economy, but has embraced two of the least deserving MPs to become his spokespersons on immigration. Not just old thinking, but some of the most backwards and rancid old thinking you can find.

Labour's shadow cabinet

So, the results for Labour's shadow cabinet are in. Let's take a look at the winners.

Yvette Cooper	232 votes
John Healey	192 votes
Ed Balls	179 votes
Andy Burnham	165 votes
Angela Eagle	165 votes
Alan Johnson	163 votes
Douglas Alexander	160 votes
Jim Murphy	160 votes
Tessa Jowell	152 votes
Caroline Flint	139 votes
John Denham	129 votes
Hilary Benn	128 votes
Sadiq Khan	128 votes
Mary Creagh	119 votes
Ann McKechin	117 votes
Maria Eagle	107 votes
Meg Hillier	106 votes
Ivan Lewis	104 votes
Liam Byrne	100 votes

Yvette Cooper in top? Who'd have thought it, and I've not even heard of John Healey the guy who strolled in at second place. All in all a pretty Blairite bunch. People who supervised ID cards, or were gung ho for war - but some names are less worse than others, I'll concede that. Still, it doesn't feel like moving on really.

I'm unsurprised that Abbott, with 59 votes, was not in the list although Peter Hain who missed out by just 3 votes was a bit of a shock. The fact that Shaun Woodward did not make it is unsurprising, but I thought David Lammy might have edged in. At least he got plenty more votes than Stephen Twigg.

Is Labour moving to the right?

Most members of the Labour Party (like the MPs) voted for David Miliband ahead of his brother and successful leadership candidate Ed. It's tempting to see this as a shift to the right on the part of the members, but we do need to remember the last time they were given the chance to elect a leader they choose Tony Blair so that would have to be some shift!

However, a lesser noticed election was taking place at the same time as all these other exciting outward facing posts like Mayor of London and Leader of the Party. Yes, the members were also electing six members of their NEC.

I believe each member has six votes in this election and, of the winning candidates, the results were;

Ken Livingstone: 88,235
Oona King: 64,004
Ann Black: 59,200
Ellie Reeves: 45,481
Christine Shawcroft: 44,338
Luke Akehurst: 30,825

Obviously, with a girlish giggle, you look at Ken's name at the top and do a happy little dance. But more to the point the members have actually elected more candidates from the right of the party than they normally do with Luke Akehurst and Oona King both in the winners' circle.

Oona's vote is particularly impressive and shows that the Mayoral result will not be her death knell in politics, more's the pity. I've a lot more time for Mr Akehurst who expresses his politics honestly and works hard for candidates of the left even when he clearly disagrees with them. He'll be a hard working and competant member of the NEC I don't doubt.

That doesn't change the fact that the members appear to have shifted to the right and good left wingers like Susan Press who, in earlier years, may well have been elected were unable to muster enough support this time round.

Perhaps this is all Kremlinology or reading the entrails of birds but it seems to me that the NEC results may well indicate that the right are slowly but surely strangling what little remains of the left in the party.

Unions decide leader of the Labour Party

And so it came to pass, the person who got the most votes from the members didn't win the Labour Leadership selection. Welcome Ed Miliband, the brother whose smile leans to the left, as the new opposition leader.

As predicted it was a toss up between Ed and David Miliband, but the nature of the electoral college system where three colleges (MPs/MEPs, members and unions and affiliates) each count for a third of the vote each.

David won more MPs/MEPs *and* more party members in the vote but because the unions gave their support so heavily to Ed it was the younger brother that won. Well done him.

Final round results;

David Miliband 49.35%

17.812 from MPs/MEPs, 18.135 from members, 13.40 from unions and affiliates

Ed Miliband 50.65%

15.522 from MPs/MEPs, 15.198 from members, 19.934 from unions and affiliates

For those who are interested in the breakdown you can find it here. You wont be surprised to hear that Diane Abbott was first to fall, then Andy Burnham and in third place was Ed Balls.

What was more interesting was that Diane came last in the members' vote, which was always the one she was going to have to crack if she was to do well. You will not be shocked to know that Andy Burnham did not do well with the unions.

What the implications of this election will be is any one's guess. Labour members will hope that a more soft left posing Miliband will help rejuvenate their vote - but let's see how they take on Post Office privatisation, the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan and trident replacement.

