The polls closed on the Labour leadership election earlier today. I voted last week, before the Question Time special was aired (which I barely watched anyway).
I didn’t choose how to vote by reading all the tittle-tattle in the press. I tried to ignore all the guff about personalities and concentrate on my own opinion. I also tried not to ‘game’ it by trying to think about who would be a more favourable candidate in the media or who the Tories claimed to be scared of. Whoever wins will have to face a hostile press and the Tories anyway.
But I did skim their manifestos as provided to Harry Barnes and his Dronfield Blather site. Well done to Harry for getting all five candidates to submit something over the summer. The only one of the five who I saw talk was Andy Burnham who visited Rugby at the end of August. So, how did I vote (if you care, of course)?
- Andy Burnham
- Ed Milliband
- David Milliband
- Diane Abbott
And why? Well, first of all I don’t like Ed Balls for leader at all. And as he was my number 5, there’s actually no point putting his name on the list at all (because you can only ever have your first four preferences count with five candidates in the AV system). Diane Abbott is probably the one I’d have most in common with in terms of policy, but I think she’d be divisive and when I’ve seen her she comes across to me as arrogant.
Really, it was about which Milliband I liked best. Ed is pitching slightly to the left, David is suggesting we should stay the course. For me, the problem for the last 8-9 years is that we’ve become stagnated on the New Labour path, and we need a refresh. So I plumped for Milliband Beta over Milliband Alpha.
Which leaves my top choice. I don’t know if Andy Burnham can win it, and it seems unlikely, but I did want to register a vote for a non-Milliband, and of the three it is only Andy Burnham who seems to me to represent the ‘normal’ party. He does have some interesting policy ideas, and he does want to change the focus of the party so that it more devoted to the people that it was set up to represent.
September 23, 2010 at 11:00
1) Ed Milliband
2) Diane Abbott.
Like you, I think Diane’s views are closest to mine, and therefore as a vote is meant to be who you think will best represent you I had to include her, but I am not sure if she will be a strong enough leader for the party.
I don’t really understand how the second etc votes will be weighted so I voted Ed M first, as I really don’t want Balls and was worried that it might make a difference.
It took me a long time to choose the order, and that was with just two. Andy Burnham…… not sure, he sounded good, but not as close to me as Abbott, and not as likely to get the union and MPs vote as the Millibands / Balls.
Oh well, not long know to find out.
September 23, 2010 at 16:18
Ironically I thought Balls would probably be my choice in regards to general policy leanings, but as a leader I don’t think he quite cuts it (and moaning publicly about the union influence put him down a notch for me). I went for Ed too, although I’ll admit that the union vote probably swung me that way. I can’t remember what order I put the others in as after the first two choices I don’t have much of a preference. I think we all accept that its one of the two M’s anyway.
September 23, 2010 at 18:05
mrs wormwood: As far as I’m aware, the weighting is 1. Meaning that if your no1 is eliminated, then your no2 would get a whole vote (assuming they were still in, otherwise your no3 would get it and so on).
So, if you wanted to stop Balls (or another candidate), your best bet would be to vote for all of the others in some order, rather than leave preferences blank.
Mind you, chances are that your 1st preference will remain until the end – and will probably outlast Abbot anyway, so it’s probably moot.
September 24, 2010 at 15:18
Ahhh, should’ve Abbott, EM then…..
September 24, 2010 at 17:48
Well, no. You should have voted the same way I did, because I’m obviously always right 😉
September 26, 2010 at 17:28
yes dear (pats head)
EM won though! just.