Current Voting Intentions

Glass House Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:17:10 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

What's everyone's thinking on the order of their ballot at the moment?




If you had to cast your ballot right now, in what order would you place the candidates.

GlassHouse:
1. Johnson
2. Benn
3. Blears
4. Hain
5. Harman
6. Cruddas

tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Current Voting Intentions | 89 comments (89 topical)

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#1)

by Wiseman on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:24:29 PM GMT

1. Cruddas That would be it. I was tempted to put benn seconded after Corbyn and Skinner got behind him but a last I have will only vote 1. Wiseman


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#79)

by CockneyLad on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:27:29 PM GMT

1. Cruddas 2. Benn 3. Harman 4. Johnson 5. Hain 6. Blears


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#2)

by Lorin on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:43:58 PM GMT

I think: 1)Benn 2)Cruddas 3)Hain 4)Harman 5)Johnson 6)Blears


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#33)

by Lorin on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 06:31:59 PM GMT

changed: 1)Cruddas, 2)Benn ,3) Harman


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#3)

by JamesM on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:51:19 PM GMT

1) Blears 2) Johnson 3) Benn 4) Hain


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#4)

by JR on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:55:25 PM GMT

1. Johnson

2. Blears

3. Benn

4. Hain

5. Harman

6. Cruddas


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#5)

by CitizenAndreas on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:56:50 PM GMT

1. Harman 2. Cruddas 3. Benn 4. Hain 5. Johnson 6. Blears


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#6)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:57:44 PM GMT

Abstaining.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#7)

by Mozzer1989 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:04:42 PM GMT

I didn't know it was a list system. I'd go for. 1. Benn 2. Cruddas 3. Harman 4. Hain 5. Johnson 6. Blears


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#8)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:09:44 PM GMT

Planning to positively spoil my ballot paper as a protest at being denied a leadership vote. Go on - now give me grief about being pointless :-P


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#9)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:14:07 PM GMT

THATS POINTLESS!

:)


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#16)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:23:36 PM GMT

Come on! it was inevitable that the gordy has it stiched up. Get over the grumps and move onto Cruddas.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#10)

by swatantra on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:16:02 PM GMT

Cruddas... because I pledged my vote to him when he first annonced his candidacy; secondly Harman... because we need a balance ticket. I wouldn't worry about the rest. But to be frank, I'm not too enthusuastic about any of them. We need a person who can enthuse and motivate the average, disillusioned Labour voter, whose taken quite a mauling of late. And I can't honestly say any of the six does it.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#11)

by otware on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:30:21 PM GMT

1. Cruddas
2. Harman
3. Benn
4. Hain
5. Johnson
6. Blears


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#12)

by jkitleft on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:32:09 PM GMT

1) Cruddas 2) Harman 3) Blears 4) Benn 5) Johnson 6) Hain


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#13)

by Wildrose on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:21:21 PM GMT

Harman and no one else. I did say I would vote for her way back in the autumn.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#14)

by lastword on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:42:28 PM GMT

Cruddas only.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#15)

by doctordunc on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:34:05 PM GMT

Still torn between spoiling my ballot and voting 1) Benn, 2) Cruddas

But we'll see.

Incidentally, the Guardian suggests that Cruddas is benefiting from the absense of the proper contest...

here


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#17)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:24:12 PM GMT

Cruddas. Probably only as I don't see a huge amount of difference between the other candidates.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#18)

by krindlekrax on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:26:11 PM GMT

1. Cruddas 2. Harman 3. Benn 4. Blears 5. Hain 6. Johnson


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#19)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:56:11 PM GMT

Harman. It's the only real choice.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#20)

by grimupnorth on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:26:59 AM GMT

I honestly don't know.And I don't really care given what I'm reading about Brown.In the end, after much prevaricating, I may just abstain or spoil my ballot paper.I'm bored rigid by the whole thing.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#21)

by swatantra on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:39:27 AM GMT

I know the feeling. But, its the duty of every citzen/comrade/member to vote for one out of the six, and not spoil their ballot paper, nor abstain. I we can't do it the how can we expect the ordinary punters out there to take any elections seriously.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#29)

by petercoe on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 04:33:06 PM GMT

I don't think it's for anyone to dictate to others that they must vote. We live in a democracy Swatantra and as such people have as much right not to participate as to do so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#22)

by KimCasey on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:42:52 AM GMT

At our CLPs meeting, I voted: 1 Hain 2 Benn 3 Blears 4 Johnson 5 Cruddas 6 Harman ...but may change my mind for the real ballot. So, not much use, really!


