tygerland backs Hain for Deputy Leader
Posted: November 1st, 2006 | Author: Aaron | Filed under: politics, uk | 10 Comments »
For what it’s worth, tygerland is coming out for Peter Hain in the Deputy Leadership contest.
It seems like the blogosphere is split between Cruddas and Benn, but I believe Hain’s background and experience adds serious credibility to his challenge. He’s also an outstanding operator and speaker.
More on this over the next few days, but there you go, I’ve finally made a decision. Never let it be said I’m indecisive…
Sphere: Related Content
what’s wrong with Hilary!
What’s wrong with Glenda J !?
Hain is a soft-left candidate that isn’t seen, I believe, by the majority of the population as being ‘too left wing’: So offering is the possibility of important and necessary shifts to the left, but without scaring off voters.
I hate coming out for figures this early however. Lets hear them really get going first.
The “majority of the population” don’t want anybody who was pro-War/pro-Blair/pro-Bush – they simply don’t trust them anymore – and with good reason.
That doesn’t leave much to choose from…
Dai, I hope to put together an argument for Hain over the next few days.
Traffic, Hillary? Never been that sold on the guy. He’s ok, bit of a careerist, but ok.
Richard, Glenda J? Maybe the fact that she’s not running. Also, I’d be very wary of speaking on behalf of the “majority of the population.†Isn’t that what Murdoch does?
Then that’s David Cameron assured that he won’t get elected?
As I see it, as long as it isn’t one of the ‘big names’ of he war – Hoon, Blair, Straw – I honestly don’t think most people will take Iraq as a deciding factor when they vote: both at a labour membership level, then eventually when it comes to the general election.
People are able to differentiate in their mind between thinking the war was a mistake and the fact someone voted for it – you may not agree with that, but that is cetainly what comes across to me. I’ve never heard someone (outside of the ideological, committed left) say they wouldn’t vote for someone as leader or deputy simply because of how they voted on Iraq.
Being anti-the war may be a benefit, but voting for it isn’t an automatic death sentence. I accept this may be a mistaken view, but I can’t help thinking it’s the case.
*I should make it clear (as I know how the internet is rife for textual deconstruction) that when I talk of the ‘ideological, committed left’, I mean in terms of both the ave, non-active membership and non-Labour members at the general election.
That said, it would be incorrect to see the majority of party members also taking issues of electability into account, probably before issues of votes vis-a-vis Iraq.
(apologies for filling the comments here, I’ll now withdraw)
grr – in terms of “differentiating from” both the non-active membership etc…
Actually I would prefer to back Johnson, though in truth I am slightly weary of his credentials, he gave too much away in the final stages of the Education Bill and he capitulated too easily over Trade Union Pensions.
Hain, well, I’m just not quite sure what exactly he is all about?????
[...] I said last week that I would write about why I chose to support Peter Hain in any future Deputy Leadership bid. Obviously being struck down with a nasty case of the flu (although I am now informed it is merely a bad cold), and having returned to work to a full in-tray, I have been unable to write anything of substance. [...]