Livingstone rides again

Good news. Ken Livingstone has been selected by Labour as their new Mayoral candidate for London with over two thirds of the vote.


The results, announced earlier today, give Londoners the best chance of ridding themselves of Boris Johnson in 2012 - should they choose to do so.

The election was conducted on the basis of two votes - those of Labour members in London and those from the trade unions. Livingstone won 66% of the members vote and 71% of the trade union vote, making his victory pretty decisive.

One disadvantage of the system Labour use in these elections is that it constantly creates the possibility of electing someone against the wishes of the members. Anyone who remembers the first London Mayoral election will remember how Livingstone lost the Labour selection despite winning the overwhelming backing of the members, creating massive problems for Labour, if not Ken himself.

If we look at the case of the current Labour leadership vote which is using three blocks: MPs, unions and members - creating the very real possibility of David Miliband becoming the next leader without any kind of endorsement from the members.

That's their lookout of course, but it seems strange to design a system where members vote for one candidate and someone else can be elected.

NB Green Assembly Member Jenny Jones shares her thoughts on this with Mayor Watch.

Camden Labour Leadership Hustings

There was a very strong turnout in Camden Town Hall tonight to hear a joint Labour Leadership and London Mayoral hustings. I was only able to stay for the leadership bit but thought it was rather interesting.

Almost the first thing that happened was the mere mention of Oona King provoked a stirring boo from the crowd as she'd pulled out at the last minute, something that a fellow attendee told me "She'd been making a habit of round London."

That doesn't seem very wise as, with a room full of Labour members, losing a dozen votes at a stroke (if you discount all the Ken supporters) is just a bit silly and arrogant.

We then heard that Andy Burnham had pulled out at last minute too which left just Diane Abbott as the only candidate present. The other pretenders to the throne were represented by substitutes of varying quality. David Miliband pulled in Charlie Faulkner, which I think counts as a big hitter and taking the hustings seriously, but the other candidates had more modest substitutes.

Ed Miliband even had a spokesperson who said *three times* that he'd already voted Diane 1 Ed 2. My partner thought this was a tactic and about winning second preferences, personally I thought it was just a poor, poor choice of advocate.

Anyway, as to content it was all a bit of a disappointment. Abbott was strong on name checking all the bugbears of the left: ID cards, the war, ten pence tax, detention of children, bankers are evil, housing et al. As she said in her closing statement "On all those big issues I called them right and every other candidate got them wrong."

Faulkner/David Miliband essentially put up a defence of the Labour government's record and made a clear pitch as the continuity candidate. Balls' speaker was very strong on the economy and robust in her advocacy of more investment, not less, as well as surprisingly supporting the Robin Hood Tax.

It was left to Diane though to say that Labour "should not roll over and die in the face of Tory assaults" and accept the idea that cuts are inevitable, nor that *these* cuts are inevitable. She said "we will not cut our way out of the recession, we have to grow our way out of it." I agree.

Compare that to Faulkner who said a) he opposed all the Tory cuts he'd heard about b) cuts were inevitable and c) if only it was Labour doing the cutting! Both morally reprehensible *and* logically inconsistent, good work Charlie.

The excitement of the evening came with a sharp question on youth justice and the failure of the criminal justice system when it came to young people. "Andy" and Diane made good cases for economic and social justice reducing crime although it was only Diane who got a round of applause for her very clear "Prison - does - not - work".

Again Faulkner defended the record of the government and was duly rewarded by a slanging match from the floor. Frankly it was good to see some passion and good to see a room full of Labour members uncomfortable with Labour's record.

All in all it was clearly Diane's (and Ken's) audience, and not just because she was the only candidate present, but because the audience liked what she had to say. When she finished with a rousing speech about whether she "looked like a Labour leader" I can't have been the only person to have been surprised at the vociferous applause she received.

Sadly she's hardly got any MPs backing her so she can't win, after all what would a leadership contest be if it wasn't stacked massively against individual members having a proper say? I'll give her this though - she was much stronger than I'd expected and I would not be surprised if she did well in the membership part of the ballot.

If you want to know what happened in the Mayoral half check out Richard Osley's tweeting.

Good luck Ken

Many Londoners, at least members of certain unions and the Labour Party, will be receiving their ballot papers for Labour's Mayoral selection today. I'd just like to take this opportunity to wish Mr Livingstone the best of luck as I'm looking forward to voting for him (second preference) in 2012.