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#26)

by Wiseman on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:34:02 PM GMT

Grim, go with me on this one, Pretty please!!! John


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#23)

by grassrootsgal on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:10:54 AM GMT

1.Harman 2.Cruddas 3.Benn That's it.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#24)

by Stuart on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:37:40 AM GMT

Abstaining. Now that the dust has settled and feelings have cooled a bit I'm going to abstain. One of the candidates has the politics closest to my own but I do not believe they have either the courage or the desire to challenge Brown. I remain open to convincing but I haven't seen any evidence yet.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#27)

by Wiseman on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:35:25 PM GMT

Stuart had meeting with Cruddas last night. Sounds like he making a progressive agenda and will stand up to Brown more than anybodyelse. Thanks Wiseman


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#34)

by doctordunc on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 06:34:23 PM GMT

Stand up to Brown? I doubt it. I wish I could cheer you up and vote for him, John, but I can't. Sorry.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#35)

by grimupnorth on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:14:31 PM GMT

John, don't buy it. No.If he'd REALLY wanted to stand up to Brown we know what he would have done......


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#36)

by jkitleft on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:53:23 PM GMT

I think the thing is, is that Cruddas never pretended to be a McDonnellite.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#37)

by jonesythered on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:32:19 PM GMT

No-one's ever questioned that - the issue for non-McDonnellite MPs was to nominate McDonnell to allow a contest on the basis that members should have the right to vote for their leader. Cruddas has made a big deal about re-engaging with party members, but voting against a contest (which is, effectively, what a pointless nomination for Brown represented) didn't seem particularly consistent with that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#25)

by serenitynow on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 02:59:04 PM GMT

I'm thinking of putting my three votes on e-bay....curious to see whether someone will pay. But seriously abstaining or spoiling.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#28)

by Wiseman on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:37:11 PM GMT

Vote for Cruddas and then we can have at least an activist. I seen him last night and for the first time I know he will engage with the membership and will not be a lap dog!! Wiseman


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#30)

by Barking Mad on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 05:10:07 PM GMT

If you vote for Cruddas only (or any candidate) then you might actually stop him winning! Quick guide to voting in the labour deputy leadership The Ballot Paper Labour is using what the rules call a single round preferential voting system commonly known as the alternative vote. You vote by numbering the candidates in order of preference 1,2, 3 etc. No you don't have to give a preference to all the candidates, but my advice is to do so. Cast your first preference for the person want to win and the last for the person you really don't want to win and fill in the rest. If you only cast a couple of preferences then what you are saying is you have no view on the rest and this could actually help the person you don't want to win by reducing the number of votes he or she needs to get. The Electoral College This election is divided into three parts. each are equally important and is really a election in its self. If you are MP or MEP you will almost certainly have a vote in each part of the college, and if they are a member one or more of the Socialist Society's they will have even more votes. I have heard of individuals having up to 7 votes. Put simply the more money you give to the party via different channels the more votes you get. In each part of the college it is a winner takes all system, so the person how give over 50% of the vote gets all the votes in that part of the college. So you could theoretically end up with a tie with 3 separate candidates winning a third of the votes in the electoral college. Isn't internal party democracy wonderful.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#31)

by jkitleft on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 05:15:52 PM GMT

you don't get a winner takes all system. You're confusing it with the Labour block vote from 1981-1993 and the US electoral college. It's OMOV. PS How many votes can you get?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#39)

by petercoe on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:29:36 AM GMT

How many votes can you get? How long's a piece of string? Seriously: you get one for being a party member, one for each affiliated union you happen to be a political fund-paying member of, and one for each socialist society you happen to be a member of. Could entirely plausibly be seven votes.

