Follow us
With Labour Party members expecting voting papers to fall on threw their letter boxes this week,
we are evaluating each of the candidates and giving
the order that we would put them in, if we had a vote. Of course, you will vote for the candidate who best meets the qualities you desire in a leader, this could include political stance, a vision for the party or a vision for Britain. But for us we are looking for a leader who understands the core values of Labour and the thinking/rational of the ordinary Labour membership. We are also looking for a leader who understands the worries and aspirations of ordinary people, who can offer a vision for Britain- who understands what it means to be Labour in 2010-2015. We need a leader who can communicate well, who can reform the party and handle the pressures of the left, the unions, the third parties and most importantly the electorate.
The trick is to pick a leader who can lead us, who is one of us, who has real life experiences, we don’t want to tell the leader what to do, but we want to pick a leader to follow. The most important qualities a leader must show are strength and humility, they must have the ability to move on from the ghost of Blair and he/she must whole heartedly accept both the successes and failures that Blair achieved.
Method
We polled bloggers and blog supporters on how they would vote, making the rank all the candidates 1-5. In the nation election, Labour members don’t have to use all 5 votes and candidates are eliminated until an eventual winner has over 50%. However are not looking for a winner, we are trying to work out who is our preferred choice. So we averaged each candidates ranking score the candidate with the lowest score came top.
For the sake of argument, there was a clear winner, with a defined second place candidate and candidates in positions 3, 4 and 5 where only fractions apart, the third place man got a higher average because more people put him at 2,3 and 4 whilst candidates 4 and 5 have a number of first and second choices but could not attract the support they needed elsewhere often coming 4th or 5th.
A conclusion
The primary conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no stand out candidate, and that all the candidates will have to grow into the role if they. It could be argued that none of them have real world experience and as a result cannot understand the ordinary concerns and desires of ordinary people. It could also be argued that they don’t understand the struggles of those in Britain’s under class and none of them have face the issues facing the young, only Abbott has suggested a real government cut but by failing to take the race seriously she disqualifies herself.
If we are to apply the qualities we are looking for such as a vision for Britain, an understanding of ordinary people, a vision for labour a communicator and a good mediator. We could argue that not one of the candidates meet any of the criteria, I think we all hold a shared vision for Britain, but I would argue that Balls lacks the skills to mediate or manage I could argue that only Burnham understands ordinary people.
[5] Diane Abbott
Despite giving an interview to loveyourpolitics.co.uk Abbott came a 5th but very close to 3rd, she seems to embody the dissatisfaction within the labour party, and although the says we need internal reform, to reconnect and hold the opposition to account but she fails to offer us a vision or any suggestions of how. What’s more, she appears to have shown contempt for the election battle, failing to show for numerous debates whilst being smug over her rebellious track record in Parliament.
Abbot however clearly can communicate and seems to personify the feeling of many ordinary members on issues where Blair took liberties. Abbott, is seen by many as a step too far, however she does have her attractions, which is why she almost finished 3rd instead of 5th. If anything, Abbott should feature on everyone ballot paper, but she will feature in low positions and this will count against her.
She is the only one who has suggested a real government cut, cutting trident, a step none of her counterparts has taken and her standing his vastly improved, stepping from late night TV persona to a members of the established British left. Abbot finished 5th because the offers a lack of vision, has failed to muster or carry support and has shown contempt for the campaign itself by failing to articulate a real viable alternative.
[4] ED Balls
Ed Balls may one day be the British Prime Minister; he has the political experience, education and articulation. But now, in 2010 we do not believe that Ed Balls lacks the maturity, leadership, understand and real life experience to lead Labour back to government.
Balls has managed to identify key areas of Labour weakness, including housing and immigration but he also identifies employment as an issue, admitting his own government has failed. Make no mistake Balls was alongside the Madnelson a key player in the Brown government and must take a share of the blame.
Balls, a former Brown advisor, organised the cue that unseated Blair and from 2007-2010 lead the DCSF, the department that arguably lost its way most under the Brown premiership, one of the key unspoken differences between Blair and Brown, the idea that education is the key to social mobility. Under Brown education became lost under in a sires of initiatives, allowing the Tories to take the middle class high ground because they had the ability to think of reform in education. Balls is despised by the teaching profession and he is not that liked by his own constituents either.