An identikit politician like Oona King simply doesn't have what it takes to beat the Conservatives, and although she may well keep the loyal Labour vote no Mayoral election has ever been won on first preferences alone. Labour needs second preferences to win and Oona is just too uninspiring and, if I'm honest, shifty to win them in sufficient numbers.

I wouldn't vote for her and she'd stand a cat in hell's chance of getting an official Green Party endorsement the way Ken did in 2008.

In her campaign video (produced by the excellent David Schneider) she claims to have a solid record of political achievements, but you just can't compare Ken's uniquely radical record over the last three decades to Oona's neoliberal pottering about.

Ken is probably this country's most successful politician alive today and even when he lost the Mayoralty he did it with more votes and second preferences than he'd ever had before - he lost because the Conservatives hoovered up vast amounts of the Lib Dem vote after they ran a terrible candidate with a useless campaign.

If you care about diversity in politics, if you care about London having a left of centre Mayor and if you care about London's green policies - I'd ask you to consider selecting for Ken.

h/t Ken's video via Socialist Unity. Oona's via Liberal Conspiracy.

Diane's alright, but...

So today they've sent out the ballot papers for the Labour Party leadership fight. It looks like Vote Match is telling me I'm a strong Abbott supporter, but truth be told none of them get me very excited.

It's absolutely true that I share a number of political positions with Abbott, and she's likable enough, but I just don't think she'd be a very good leader.

When it comes to war, privatisation, racist immigration policy or a refusal to take the environment seriously the Labour Party is in the grip of the right, and there's no immediate prospect of that changing any time soon.

Of course there are some Labour politicians I respect a great deal, admire even, but right now all the leadership contest has drawn out is how far Labour has to go before it seriously reassesses where it's going. Nor does there seem to be any significant grassroots revival taking place.

Even moderate figures like Harriet Harman or Jon Crudas could have substantially improved this contest and given members an opportunity to vote for someone who can articulate left of centre politics. That said they'd have been pretty thin gruel for those with firmer politics or more principled ways of doing things.

It's going to be a long road back to power for Labour I think, and I have my doubts that they'll be a meaningful break with neo-liberalism in the meantime. If it's worth anything if I had a vote it would be Diane Abbott 1 and Ed Miliband 2 but I'd cast that vote with a weary sigh. (h/t Iain Dale for Vote Match)

Is Cameron a loud mouth?

David Cameron is in trouble with the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, for being direct and clear in his speeches about foreign affairs.

First Cameron called Gaza an "open prison" and then he criticised elements of the Pakistan security services for aiding the UK's enemies in Afghanistan. Miliband described the PM as a "loud mouth" although he made no comment on the content of Cameron's speeches.

We know Miliband would never do such a thing. After all, his tour of duty was not known for either criticising the actions of the Israeli government, no matter how revolting, nor taking an open and honest stance on the Afghan situation - we didn't even need the recent leaks to know that.

Miliband's outburst attacking Cameron is in stark contrast to his mumbled and embarrassed comments during Israel's bombardment of Gaza that had to be wrung out of him, so reluctant was he to use the UK's clout for good.

During the Blair years the fact that business was always done behind closed doors was always made a virtue of so you'd see Blair claiming he was "influencing" Bush behind the scenes as the war machine pushed ever onwards unabated.

Various diplomats have rushed to Cameron's defence saying that direct language can be completely appropriate on the international stage, it's just we haven't seen much plain speaking for the last thirteen years. I think I agree.

For me a bit of honest speaking is just what we need to clear the air after years of manipulation and distrust. A large number of countries do not see the UK as an honest broker and that is unlikely to change if we continue with a Miliband style policy of half-truths, mumbling and blood.

Interview: AVPS's Phil on being a new Labour recruit

I'm becoming increasingly interested in Labour's membership surge in the wake of the new coalition government. On the spur of the moment I decided to ask Phil, long-time lefty from the blindingly delightful AVPS blog, a few questions on how he's finding his new home - Stoke Labour Party.

• Do you feel there's space for you to make an individual contribution?

It depends what you mean by contribution. In terms of an activist contribution, then yes. Our CLP has effectively been run down over a period of years and has recently undergone a split. So there is plenty of space for people with an activist conception of politics to get stuck in.

