Yes, at last the ballot papers are going out! The five candidates' campaigns haven't exactly set the world alight, as the saying goes, and even Labour folk seem generally bored with it all.The most exciting (if that's not an overstatement) news is the row that has sprung up between Lords Mandelson and Kinnock, among others. It's got the media interested as in The Telegraph leader and also their Mary Ridell, and of course Polly at The Guardian.
This is all actually quite good fun in its own way, and is characteristic of Labour at such times, ripping themselves apart with one faction firing at another.
It is human nature I suppose, at high levels in politics and business, to get all heated up and popping off at opponents; but Labour has a long history of being more-or-less consumed by such activities. Other parties tend to be more level-headed overall and less factionalised (a word being bandied about by the battling Lords), though they all seem to have a degree of that.
With a party based around hatred (based on class, which brand of Communism one follows, etc) such as Labour, perhaps it isn't all that surprising that their internal disputes go way beyond what would be normal elsewhere.
UPDATE: Iain Martin has a sensible take on all this...
The current disharmony threatens to kill off the party's chances of returning to office, some pundits are saying, while others say they cannot even become a good opposition the way they are going. A few think the party is dying and is even now beyond any reasonable hope of recovery.
Could it be that the initials of the leadership contenders spell out a message for Labour? Let's check, in order of current likelihood of winning:
- David M
- Ed M (and Ed B?)
- Andy B
- Diane A
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome, with 'clean' language, though not anonymous attacks. Note that comment moderation is enabled, and anonymous comments have again been disallowed as the facility has been abused.