avoid charges of a stitch-up

Erm, no – this is exactly what they’ve caused to happen. Abbott is a good left MP but if someone cannot, on their own steam without pity nominations gather the support of even 1 in 8 Labour MPs, they don’t have what it takes to lead Labour.

Diane Abbott has certainly done better than any other member of the Campaign Group for a couple of decades in building bridges across the party

No. There are two reasons and two reasons only why she got onto the ballot paper: 1) she is black, when the other candidates are all white; 2) she is female, when the other candidates are all male. The party hierarchy scrambled to get her onto the ballot as part of a PR exercise, not because (and in spite of) her politics.

As a veteran of the 1980s in-fighting I am also a bit unsympathetic to the ‘broad church’ argument. Labour is a centre-left, social democratic party and that is what most of its members and supporters want it to be. Why does having a plurality of views that range from the ‘sensible’ cente-left to the ‘nutty’ far-left make for a better debate?

I would agree with lowering the nominations threshold – as a signal that the control-freakery days that characterised Blairism at it worst – are over. I think Labour should also do more to promote participation by women and ethnic minorities – because they are currently under-represented in the party’s structures.

Beyond that I really do not have a problem with people having Marxist, Leninist or Trotskyist inspired views; I just think that they should find other parties to join. Hopefully the introduction of some form of PR in Britain will enable them to then stand for parliament under their true colours.

There are two reasons and two reasons only why she got onto the ballot paper: 1) she is black, when the other candidates are all white; 2) she is female, when the other candidates are all male.

The technical term is Twofer Token Minority.

“No. There are two reasons and two reasons only why she got onto the ballot paper: 1) she is black, when the other candidates are all white; 2) she is female, when the other candidates are all male. The party hierarchy scrambled to get her onto the ballot as part of a PR exercise, not because (and in spite of) her politics.”

I’m not actually convinced Ms Abbot’s race is anything to do with it; I think they just felt they needed a female candidate to be taken seriously (which in itself tells you a lot about the party – they are so concerned about their media image that they will try to get rival candidates nominated for leader).

Conor – I think Diane Abbott is quite a mainstream centre-left social democratic politician, for example in her list of campaigns:

http://www.dianeabbott.org.uk/campaigns.aspx

I think Diane Abbott has a better chance of winning than Andy Burnham and Ed Balls, but for some reason no one is complaining about them only having been nominated as token candidates to make up the numbers.

don,

That might be because they are both quite similiar to the other two candidates, so hardly token. Plus Ed Balls at least was nominated by his own supporters, not by his rivals.

It is the rationale and the method, not the chances of winning, that make Ms Abbott appear token, which is unfair on her.

I think Diane Abbott has a better chance of winning than Andy Burnham and Ed Balls, but for some reason no one is complaining about them only having been nominated as token candidates to make up the numbers.

For the record, she’s the only one of the lot that I have any time for – but she sure looks like a Twofer Token in that line up. This is a criticism of the Labour Party, not Ms Abbott herself.

Maybe she garnered enough nominations- without being in a position to dole out any patronage- bacause nearly 1.5 million BAME people (and indeed 3-4m women) voted Labour and this would have been invisible in the four months of the leadership campaign.

Exclusion is an effective a form of racism – which Labour must face up to. Will DA’s candidacy help with this?

To paraphrase- “YES- I think”…..

Why does having a plurality of views that range from the ’sensible’ cente-left to the ‘nutty’ far-left make for a better debate?

Huh? Well a debate with a range of voices surely helps people choose between different options? If you have a narrow range of people trying to pretend there is difference between them – surely that will disenfranchise more people?

Always happy to see a champion of independent schools on the list.

It will be an entertaining car crash, if nothing else.

Sunny: yes in a democracy it is good to have a range of views so that people can choose between them, but why should there be the same ‘range’ within a single political party?

How is it ‘disenfranching’ people for political parties to define themselves clearly so that people can choose between them. If I want to vote for a Communist or Trotskyist party then I can already do so. Why do you think it is ‘healthy’ for such views also to be represented in the Labour party? For the record, I am not accusing John or Diane (both of whom I have known for many years) of holding such views, but more responding to Sunder’s nostalgia for the ‘Benn-Heffer’ days.

By the same token Sunny do you think that the Tories should also ensure that every shade of right-wing opinion should also be represented within their ranks?

Conor, You have understood the piece differently from how I intended it if you thought it was expressing nostalgia for the Benn-Heffer days, which was simply a factual statement. The LC editors did omit the next para from the original post at Next Left, which did express a view about a somewhat mythologised “Old Milibandite” argument on the party’s left.

“we will all get to find out how far the pattern of preferences among MPs and party members differs. To the extent, that there is a somewhat Old Milibandite argument that the Parliamentary Party is suppressing majority support among party members for a much more distinctive vision of the Socialist true faith it is likely to prove somewhat overstated”.