If by contribution you mean being listened to and taken seriously by other, longer standing members then the answer to that is yes as well. I haven't hidden my politics from anyone. People know until recently I was active with the Socialist Party, and some have proven curious about how we organised things there and how that experience can be applied here.

To be honest, any half decent ward branch and CLP should be able to accommodate the experience and energies of those who cut their teeth in the far left and/or other radical political traditions.

• Do you feel there's space to influence your local branch from the left?

Yes, and in a modest way I already have done. The bottom line for any socialist not involved in one of 57 varieties of party-building is to spread socialist politics the best they can and encourage "normal workers" to get involved in political activity.

At our annual general meeting just over a month ago I was elected the CLP's political education officer. Some might see this as an opportunity to lecture the membership on their hobby horses once a month, but I don't. I outline what I think can be done in the role here.

The first thing I did as PEO was to organise a monthly political discussion in my ward branch on a topic of members' choice (readers familiar with the SP and SWP will know the deal). The first discussion? 'Is socialism out of date?' In addition to this, I put together a monthly report every CLP member gets to see. This is an opportunity to plug a few hobby horses and introduce members to decent political writing they may have otherwise missed. But I am balanced and draw attention to pieces from all wings of the labour movement.

I've also been elected the trade union liaison officer. I intend to use this position to encourage the sizable number of local affiliated union branches to send representatives to our meetings and encourage them to become more involved in the political process. While it is true the upper echelons of the party have treated unions with barely-concealed contempt since Blair captured the leadership in 1994, the failure of unions to not properly use the thousands of links they have with party organisations did nothing to strengthen their hand when it came to confrontations with the previous government and local authorities. A politicised trade union movement active inside the party it founded is the best way of insuring the sorts of neoliberal excesses we saw in the Blair/Brown years are avoided in future.

• Is there an active membership to engage with?

Yes, there is. In the SP you had the inactive members, the comrades who'd infrequently attend meetings, and those who would attend and do the bulk of the work. There's a similar pattern to local Labour membership, though as you would expect the numbers are bigger for all three categories. My CLP's new executive has an activist conception of politics and are looking at ways of encouraging the bulk of the membership to become more involved in party work. Part of the PEO role is making this point of view part of the CLP's common sense too.

During the election we spoke to people who'd never been canvassed by Labour activists before, despite Stoke Central being a stronghold since the year dot. That, frankly, is a scandalous situation and one we're still in the process of rectifying.

• Do you feel membership is affecting your own political positions?

No I don't. But I cannot give a solid guarantee this will always be the case.

It's a basic truism of Marxism that social being conditions consciousness. You only have to look at the numerous examples of militants who've entered Labour and come out the other end with knighthoods and gongs to prove this. It wasn't because they lacked sufficient will power or didn't have enough Bolshevik iron in their souls: it was years of commitment to electoral politics around ever narrower definitions of 'what is possible' that did the job.

Now I'm in the Labour Party and know I will be constantly exposed to the same processes I cannot say, hand on heart, it will have no effect on me. But at least in my case there are things about my political activity that can shield me from this.

First there is my existing politics - 17 years of professing Marxist views in circumstances one could hardly describe as "germane" do not pass quickly. Second, among my closest comrades are a group of ex-SP'ers who've come to similar conclusions about Labour as I have. Third, I write left wing political stuff on an (almost) daily basis and mainly read the blogs of like-minded folk. Fourth, I do work outside the Labour party too. And lastly, I am conscious of the "moderating" influence Labour politics has had on others and could have on me.

I'd like to thank Phil for his interesting and honest responses.

Back at you Mr Mayor

To think I voted for Sir Steve Bullock second preference at this year's Lewisham Mayoral election. Anyway, he's repaid my act of charity by branding protesters against the cuts "fucking idiots" and demanded that they "get real" - all while he was chairing a cabinet meeting. That's multi-tasking for you.

So much for Labour being the anti-cuts party. In Lewisham we're blessed with the fact that those fighting the cuts find themselves opposed to both the Liberal-Tory national coalition and the Labour council who were announcing closures before we even knew who the national government was.

Last night around one hundred protesters lobbied the council over their plans to, among other things, close five local libraries, shut down nurseries and reduce council staff. For an area where unemployment is on the rise the loss of local services and laying off workers seems completely the wrong way to go.