And just to be clear: it's OMOV within an electoral college.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#40)

by swatantra on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:21:47 AM GMT

I think I might agree with you here; I would have prefered a straightforward OMOV, instead of the 'electoral college', MP's:Constituencies:Unions


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#32)

by swatantra on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 05:20:53 PM GMT

Thanks 'Barking' thats the best explanation I've had as to the voting system we've adopted. It makes sense, so I urge every citizen/comrade/member to vote, 1 - 6. Don't do a 'peter coe' and opt out. I can't stand people who carp about choice, then can't be bothered to vote, abstain, or spoil their ballot paper; prigs. I'd like to disenfranchise them for a couple of elections. 'If you don't use it, you lose it' as we are so fond of saying in local govt.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#38)

by petercoe on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:27:43 AM GMT

Swatantra, if I had a vote I wouldn't be opting out (I'd be voting for Johnson 1, Blears 2, Cruddas 3, Benn 4 and giving neither of the remaining dregs the time of day).

No, for those who were somewhat baffled by your snide comment, I was merely defending the right to abstain or spoil a ballot against authoritarians like you who seem to believe they have the right to direct people to vote whether they want to or not.

I'm a libertarian - lord knows how rare a species they are in this nanny-statist Labour Party of today.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#41)

by swatantra on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:33:31 AM GMT

I guess then you wouldn't be thinking of emigrating to countries like Australia where they have compulsory voting as it goes against your libertarian principles. Spoiling a ballot paper is completely negative, meaningless and an act of vandalism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#53)

by petercoe on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:09:18 PM GMT

Err, I wouldn't think of emigrating to Australia on principle, not because of its voting system. But in any event, there is no law in Australia that says spoiling a ballot is an offence - the law just requires you to complete a ballot paper, not that it has to be valid.

I disagree with you that spoiling a ballot is meaningless: there can be any number of justifiable reasons for so doing - for instance, if someone who has radical views on the environment was deprived a green party candidate, why should they be obliged to vote for candidates none of whom represent their views? It's far more of a statement of principle than abstaining, which indicates apathy with the process rather than disenfranchisement.

The only way you could reasonably limit the active choice of some to spoil their ballot (as opposed to accidentally invalidating it) is to provide a NOTA (none of the above) option - which would be something I suspect you'd most definitely be against.

And yes, I do oppose the Australian obligation to vote, for the record.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#55)

by swatantra on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:44:13 PM GMT

No, I wouldn't be against NOTA; its an excellent solution. Ticking that box would be a positive move. But I'm not so sure whether I'd approve of allowing punters to 'write in' the name of a party or candidate, because these days, the party or candidate would have had every opportunity to enter the race. So why didn't they?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#58)

by petercoe on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:17:49 PM GMT

Err, why would they have every opportunity to enter the race?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#59)

by petercoe on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:23:18 PM GMT

I must confess to being somewhat surprised at your support for NOTA, Swatantra - an anarchic principle that entirely conflicts with your authoritarian insistence that everyone must be forced to vote.

What would you do when (as will inevitably happen, somewhere) NOTA gets more votes than any given candidate? Re-run the election until people get fed up with the gimmick and plump for someone they don't want - in which case why bother in the first place? Or just leave the seat vacant for the entire term - in which case who'll take up casework and advocate for those who can't do so themselves?

In addition it would be entirely possible that combined with mandatory voting NOTA could "win" in a huge swathe of (mainly safe Labour) constituencies: how much damage do you believe that would do to Labour and the democratic process? What meaningful benefit could offset such damage?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#60)

by swatantra on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:22:03 PM GMT

It would never happen. The NOTA box would only be filled by the disaffected and completely disillusioned, who see absolutely nothing in any of the candidates. Generally, we agree with the majority of things that a candidate represents, not all. I reckon NOTA would attract no more than 10%.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#61)

by petercoe on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:28:27 PM GMT

OK, let's take Liverpool Riverside then, shall we - usually produces one of the lowest turnouts in the country in general elections - 41% in 2005.

So there's Louise Ellman with her 18,000 votes, and the non voters with 45,000. Are you so absolutely certain that if you force those 45,000 to vote (as you want to do), enough of them will go to Ellman to outvote those who will choose NOTA, given they're evidently not especially enthused by the choice they have?

