Labour (deputy) leadership
Been thinking hard about who to support in the deputy leadership contest over the past few weeks. Of all the declared candidates, there are only two that are really standing on a platform that appeal to me: Jon Cruddas, and Harriet Harman.
I’ve heard Harriet speak a few times over the past few months, and her pitch is entirely designed to appeal to party members like me - women. Everytime I hear her say it, I think how much I’d like to see a woman in a leadership position in the party, and I’m all set to vote for her. And then I remember that it’s Harriet Harman, who cut lone parent benefit, sent her son to a grammar school, and has the political judgement of a sixth form council member. Yes, she’s been a great advocate for government action to end domestic violence, but as Dan points out, how could we trust her to stand up to Gordon when it matters?
Jon Cruddas was more likely to get my vote. Liked his emphasis on rebuilding the party, and the lack of ego apparent in seeking the deputy leadership and not the deputy premiership. Was, until I read this (hat tip to Harry Perkins in the comments at Tom’s):
Mr Cruddas describes himself as a pro-life MP in the broadest sense of the definition, covering all aspects from cradle to grave.
I’ve seen it pointed out elsewhere that cradle to grave is a phrase seemingly constructed in such a way that it doesn’t cover the womb.
I’m assuming you’re that you’re getting at abortion rather than being bothered that he’s against the death penalty?!
No, you thought right, PC - no friends of the death penalty here! I’d not thought of cradle to the grave in that way - I hope you’re right, as otherwise I’ve been quite impressed with him so far.
There are many valid criticisms of Harriet Harman. But I find it ironic that someone who went to a private school is criticising someone else for sending their child to a grammar school.
But if he’s a Roman Catholic (Pro Lifer) he has no place in the Labour Party as far as you’re concerned, right Antonia?
That *is* your policy, afterall. You are the poster girl for the Abortion Rights Group which wants Roman Catholics, Muslims and Frummers driven out of the Labour Party.
I have decided to support Cruddas in the deputy leadership election. Essentially I see him as being able to deliver the change that the party needs and I think separating being DPM and deputy party leader is something of a masterstroke that’ll flummox the cabinet wannabe’s
There are some things that you can change as deputy leader but I don’t think that the pro choice stance of the Labour Party is really one of them.
But if you want my reasoning in more detail try this post on my blog at 1300 words it’s a little long for comments
http://parburypolitica.blogspot.com/2006/10/one-where-i-tell-most-powerful-people.html
Just a girl: I would have thought it’s the choices I’ll make for my children that matter, not those that my parents made for me, but anyway…
Crocus: Roman Catholics, Muslim and others are welcome in the party, and I’ll disagree with them when they’re wrong. You still haven’t explained what a Frummer is, though, so how can I know whether I’m discriminating against them or not.
Will - the Labour party doesn’t, unfortunately, have an institutional pro-choice policy.
Indeed, it’s considered a matter of personal morality and there is no whip. I don’t imagine the deputy leader would have much influence on this, but either way Cruddas has never expressed an inclination, let alone voted, to restrict or prohibit abortion.
Nor has he shown any sign of being in any way reactionary on other issues that are free votes. On gay rights for example, he has a 100% record on voting for equality, which no other candidate does. I know it’s a different issue to abortion, but it hardly suggests that he is a religious conservative.
I’m sure this will get clarified sooner rather than later though, given that it’s been brought up. You can always just ask him.
Cruddas is a stauch catholic but I haven’t seen any instances of this interfering in hsi politics. Unlike Ruth Kelly.
Yes ‘cradle to the grave’ is deliberately phrased to exclude the womb.
Cruddas will come out as pro-choice in a media interview in the next few days.
If you are interested in euthanasia though…
Frummers would be Hasidic Orthodox Jews. I wasn’t aware we had lots of them in the Party, but jolly good. Mind you, there are lots of US Orthodox in the pro-choice movement (mainly to make sure that their daughters don’t ‘have to’ marry their gentile college boyfriends, says the cynic).
I have always been extremely excited by Jon Cruddas’ bid. He seems genuinely aware that Labour needs to do more to improve the lot of the working-class with brave and original thinking in government. Anyone who’s seriously prepared to say that Labour needs to concentrate on its core vote rather than these mystical middle-class Labour marginals that have dominated the agenda for so long deserves credit. His ideas for revitalising internal party democracy - such as the election of the Chair - are fresh and exciting.
But the revelation that he’s a ’staunch Catholic’ makes me more wary. Not because I have anything especially against Catholics, but it seems that much of the recent efforts to promote religion’s ugly head in politics and society have been made by the Catholic Church and by Catholics in government. i.e the pressure to drop the proposed 25% non-faith targets on faith schools, and those protecting institutions’ rights to discrimante against homosexuals. As long as he keeps his religion to himself, that’s alright.
I think too much is being made of this issue. I would hate to see something like this become a political point, like in America, and as a poster mentioned above it is considered a matter of personal morality and would be a free vote.
Britblog Roundup #89…
Yes, welcome once again to the Britblog Roundup. I do hope that like good little citizens serfs you remembered that The State decides for you what time of day it is and that you all remembered to get up an…
I’m not sure that Cruddas bit is within context; ‘cradle to the grave’ surely means after birth? Was he joking?
Watch the Compass youth blog for more, there is an interveiw pending.
Harman sucks, the single-mother-persecuting dolt… It would be nice if some good women ran…
I can’t understand Harmon at all- I’m not a Labour person but there are plenty of better qualified and more thoughtful women around inside the Labour party than Harmon- Beckett for example. What exactly has Harmon done? I don’t particularly care about the Grammer School thing- but what have her ministerial achievements been? What has she contributed? To take the other women in the cabinet- Ruth Kelly was a competent Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Hazel Blears is at least a communicator on the Today Program and she is well respected by civil servants (I was surprised too but a friend in the Home Office said she was incredibly honest and straightforward and decisive and good at mastering her briefs), Beckett has survived everthing. But Harmon- what has she done?
Agree with Gracchi. Harriet Harman is quite possibly the least distinguished of the female Cabinet members who have served under Blair. If a female deputy is required, then Margaret Beckett, Hazel Blears or even Hilary Armstrong would be more deserving candidates.
[...] There have been loads of different posts on the subject but the ones that most reflect what I’m thinking are this and this. And this is just brilliant. [...]