Hangbitch who attended the protest says that "we all know that these immediate economies are false economies. Bullock’s huge list targets people we (literally) can’t afford to target."

Meanwhile what does Sir Steve have to say about his disrespect for those who want decent public services and had hoped that this Labour council would fight to keep every job? “I think I may have left the mic on while I was making an aside.”

I'm assuming "aside" is a euphemism that we'll all be taking up soon in Lewisham. I'm pretty sure they'll be plenty of "asides" made about Sir Steve's attitude in the coming months as the council prepares the redundancy notices.

Tweet of the day

Spotted this one earlier which kind of summed it up for me.

mrmarksteel Great that Diane Abbott's in leadership contest for variety - black, female and left-wing. If only she wasn't also fucking hopeless.

It's going to be a long old Labour leadership contest, with the winner decided at the end of September, so my advice is.... don't get too excited too soon. It's a marathon not a sprint.

King Livingstone

Good to see that Diane Abbott is on the ballot paper for Labour leader after a number of MPs who wont be voting for her backed her candidacy, in order to ensure that the contest was not simply between white men in suits. They may well get a shock if she does well though, but tough.

However, while the hoo ha continues about whether someone left of the center gets to lose the leadership to the Miliband franchise there is a far more important selection taking place inside of Labour. Namely, who is their best shot at winning the London Mayoralty where, in contrast to the national picture, it is the left who are ensconced in the arms of the establishment and the right who are the plucky outsiders raring to put some 'fresh ideas'.


As things stand right now it's going to be a Oona King vs Ken Livingstone stand-off with the winner to be decided at the Labour caber tossing contest late September. I'm interested not just because I'm a nosy beggar, but also because a) I live in London and so I'm curious as to who hopes to rule over me and b) we get a second preference in the Mayorals which, last time round, the Green Party officially recommended using for the Labour candidate.

This was the first time that the Greens had made a public recommendation on the second preference vote (you can see some of the joint leaflets in this campaign pic from 2008) and, while I know from first hand experience it made some sort of difference, it's not something that we gave away easily.

If Labour select Ken I'm confident we'll repeat that happy experience, but if they select some bomb loving politician-for-the-sake-of-it then I doubt London Greens would be shy about publicly critiquing the lack of progressive credentials in Labour candidate and we may well have a less supportive stance.

The two hopefuls are like chalk and cheese in many ways. King spent her time in Parliament as an ultra-loyal speak your policy machine while Livingstone has been a thorn in Labour's side for decades.

King has always been eminently ignorable and defeatable while Livingstone is a formidable customer, who walks the walk and is able to defeat real opponents both internal and external. He took on all comers, including Labour's Frank Dobson, to win the Mayoralty in the first place. His medal cabinet is unique in British politics, King on the other hand is "fresh" and essentially untested.

Labour MP David Lammy is backing Ken saying that "Above all, we need a political heavyweight. In 2012 the euphoria of the Olympics may well be tempered by the harsh realities of everyday life."

GMB union leader Paul Kenny is backing Ken saying “I am totally confident that with Ken elected as London Mayor in 2012 our transport, social housing and employment needs will once again receive the attention that London demands.”

Alternatively Oona says of her candidacy that "We can’t kid ourselves that we can beat Boris Johnson by using the same rhetoric or policy platform that failed last time. We need fresh new ideas. We need an honest conversation with London based on our values and aspirations – that’s what this site and my candidacy is about."

It's nice to hear she's going to single-handedly overturn Labour's entire policy platform, but her website gives little indication of in what way she intends to this. Does she mean she's going to reverse policy on transport and the congestion charge? Will she issue all Brazilians with bullet proof vests on the tube? What?

You see, for me, this selling point of freshness (and its related diversity) just doesn't work. Oona's politics aren't fresh at all. In the context of British politics it's always been Ken who has brought forward strong, new ideas and he continues to explore new ways of concretely improving London. Fresh and empty are not synonymous with each other.

Londoners like outsiders and, in general, I think they like the way Ken clearly loves the city. He's given his heart and soul to it for forty years or more. Where's Oona been in the five years she was out of Parliament? She just doesn't have the political grit required for the job as far as I can see and I suspect most people will see her candidacy as fuelled by personal ambition in a way quite different from Ken's ambitions that have always been tied to taking the hard road in politics.

