Diane Abbot won it by a mile.

The others were an articulate enough bunch of apparatchiks, but none of them really seem to believe in anything other than their careers.

I’m a little surprised, but Andy Burnham was the only one could pass for a member of the human race. The rest (including Diane) were in full debate school mode, rushing to speak over each other all the time.

Burnham wasn’t as intellectually strong or tight as David Miliband, but he was probably the only one who I didn’t hate more the more they spoke.

Ed M really doesnt come across well on television which is a major problem for him as an ability to communicate through the media is a basic requirement. Didnt rate Andy B at all, sort of Blairism with a northern twist. Diane A made some good points (liked her point about how things seem different from the bottom looking up) but wasnt convinced she is the right person. Thought both David M and Ed B did OK reasonably assured TV performers. David is clearly an “intellectual” (answer re Anthony Crossland perfect example) made some good points but I remain unconvinced that he can show the common touch needed. I thought Ed was possibly too tribal and did think he missed a real opportunity to show off his undoubted economics knowledge by not demolishing the “government spending is way to high” question.

Given the choice of the 5 of them still tending to Ed B 1st, David M 2nd but not made up my mind.

This will change nothing.

Not so sure, most of the candidates and their policy positions are not that well known. Also, the more debates there are the stronger Diane Abbott will get. At the moment, the criticism against her is that she is the “token candidate” or a “vote-loser”. No sign of that in this debate. Indeed Crick briefly mentioned that she did very well with the, admittedly small, studio audience.

pretty much. David most focused, but completely wrong on policy. If you like current Labour policy completely, clearly best choice. Otherwise, Abbott only one showing any analysis of problems that isn’t useless. Burnham out of depth.

Balls seemed very keen to show what I’d think are best described as xenophobic credentials. Perhaps been Northern myself made me feel Burnham probably connected well in personality, but his policies seem even more closely associated with what failed than even David Miliband’s. Neither of the Miliband’s really came across that well as leaders. Diane Abbot sadly isn’t as left as I’d hoped and her debating style isn’t very connecting, although some of her points were – McDonnell would have been a far better candidate as can be seen by the GMB conference where he was clearly most popular as he stuck to socialist principles. If I had to paint them on a left to right scale from this one debate I’d say: Abbott, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham. Abbot is going to have to do a lot more to convince me to vote for her rather than spoiling my voting forms.

“Diane Abbot sadly isn’t as left as I’d hoped ”

I don’t think she’s remotely left wing. She wanted to oust a (real socialist) Labour MP in the 80s so pretended (as so many others did) to be a leftist to get her foothold. Now its no longer fashionable; shes turned her coat.

“Abbot is going to have to do a lot more to convince me to vote for her rather than spoiling my voting forms.”

But what good has abstentionism ever done? In your case, probably make it more likely that the most right-wing candidate wins.

“Diane Abbot sadly isn’t as left as I’d hoped ” Please explain. Her voting and speaking record in Parliament has shown she is easily amongst the top 5% of Labour MP’s in terms of socialist principles.

Now its no longer fashionable; shes turned her coat.

And I thought only right-wingers were capable of puritanical hyperbole.

I think I’ll give my first and second prefs to Ed M and Abbott, possibly not in that order. They are the only two who I’m not ashamed to be in the same party as. David M and Burnham were both far too Blairite (especially Burnham, who was disturbingly authoritarian and pro-war), while Burnham’s and Balls’s statements on immigration were quite worrying. David M and Burnham both indicated that the 50p tax rate should be temporary, while Ed M and Abbott wanted it permanent.

[7] Yeah, a real socialist MP (Ernie Roberts) who wouldn’t tell his party activists how old he was, wouldn’t help his constituents with their problems with the Council & was a liability on the doorstep. How do I know? Well, I was the agent for the CLP in the 1982 Council elections. Diane is, and always has been, a middle-for-diddle Tribunite.

The point about her candidacy is not that she can win – we know that she’ll only get a couple of dozen MPs’ votes – but to show the disconnect between the Parliamentary Party and the membership in the country. This is now worse than it was when Tony Benn sought to democratise the Party after the 1979 defeat.

There’s something really weird about DM on television. He comes over as weird and remote. Semi-autistic, even. The last thing Labour needs is an English version of Gordon Brown.

