Political Penguin

Spotted this article over at Paul Linford’s site about how different bloggers are lining up in regard to their support for one candidate or the other.

I’ve been thinking about who I’m going to vote for for a while now and just for your amusement, here’s my deliberations on each of the candidates. just to note, I’ve personally only met two of those people who have declared for the position, but I’m sure as you’ll see below, this hasn’t in any way skewed my views. The two in question are Harriet Harman and Jack Straw.

So lets do the easy ones first.

Harriet Harman – Cannot stand the woman, I thought she was a useless minister and my views have not altered on her since. Equally and I apologise if anyone is offended by this view, but her main selling point seems to be that the deputy leader shouldn’t have a penis and therefore she should get it – not a strong argument there.

Jack Straw – Again, can’t stand the bloke, thought he was an awful Home Secretary and equally as useless at the Foreign Office, currently fucking up the reform of the upper chamber, nope sorry, my vote does not go his way.

Hazel Blears – Not voting for her, she’s ginger. Nah, only kidding, got nothing against people with ginger hair. To be frank, other candidates have got a lot of previous form, things you can look back on, judge how well they dealt with things, Hazel’s just sort of appeared for me. I honestly don’t know much about what she thinks on any issue. I spotted a pisspoor performance on newsnight of her once and seen various interviews where she simply didn’t come over well, much as I hate to admit it, style is also important in politics. In all honesty, she just seems a bit lightweight to be up for it, nothing personal mind you.

Alan Johnson – Again for me, I seem to have missed his rise through the ranks to where he is in Education today. I appreciate that to lead one must be a bit of a hard-nosed bastard at times. Put simply, I was a bit disappointed at how he caved in over faith schools so for pretty much that one reason I won’t be voting for him.

Now things get a bit more tricky.

Hilary Benn – Once again, missed his rise to where he is. Seems to say some good stuff from what I’ve picked up and comes across well and authoritative on his brief. However he seemed to jump the gun on his campaign and is falling back in terms of momentum. Politics is a fickle world where keeping going constantly is an important trait as is timing. So for me, although there’s an outside possibility my vote might go his way if he turns up with some interesting goods, I think we’re down to the last two. (at least those who have declared anyway)

I’m going to introduce some criteria here, what exactly are we voting for and why. The problem I have with the whole situation is what is the role of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and that of the Deputy Prime Minister. You see, they’re not a defacto twinned role. The problem being there is no set down constitutional position as to how this all plays out. With the Prime Minister it’s simple, leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons gets a cup of tea from the Queen and is asked to form a Government. Leader = Prime Minister, simple, we all know that one. However Deputy Leader = Deputy Prime Minister, well that’s a bit different. Some Government haven’t bothered with the whole Deputy Prime Minister role, some have been appointed by the Prime Minister, there’s nothing really to say that one role should equal the other and in terms of the job description, the two roles can be very different.

A bit of an example, John Prescott, current Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I’ve met him a number of times and as a person we’ve got on, I like his style. However these situations were wholly party political. He’s got that touch for rousing the troops that few have and I respect him for that ability. Marked against that, when he had his own governmental department I would on balance say he didn’t do a particularly excellent job. Now this may be because in the context of managing a department he was crap at the job, it might equally be that his department never really found itself in terms of the work it did and I wouldn’t wish to comment either way on such things but there was a clear difference in both the roles and effectiveness that he achieved in both of them.

This is where I have a problem with who to vote for out of the last two although Hilary isn’t completely out of it yet but a long way behind. So let’s dip into the last two protagonists.

Jon Cruddas – He seems to be picking up a lot of support from Labour bloggers. I’ve heard good things about him from people who’s views I respect and I’m happy to take on board those recommendations. From what I’ve seen that he’s said I quite like and he comes across well. Whether intentionally or it is simply who he is, he’s been playing the grassroots card in garnering support from members. I know he’s been to visit Wolverhampton and Sandwell recently, not Walsall I might add but I wouldn’t wish a visit to Walsall on any of the candidates, not even the ones I don’t like.

The only problem I have is a lack of previous form, he’s saying the right things but I don’t know how he would deal with things in different situations. Equally, we’re back to the whole question of what the role is. Probably for me, if we’re talking about motivating members, doing the party stuff then he’s looking quite good. Running the country while the PM’s on holiday and or maybe a government department that’s a bit different and I simply don’t know about him.

One last thing, I tried to contact him on something and got no reply, wasn’t too happy about that.

Peter Hain – I know Bob might disagree with me on the orange candidate but I will qualify my thoughts here. Bear in mind I’m of a generation who although thankfully were born under a Labour Government, sadly grew up during the reign of the bitch queen from Finchley. The issues that formed my political beliefs stemmed from that era and of those apartheid was a biggy. I can’t discount the work that people like Peter Hain did during that era and whatever comes, I will always hold a great deal of respect for his involvement in the anti-apartheid movement.

In Government he’s got quite a lot of form in terms of various positions and I’m trying to think of a situation where he’s done something I truly disagreed with but can’t really. He seems a competent manager in the sense of government and indeed has promoted things through his various roles which don’t hit the headines but are of great value. His campaigning on the environment give him a tick from my perspective as does (and this is completely irrelevant in a political context) his passion for motorsport that I share. He’s someone who I’d be quite comfortable in trusting to run the country in the absence of the Prime Minister should such a situation arise.

Is he a motivator of people? Not entirely sure, never met him. He could be a complete twat in person but no one’s ever conveyed that view to me. Is he’s what’s needed to rouse the troops, again, I’m undecided especially as the sounds from Jon Cruddas seem to be quite strong in this area. Equally I thought his performance on the BBC during the openign of Parliament was awful. He truly came across like a lapdog to the leadership, not that loyalty isn’t important in politics but I’ve also always appreciated his more independent thoughts and views on issues that thankfully he seems to be going back to after that one hiccup.

So there you go, my musings on the Deputy Leadership contest. Still deliberating between Cruddas and Hain with Benn as a rank outsider but probably unlikely. It does all come down to what the role is, a party role or a governmental role, if it’s a governmental role then Hain is ahead, party role, then Cruddas is looking quite good.

I’ll end on the outcome of a conversation with my father today on the subject. He’s a party member and I asked him who he’d vote for. He said Hain. His reasoning being pretty much what I outlined above in terms of his past record. His views of Cruddas, never heard of him. I won’t mention his views on Harman and Straw, you never know, children might be reading.

I think that makes an interesting point. Cruddas has done a lot of work on his internet strategy and fair play to him for that, his website/blog is quite well put together and in comparison Peter Hain’s is absolute rubbish (perhaps I should give him a call and offer my services). However, although these debates may be going on in the blogosphere, it’s important to note that not everyone’s got a net connection, like my soon to be retired parents. Their information source and ultimately how they judge the candidates will be through more traditional media sources and we must not forget that a large number of party members fall into that category.