The final argument against Ken is that he lost the last election because Londoners were 'sick off him' and that he was 'rejected' by London, but the facts tell a very different story. Year on year more Londoners voted for Ken at each successive election, despite the fact that 2008 saw Labour's vote slump across the rest of the country - something that was astounding feat for a Labour candidate.


Ken didn't lose the election Boris Johnson won it, taking Steven Norris' 28% in 2004 and turning it into a whopping 42% of the vote. Anyone who's going to overturn that level of support, particularly when Boris has not horrified most voters in the way he has us lefty politicos has got to have a proven track record of winning hard battles. Oona does not have that.

It's not that the Greens agree with Ken all the time, far from it, but he's a serious politician who we can work with on friendly terms and with whom we genuinely do share a great deal of political ground. The same cannot be said for King whose track record of coalition building does not extend beyond the Iraq invasion.

It's good that there's a choice and quite rightly I don't get a vote in Labour's selection process, but I will get a say in whether the Greens recommend a second preference for Labour in 2012 and that rests entirely on who they pick as their candidate.

The Oona file

So Oona King has put her media friendly hat into the London Mayoral ring as a potential challenger to Ken Livingstone for the Labour ticket. Her candidacy has been welcomed by quite a few Labour leaning folk who want to see a proper selection contest and have been concerned about the lack of diversity among the political class.

I share those concerns but, in the absence of Ms King putting forward any vision as to *why* she wants to be London's Mayor, I thought I might take a little look at her track record to see what we might glean from her past behaviour.

King was an MP from 1997 to 2005 in Bethnal Green and Bow, a reign that was cruelly cut off by 823 votes when she was beaten by George Galloway at the height of his powers. When she was first elected she was just the second black woman to be elected to Parliament, the first one being current Labour leadership challenger Diane Abbott.

I took a look at her voting record in the House for this period to see what kind of policies we might expect from her majesty.

• She voted strongly for student fees.
• Very strongly for ID cards.
• Very strongly for foundation hospitals.
• Very strongly for the Iraq War, and very strongly against an investigation into that war once it went balls up in a plastic handcart.
• She voted against measures to prevent climate change.
• Very strongly for a stricter asylum system (you know the one where we deport gay people to their deaths and lock up children - she wanted that toughened up).

In fact the only measures she voted for that can be regarded as progressive (fox hunting ban, gay rights, hereditary peers) were all the party line, a line from which she very rarely strayed. In fact politically she was possibly the most loyal minor bag carriers of the Blair years.

If there's one thing history has shown us it's that London likes their politicians on message and loyal to the party, so a DNA New Labourite should be just the ticket, no?

Labour Leadership race

In the space of such a short time we've gone from the leadership race being characterised as a Miliband family operation to being swamped by a host of would be leaders of the opposition. This is, of course, a good thing. For Labour to have a proper discussion about the direction it wants to go would mark a great improvement on the last time they selected their leader, from a list of one.

Generally I'll keep my nose out of it, I'm not emotionally involved enough to distinguish between David and Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham et al. They all pretty much look like caretaker leaders to me anyway.

What does interest me is that there are currently two lefties with their hats in the ring, although we'll have to see which, if either, actually gets on the ballot paper.

The left hopefuls are Diane Abbott and John McDonnell who are two London MPs who have long political histories and who are both members of the Campaign Group. Either one of these candidates would be a real contribution to the political breadth of the leadership debate and would provide an opportunity for left-field ideas to get a wider airing.

McDonnell comes in a straight clear red, softened by his personable and thoughtful style while Abbott is more of a free thinking leftist who often does not conform to type. In other words she's not as left-wing as McDonnell, but then again it would be hard to live up to his impeccable, mace wielding, credentials.

Well, I say impeccable, he's been consistently opposed to electoral reform on the basis that Labour might seats and he's also supported odd EDMs on homeopathy and voted for the Digital Economy Bill but these aside he's as sound as a pound. Not the pound obviously - but a pound.

The objections most often aired about Abbott tend to revolve around two things. First that she's on TV a lot and second that she sent her kid to a private school. Having heard Ed Balls on Radio Four yesterday I'd say that someone who is capable of being in the glare of the media without collapsing into a blubbering ridiculous heap is probably an advantage.