I think MatGB said it best above…apart from the fact that Andy B looks also like a singer from an 80s new romantic band…

Even quicker thought: Kill me now.

A more considered response: My feeling that Burnham was going to be the Hazel Blears/Continuity New Labour candidate was pretty much spot-on: he’s obviously happy to die in the last ditch defending ID cards in the name of honest Northern folk. D Miliband wants to make it about who is the most ‘Prime Ministerial’ – and he didn’t convince: he’s still peddling the New Labour canard that passing the Human Rights Act entitles the government to pass legislation in breach of it, plus there’s his record of fighting the courts every step of the way on extraordinary rendition and torture to consider. In football parlance (the topical yet annoying ‘frame’ for the debate), Ed Balls is a wannabe midfield enforcer lobbying for the return of two-footed tackles (see immigration). E Miliband misheard/misinterpreted the ‘Best PM Labour Never Had’ question (but mentioning Attlee probably pressed the right buttons, unlike his brother’s wonkish but revealing choice of Crosland), though he almost had a sense of where Labour had gone wrong – a sort of Cruddas-lite, perhaps. As for Abbott, all she had to do was stand in the middle and let the audience know that none of the mess was her fault and she’d never signed up to any of New Labour’s worst excesses (being black and female signifies this very well in that respect). That was particularly true of Iraq, where the other four all seemed to be trying for variations on the ‘Scooby Doo Defense’: that the whole thing would have been brilliant if it wasn’t for the pesky absence of WMD. I particularly loved Burnham’s argument that if the inspectors had demonstrably proven there were no WMD, Iraq would have erupted in a bloody civil war…as opposed to the bloody civil war that followed the invasion.

In summary: not looking good just yet, whoever wins.

As a Conservative, I found the Newsnight debate depressing in a way the New Statesman Church House event wasn’t. Diane Abbott came across as the strongest performer and the only real human being. I had expected David Miliband to be better.

I am not one of those Conservatives who would want Labour to be led by a terrible candidate and sure-fire loser. I think that would be bad for democracy and that it is best when there is a strong, plausible opposition. If I did wish Labour ill, I’d be crossing my fingers for Ed Balls to win.

I guess Sunny is right: Ed M came over best among those who have a chance of actually winning. David M certainly needs to raise his game. But there must be a lesson in there somewhere arising out of Abbott’s undoubted popularity….. though I’m not sure precisely what it is.

But there must be a lesson in there somewhere arising out of Abbott’s undoubted popularity….. though I’m not sure precisely what it is.

…that the other four symbolise a disconnection from the party and the country at large? That the voters could be persuaded by a more centre-left agenda than they got from New Labour, and are likely to get from the other four?

redpesto @ 16

the other four symbolise a disconnection from the party and the country at large?

To the outsider it is puzzling that so many people here view being “Blairite” or “New Labour” means they are seen as being disconnected from the country at large. Blair was Labour’s most popular and successful leader ever, winning an unprecedented three terms. It was only when Brown started pulling the Labour government in a (slightly) different ideological direction that Labour lost office. Even then, Labour didn’t lose terribly badly. A fourth term wasn’t really on the cards, and Labour did deny Cameron a clear majority. So, when all’s said and done “Blairites” and “new Labour” could be presented as having a record of popular and political success that previous incarnations of Labour could only dream of. So why are these people so frequently dissed and reviled? Just askin’.

Flowerpower: well, that would explain the repeated insistence that ‘more Blair’ (as it were) will get Labour back all that lost support – but that would also mean ‘More of the Same’ with a ‘Blair 2.0′ they don’t seem to have just yet, and in the face of an apparently ‘detoxified’ Tory party…especially as ‘Cleggeron’ could be said to be trying to embody precisely that same approach, even if it takes the two of them to do so. Brown didn’t so much pursue a slightly different course as find the whole thing crash on his watch as PM.

Flowerpower: It’s worth repeating that a monkey could have defeated the Tories in the first election, and Blair didn’t win the third. Half way through the election he was already discredited and the polls were looking bad, so he became umbilically attached to Brown on an implicit “buy Blair, get Brown soon” promise. This history was very rapidly revised by the Blairites after the election.

My quick thoughts is Labour is up shit creek without a paddle if this is the best they can do.