And that's just one - admittedly the worst - case: there are plenty of other supposedly safe Labour seats with rock-bottom turnout (and plenty of others besides those). You're either brave or foolish to predict a NOTA share of only 10% given that at least 40% are choosing not to participate at the moment. I'd rather not play fast and loose with the democracy you claim to champion.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#62)

by jkitleft on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 06:28:30 PM GMT

It's mainly because people think that 'They're all the same' so don't bother to vote. And also, that it is a safe seat, so not as much point in voting. I also think there should be a write-in option for ballots.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#63)

by petercoe on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 07:42:17 PM GMT

Good grief: we agree on two things - I too support a write-in option.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#69)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:01:43 AM GMT

It would just makes me laugh to here Donald Duck getting 37 votes


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#70)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:01:59 AM GMT

as often happens in Australia


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#64)

by otware on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 07:48:16 PM GMT

I reckon the main problem is that people can't be bothered to go to vote because they either don't thik any candidate represents their views or they just can't be bothered. But once they're at the polling station, they'd probably make a judgement on which candidate to back.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#65)

by swatantra on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:13:05 PM GMT

My thoughts entirely; they'll choose the lesser of two (or more) evils.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#56)

by Glass House on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:48:27 PM GMT

Im against the obligation to vote too.

If people don't vote, not only do I hold them in contempt, I also feel that nothing should be done to "re-engage with them". It's a moral duty to vote and I refuse to pander to the immoral people who don't.

Though, as I said, its not for the state enforce that moral duty.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#74)

by serenitynow on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:54:45 PM GMT

Good knowledge petercoe though some minor clarifications. In Oz you are not complled to vote, you are required to be on the electoral roll - though there are exceptions to this for religous reasons etc - and therefore at election time you are compelled to attend at a polling place to pick-up your ballot. But you are not required to vote per-se as spoiling your ballot and/or 'donkey-voting' is legal, though encouraging a 'donkey-vote' is itself illegal. As for the theory of compulsion, the day people can opt out of the community/civil society and all the attendant mutual responsibilities that confers then that's the day someone shouldn't be required to vote.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#42)

by otware on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:43:14 AM GMT

Of course people have a right to abstain or spoil the ballot. Doesn't make it a good idea though.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#44)

by Curlew on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:17:30 AM GMT

I thought that by just abstaining - it is counted as voter apathy. By spoiling the ballot paper your rejection of the candidates and this whole business will be recorded.

Otherwise : - 6. Cruddas, 6. Blears, 6. Harman, 6. Johnson, 6. Benn, 6. Hain.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#43)

by HenryG on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:09:41 AM GMT

1. Cruddas, 2. Blears, 3. Harman, 4. Johnson, 5. Benn, 6. Hain.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#45)

by jonesythered on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:42:09 PM GMT

Just out of interest, why Cruddas (supposedly the most leftwing) first then Blears (undoubtedly the most rightwing) second?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#47)

by HenryG on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:49:06 PM GMT

Good question! Well because I want to see the Deputy Leader focus on rebuilding the party and campaigning and only Cruddas and Blears are serious about that. I have much more policy preferences for Cruddas over Blears, but my second preference will probably go to her. It's also probably a class thing too.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#48)

by jonesythered on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:31:43 PM GMT

You don't think Hazel Blears is just very talented at phrasing very rightwing Blairite policies in traditional Labour terms combined with a Northern accent?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#54)

by petercoe on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:10:26 PM GMT

Be fair Jonesy: that's not an insignificant talent!


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#49)

by jonesythered on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:33:18 PM GMT

Furthermore - in terms of rebuilding the party - do you not think that the reason 200,000 people have ripped up their party cards is because of policies like the war in Iraq? Do you not think that having someone parroting Government policies to the membership like Blears will not only ensure that these people don't come back, but probably also drive many of the remaining membership away as well?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#50)

by HenryG on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:18:45 PM GMT

Yes, but that's why I'm voting Jon Cruddas first since he is infinately more preferable than the others. There rest are much of a muchness but at least Blears will actually do some work - I'm not convinced they others will want to or will have the time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#51)

by jonesythered on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:32:33 PM GMT

Fair enough, just curious! After all this job has no policy-making powers so I guess how hard the candidate is likely to work is as good a reason as any I've seen!


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#46)

by ChrisRoberts on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:12:30 PM GMT

1. Cruddas; 2. Benn; 3. Harman; 4. Johnson Wouldn't vote for either Hain or Blears even if it is 5 and 6.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#52)

by lastword on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 04:55:00 PM GMT

A Cruddas no 1 person. Weighing up Harman or Blears for no 2. Like Henry I want a DL who's going to be out there campaigning, that's why I love Jon and like Hazel.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#57)

by Group51 on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:53:31 PM GMT

These people aren't running for PM, Gordon sets the policy, and who know he may or may not listen. So I agree that the choice is who best will represent member views to cabinet for proper consideration.