The school thing is less fortunate although quite why this as been elevated to the status it has been as opposed to the way, for example, Jon Cruddas voted for the launching of an illegal war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands is quite beyond me. I'm pretty relaxed about candidates that are not 100% on message, and I'm certainly repulsed by the idea that to be on the left you have to be a moral paragon.

If we compare the left's challenge this time to last time's dress rehearsal we see differences and similarities. We're obviously seeing a more open field rather than the coronation of Brown. We're not seeing an associated deputy election, at least I hope not. However the attitude of McDonnell's supporters is surprisingly similar.

Last time McDonnell's allies chose belligerence as their coalition building tool of choice. They poured poison over both Michael Meacher, who they described as fake left, and bile over deputy leadership challenger Jon Cruddas who they simultaneously insisted had to back McDonnell. This time it's Abbott who is being accused of being fake left, despite the fact that she backed McDonnell's campaign last time around. I don't think this sort of heat will do anything except make it impossible for McDonnell to get onto the ballot paper - and he deserves to be there.

Whatever the outcome I hope that one of them is on the ballot paper, although I suspect it is extremely unlikely that either of them will be able to make a truly significant challenge for the top post simply because they represent a Labour Party that does not exist - and maybe never did.

The silver lining round this government

Now the fact is the three largest Parliamentary parties are not identical. There are shades and nuances of difference and, in a small number of certain areas, there are actual, real disagreements. One of the most painful things about this is that actually this government might actually be better in certain areas than the Labour government that preceded it.

That's partly because it's hard to be as obsessed by passing authoritarian legislation as New Labour, nor are the two new coalition parties obliged to save face by defending policies that the public hated simply in order not to U-turn.

Before I get really stuck into how awful this government is going to be, and Vince Cable's Royal Mail privatisation plans are in my sights, I thought I'd take a little look at some of the areas where Labour was so poor that the new government can seem like a welcome breath of air.

------

ID cards. Gone. Both Tories and Lib Dems were opposed to these and as long as Labour hadn't won they would be abolished. There are still questions to be asked about whether they will be withdrawn for immigrants or not, but we will see the back of the National Identity register which is very welcome.

Bank charges: While I'm skeptical about the noises being made about banking regulation I was pleased to hear that there will be action taken on "unfair" bank charges made against account holders. The banks really do rake it in from over-charging account holders for all sorts of rubbish that costs the banks very little, and it causes real hardship. Any action taken on this would be fine by me.

No third runway: This was always on the cards. Sadly not a commitment to cheap and reliable public transport to provide alternatives to aviation, nor a commitment to restrict the growth of aviation as an industry - however, the battle to prevent Heathrow's third runway has won, and it would be churlish not to smile at that thought.

Asylum: No, really. The jury is still out on how this government treats asylum seekers overall, although we know they'll be terrible on immigration more generally, but they have committed to prevent asylum seekers being deported where they face threats due to their sexual orientation. This will save people's lives. They say they are looking at not locking up kids anymore, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Gay rights: Historical convictions for consensual homosexual sex over 16 are to be treated as spent and removed from the criminal records. There are still people around today who have convictions from the days when homosexuality was illegal altogether (and must declare them in job interviews, etc.) it's a very good thing that the slate is going to wiped clean.

-----

There are some other areas which *might* turn out to be a good thing, and feel free to suggest some I may have missed.

For instance they promise to end the centrally dictated policy of closing A&E units, high speed rail, action on dangerous dogs, ban on alcohol sales below cost, restricting interest rates on credit and store cards and the regulation of CCTV, and intriguing maximum wage proposals in the public sector - I'm reserving judgement on these which may be surprisingly progressive, although my inbuilt cynicism is shaking its head sadly and tutting rather loudly.

I'm braced for the fact that the government will occasionally do things I'm happy with, although, frankly, the defining feature of the next few years is likely to be economic austerity measures so I'm unlikely to be going soft on them any time soon.

How will history judge Gordon Brown?

This was one of the questions on Radio Four's Any Questions last night and one that's impossible to speculate on sensibly. I only do so now with that caveat.

I suspect that history will mainly forget Gordon. Just as John Major has slipped into the underworld of dead memories people will start to say things like "First you had Thatcher, then Blair and now David Cameron."

For Mr Brown this is a double edged sword. Few people consciously associate him with New Labour's wars despite the fact that he was second in command throughout every invasion, bombing and child murder that the government oversaw. For the British electorate it doesn't really matter how high the stack of foreign dead babies are as long as you don't call them bigots.