Most of them were completely oblivious to the damage done by their attack on civil liberties. In fact , it was quite alarming that some of them still had no problem with id cards. Diane was the only one to say any sense on that.

They all played the, if we knew then what we know now line on Iraq, which is bullshit. Except once again Diane.

New Labour is finished and the sooner they get the message the better.

Gastro George @ 19

Half way through the election he was already discredited and the polls were looking bad, so he became umbilically attached to Brown on an implicit “buy Blair, get Brown soon” promise.

If so, that promise was expressed as a solemn commitment on Blair’s part to serve ‘a full term’. When pressed as to what ‘a full term’ might be, we were told something close to 4 years.

I thought that “buy Blair, get Brown” meme was one of ours. Clearly some blowback goin’ on.

I am not one of those Conservatives who would want Labour to be led by a terrible candidate and sure-fire loser. I think that would be bad for democracy and that it is best when there is a strong, plausible opposition. If I did wish Labour ill, I’d be crossing my fingers for Ed Balls to win.
I don’t believe a word. You would be quite happy to be in power as long as the Japanese conservatives.
Nick Cohen, a fellow Tory, hates Balls I wonder why ?

Ed Balls for Labour leader?

Try this: Ed Balls ‘ran’ Labour’s smear unit
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6122756.ece

Ed Balls was Gordon Brown’s economic adviser from 1994 through 2005 when he became an MP. Presumably, he was there while Gordon Brown claimed to have abolished Boom ‘n’ Bust and established the financial regulatory system which so lamentably failed in the financial crisis – 120% mortgages, anyone, and a £1.4 trillion consumer debt mountain?

Ed Balls’ wife, Yvette Cooper, was the minister responsible for housing 2005-08:

“Housebuilding fell to its lowest level for more than 60 years in 2009 – with just 118,000 new homes completed, according to government figures. The number is the lowest since 1946, when official records began and represents a 17 per cent drop on the number completed in 2008.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/construction_and_property/article7032641.ece

I’m sure the Conservatives would be delighted if Ed Balls became Leader of the Opposition

Nick Cohen, a fellow Tory, hates Balls I wonder why ?

I know Cohen was deeply shaken by an encounter with Charlie Whelan in a Soho pub. From Whelan to Balls is but one small step.

RedPesto and Gastro George get it spot on.

Labour would have won with Basil Brush as leader in ’97. Blair was a slick media professional but his popularity has been vastly overstated. In many ways he was a disasterous leader. He had the immense fortune to be leader at a time when the only significant opposition was completely discredited and kept selecting a sucession of hopeless leaders. Compared to ’97 Labour lost 2.8 million votes in 2001 and a further 1.2 million deserted the party in 2005. They also saw their party structure decimated at local level badly damaging their ability to campaign effectively. The right wing direction of their policies and the disaster over Iraq fractured their base. I can’t think of another party who have treated their base with the same level of contempt as New Labour did post ’97.

The New Labour economic fairy story was built entirely on debt – without debt we would been in a deflationary spiral post 2001- and was bound to end in tears.

Labour needs a convincing coherent narrative on how they would do the economy and welfare state better than the Tories. They also need to do what Brown never had the guts to do – make the case for decent progressive taxation – including a proper wealth tax- in order to deliver the kind of welfare state that you would expect in a modern European social democracy. You can’t do it by stealth – you have to do it by winning the ideological battle.

Crikey its not that difficult – the permanent structural deficit that needs to be filled is £40 billion – the wealth (primarily shares, pensions and property) of the top 20% of the population is well over £6000 billion. A tiny annual wealth tax and the removal of the national insurance ceiling would pay for it twice or three times over.

Most of all you can’t do by running a big structural deficit which can then be dismantled by the incoming Tory adminstration.

I think any one of them would make a competent opposition leader. Only one of them looks like a plausible PM. In the end we have to decide how serious we are about winning again.

“I know Cohen was deeply shaken by an encounter with Charlie Whelan in a Soho pub. From Whelan to Balls is but one small step.”
Tell me more, Whelan wouldn’t serve him a pint.
Nick Cohen does seem to be a chap who takes offense very easily. Look at his spat with Hari. He called Hari a Maoist for the “crime” of disagreeing with his book.