1. Cruddas 2. Harman 3.Benn 4. Hain 5.Blears 6. Johnson


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#66)

by Progressive Socialist on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:54:33 AM GMT

1.Cruddas 2.Benn 3. Blears I want a deputy leader who will re-engage with the grass roots and be involved in active campaigning. Jon Crudda's impressive record in anti-BNP campaigning and the fact he is running to be Deputy Leader, not Deputy Prime Minister, mean he will definitely get my first preference. I am also impressed with the way he seems to have led the policy debate by proposing building more council houses, giving increased rights to agency workers and creating a Warwick Agreement Part II. To be honest I'm not really sure what the other candidates are offering, other than fighting over who gets to be Deputy Prime Minister. I'm backing Benn and Blears after Cruddas because I believe they are the two next most likely candidates to be active campaigners who will engage with the grass roots.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#67)

by petercoe on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:32:33 AM GMT

If you switched round your second and third preferences, there's a greater chance that they'll all count, as Benn's likely to finish ahead of Blears.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#68)

by sianlloydwebber on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 04:52:32 AM GMT

Although this debate/process is probably keeping us intellectually engaged, aren't we actually indulging ourselves in a pastime? For, in REALITY, none of the candidates will be able to seriously change any of Gordon Brown's agenda whatsoever! By the fact that Ed Ball is supporting Johnson, I'd suspect/expect Brown also wants Johnson - to keep both the Blairites and Middle England duly assured. And I think Brown is willing to listen to Johnson's populist tips. The rest are already "history"!


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#72)

by petercoe on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:58:06 AM GMT

But Alastair Darling and Douglas Alexander - to name two - are (wierdly) backing Harman: I don't think you can single out the nominating preference of just one of Brown's lacki...err, lieutenants and say that as a result they're nominee is Brown's choice.

That's what's so odd about the nominations - they're all over the place.

But yes, you're right that this is a largely meaningless contest - it's just assumed greater significance because the members were denied a choice over leader.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#73)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:13:04 PM GMT

As a Harman supporter, I suppose I ought to point out that hear Camberwell and Peckham CLP has around 760 members and is very active. Although Harriet has not centered her campaign around a grassroots theme, she certainly looks after grassroots support in her own constituencey and would no doubt show a similar enthusiasm for building grassroots support on a national basis.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#71)

by visitingtory on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:57:12 AM GMT

As a Tory I really hope that you go for Cruddas or Harman. Sadly nothing will live up to Prescott for us but I think 'Red Harriet' would be a suitable replacement. Cruddas is sincere but not centrist enough to be politically appealing to anyone beyond your core vote.

As a British citizen I hope you go for Benn. He appears reasoned, rational and centrist. He is by some distance the one of the six I as a Tory would least like to oppose. Johnson was coming across similarly until he made that ridiculous speech on private education which was equally distasteful to teachers in both state and independent sectors.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#75)

by lastword on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:24:06 AM GMT

VT, Jon Cruddas is running for an INTERNAL party position. He does not want to be Deputy Prime Minister. If I were a Tory I'd be very worried if Jon Cruddas won because (bar Blears) he's the only candidate that wants to turn Labour into a campaigning fight force again and that will mean more defeats for the Tories....


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#76)

by jonesythered on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:57:51 AM GMT

Lastword - do you not think that the declining popularity of our party has more to do with policies - such as Iraq, privatisation, attacks on civil liberties etc - rather than how efficient the party machine is?

Furthermore, do you not agree that the reason that our party has collapsed organisationally is because thousands of activists have ripped up their party cards in disgust at various policies like the Iraq war - many policies which, I'm afraid, Cruddas himself has supported? Given Cruddas has no influence over policy, how will his proposals for party structure make the faintest bit of difference?

Once again, as I keep saying - it's the policies, stupid!


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#78)

by petercoe on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:18:54 PM GMT

No, the popularity of the government is mainly related to the length of time it has been in office and a more credible Conservative Party than there has been for 15 years.

Of course Labour has lost support on the issues you mentioned to parties to its left - a lot of those policies, incidentally, have also held even more support from flooding back to the Tories (which is why when presented with a Brown leadership that whether imagined or real looks somewhat more to the left of Blair the Tories' lead widens in every poll taken for the past year).