They'll also forget the fact that he was widely seen as one of the most competent Chancellors of the Exchequer we've ever had - until the world wide financial collapse that is, when he suddenly got the blame for the lot.

I know I'm in a minority here but I rather warmed to him as a person, if not politically, partly because, as Roy Hatersley said last night, he was "contemptuous of the triviality of politics." This was his strength and one of his weaknesses.

It seems to me that the Brown years were hard ones for Labour Party members as the media accentuated every cock up and the grovelling apologies became ever more obsequious. It looks as if they're going to enjoy opposition a whole lot more than they ever enjoyed their final years in power. If that makes them a more effective opposition then that's all to the good.

Of course the current jockeying for position among his potential replacements looks a little bit like a race between mediocrities at the moment but even so I would not be surprised if in five years time Brown is all but forgotten.

Brown relaunch

Gordon Brown relaunched himself today in a spectacular event complete with an Elvis impersonator. Brown said the campaign had "got my mojo working" before looking moodily into the camera and asking people to "love me tender" before describing his record of fiscal responsibility.

The Elvis impersonator seems apt for a man whose years as chancellor could be summed up by a few verses of suspicious minds.

His solid style is a prime example of a little less conversation but now that the economy is all shook up Labour looks set to take a hit at the polls.

Looking back, perhaps he always thought George W. Bush, the yellow rose of Texas, was the devil in disguise but in the open in was America the beautiful. Everyone involved managed to avoid jailhouse rock, of course, so no doubt that's the vindication of history.

Brown says it's now or never for the economic recovery, but maybe, just maybe the public has lost that loving feeling.

Labour: who's a campaign assett?

Following on from my previous post about my fave Lib Dems I thought it would be only fair to do the same, or similar, for Labour. This time I thought I'd go for who I thought was doing a good job in Labour's election battle rather than those I most admire.

This is partly because I've felt that Brown has been swept under the carpet somewhat (leaders' debates excepted of course) and also because Ed Balls is so dismal yet seems to be given the job of fronting the campaign far too often (or not often enough if you're churlish enough to want Labour to do badly, cough, cough).

Also the people I most admire in Labour aren't allowed anywhere near the election campaign.

Mr John Prescott

The only left-wing thing about Prescott (shown here receiving his induction to New Labour) is his accent, which puts him streets ahead of the rest of the cabinet put together.

His other advantage is that he's straight talking and, dare I say it, rather funny. When I heard he was being drafted in to rally the youth vote I have to say it left me utterly non-plussed, however he's pretty good at it.

Prescott is an excellent tweeter for example and has taken to other new media and techno-gizmos in a surprisingly easy way.

Most of all he's one of those Labour politicians who doesn't actually resemble a protocol droid. The more Prescott elbows Balls out of the way the more hard hitting Labour's campaign will be.

Eddie Izzard

When in doubt wheel out an intelligent, much loved personality not particularly known for being a party hack or as a bomber of small children.

You'd feel terrible throwing rotten fruit at Mr Izzard and in his star-turn for Labour he even says right out that Labour haven't been particularly wonderful, but at least they aren't Tories. Honesty runs through him like words through a stick of rock.

However, leaving aside the whole 'there is no alternative' shtick of the LabCon duopoly, Izzard is definitely the kind of person to present an upbeat and fresh face to what could otherwise be a slightly embarrassing 're-elect us for change' campaign.

Harriet Harman

While I've always warmed to Harriet Harman in person I'm well aware that the public and the press are not as keen as they might be about her. However, if Labour do not make more use of Ms Harman there will be a complete absence of experienced female politicians in their election line-up, and no, Sarah Brown definitely does not count.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that this election will be about boring men in suits sniping at each other and, in my opinion, that's not a good look. Labour could do well to try to break it up a little by wheeling out the steely glare of Harriet Harman.

She may be slightly off message at times but at least she's a reminder that Labour used to stand for women's rights and equality. If Gordon really wants to put a bit of mustard on all that fairness talk he'd be well advised to add a few women to his team, and he could do far worse than Harman.


Don't get me wrong, they're all war criminals obviously, and Labour is under no obligation to listen to me on this or anything else - but moving these three further to the front would, in my opinion, give them a stronger election team than the Milibandian Ballsite vacuity they make us put up with sometimes.