As has been mentioned before, all Labour governments have been accused of betraying the grassroots, and all have suffered loss of support at midterm and at subsequent general elections: even when Labour was a good deal more traditionally left-wing than today. People like you will never regard any government as being left-wing enough - had Labour managed to get itself elected in 1983 on that pathetic excuse for a manifesto your sort would have been crying betrayal from day 2. It's in your DNA.

Organisational weakness has nothing to do with members tearing up their cards at policy: political parties are in long-term decline and no matter what the policy you won't get them back.

This is why the debate over rebuilding the party is actually important: because either candidates can indulge the delusion you perpetrate that all Labour needs to do is swing to the hard left and it'll suddenly have unending numbers of activists and trade unionists champing at the bit to knock on doors and deliver leaflets.

OR the party can get serious and ensure that its more limited resources are spent more effectively, concentrating more on involving supporters who don't want to join and less on fruitless membership drives that are hugely intensive and wasteful; funding local organisers rather than national staff who seem to spend their time failing to impose impossible uniform national targets instead of helping local parties win, abolishing irrelevant and wasteful regional parties in order to shift that funding etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#77)

by Glass House on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:10:31 AM GMT

Not it he's disorganised as Guido seems to think...

http://www.order-order.com/2007/06/is-cruddas-campaign-covert-operation.html


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#80)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:30:11 PM GMT

I think Hazel Blears has something of the John Reid about her. She can find left-wing arguments for right-wing ideas.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#81)

by Scarlet on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:38:26 PM GMT

I'm currently musing on the irony of the deputy leadership campaign with six candidates insisting they want to 'listen to the party' and 'listen to our voters' and only one of them could be *rsed to respond to my enquiry. Thanks Harriet. Jon Cruddas and Hilary Benn have websites that don't allow anyone to ask questions or do anything other than indicate support and willingness to help. The other three, well, just didn't bother to get back to me. Not even an acknowledgement. I know who I'm voting for. Someone who means it when she says she will listen.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#83)

by pipesmoke on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 10:33:04 AM GMT

Just voted:
  1. Hazel Blears
  2. Jon Cruddas
  3. Alan Johnson
I put Hain and Harman in the bottom two, not that it matters. I appreciate there's a mixture politically in my first three, but the bottom three change from day to day and does it matter whether a nodding dog has ever been a tribunite?


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#82)

by Redflag85 on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:40:37 PM GMT

1. Cruddas 2. Harman 3. Hain 4. Benn 5. Johnson 6. Blears That's provisional.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#84)

by SamUK on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 12:50:50 PM GMT

Just voted on the internet: 1. Harman, 2. Hain, 3. Johnson, 4. Cruddas, 5. Benn, 6. Blears


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#85)

by swatantra on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:24:50 PM GMT

In the end voted: 1 Cruddas 2 Harman 3 Blears 4 Johnson 5 Hain 6 Benn. Read 'Campaign Group puts questions to DL'.... to find out why.


[ Parent ]

Re: Current Voting Intentions (#86)

by kjp on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 03:15:55 PM GMT

Benn 1 Johnson 2 Blears 3 Cruddas 4 (changed these round after seeing Cruddas at a hust and thought he was thuggish) Harman 5 Hain 6 I'm backing Benn as I think he doesn't, like Hain, Harman or Cruddas, send out a message either willingly or not, that we've got to apologise for our 10 years of government. Nor like Johnson or Blears that we've got to apologise for our change of leadership.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#87)

by Radford Mann on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:04:44 PM GMT

It was a close run thing for me between Benn and Cruddas. I finally went for Cruddas on the strength of his essay for the Fabian Society book of essays by the candidates. Cruddas was the one who proved that he had really thought about the party's problems. So, 1. Cruddas, 2. Benn, 3. Hain, 4. Harman, 5.Johnson and 6. Blears.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#88)

by SocialistAC on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:55:30 PM GMT

1. Cruddas 2. Benn 3. Harman 4. Hain 5. Johnson 6. Blears I think Cruddas is utterly insincere and will veer rightwards if elected, but at least he's not a Blairite minister and made left-wing noises before the other five candidates jumped on the bandwagon.


Re: Current Voting Intentions (#89)

by Barking Mad on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 12:56:48 PM GMT

Did anyone see this story on Cruddas being backed by Brown? http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/6/15/65325/1987


Current Voting Intentions | 89 comments (89 topical)