Balls is however, a formidable speaker at the dispatch box, an articulate imaginary who can be credited for the 1998 wind fall tax and pushing though projects such as the failed free school meals programme. Balls is a child of Blair and Brown, a well spoken, well educated skilled politico.
The hard truth is, Balls has wasted his own potential ultimately he isn’t even the best politician in his own marriage. Balls was exposed as a weak Secretary of State and was exposed as highly petty in the 2010 general election, where he survived by the narrowest of margins in a safe seat. Balls fails to carry a large mandate amongst his own constituents, Balls could be a great British politician but he does not offer the vision or the humility that the Labour leadership requires. He did well to finish 4th.
[3] David Miliband
Why is the most capable candidate, David Miliband so unpopular and why are people unwilling so vote for him? Like Balls DM was a SPAD to the government, working for Blair and by all accounts is very intelligent and likeable. However rumour has it, that he was moved from Downing Street because he became restless and this quality persists in the way he comes across today.
The senior Miliband offers a vision, but its vague and talks the new labour talk and offers nothing of the radical or specific. He is the greatest orator and the greatest senior statesman Labour has amongst his ranks.
But if DM is so good, why is his little brother beating him at this point?
There are only two arguments that can be made, firstly that he does not come across well, but you really can’t hold that against especially given how articulate he is. However his record as Foreign Secretary has been stained by accusations of torture and scandals relating to extradition. Miliband has not had the cleanest of funding and has failed to engage the British public, a shame that DM is clearly the readymade candidate who has failed to step up to the plate in this election.
[2] Andy Burnham- Tomorrow’s man
Burnham, is arguably the most normal of the candidates, he is a catholic scouser, who was extremely confident whilst the Secretary of State for Health, not only managing the bird flue crises but also taking on the tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical companies.
Despite the Cambridge educated Evertonian having sailed close to the wind with controversy, he has identified himself as the dark horse offering a vision that could connect with people by using solutions found from traditional values in a modern setting. If Burnham had engaged more with Labour members, (he tried but failed) had he built up more of a profile, run more of a campaign he could have won this.
Ultimately Burnham isn’t the tonic we need at this time, he has failed to identify a real vision for labour or Britain like Abbott and Balls he has managed to find the pulse of the membership and ordinary people.
[1] Ed Miliband- A steady Eddie
Why is Ed Miliband the favourite? Why is the CLP and union choice? These reasons are numerous, primarily a William Hague-esk figure, a man who accepts the way of “new” labour but who has identified the areas where we need to take a small shift to the left, he offers a vision for the left and has managed to understand the anger of ordinary people regarding the Brown years.
EM is in tune with the environment, he has run a strong campaign and has proved himself as a loyal professional communicator, but most importantly, of all the candidates he is the one who is most likely to tread the tight rope of showing humility and then pride in taking us back into our history to so we can begin to rebuild.
Steady Eddie isn’t perfect, his view on primaries are distasteful, and like his brother I wonder if he is more Massachusetts than Moss Side, however he is the only candidate who comes close to ticking all the boxes.
He has a long way to go, and a lot to learn but he is our number 1.
The Electoral Commission today published the results of its 10 month study on whether the question for next year’s Welsh Devolution referendum was acceptable for use at the ballot box. As widely expected, they ruled that the question required re-drafting due to its “ambiguous” nature and the difficulty of understanding what was being asked. (https://extranet.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/electoral-commission-publishes-report-on-the-welsh-referendum-question)
On this occasion, I have to agree with the judgement of the Commission. The question is simply diabolically written, and far too long. Judge for yourself:
“At present, the National Assembly for Wales (the assembly) has powers to make laws for Wales on some subjects within devolved areas. Devolved areas include health, education, social services, local government and environment. The assembly can gain further powers to make laws in devolved areas with the agreement of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Parliament) on a subject by subject basis.
If most people vote Yes in this referendum, the assembly will gain powers to pass laws on all subjects in the devolved areas.
If most people vote No, then the present arrangements, which transfer that law-making power bit by bit, with the agreement of Parliament each time, will continue.
Do you agree that the assembly should now have powers to pass laws on all subjects in the devolved areas without needing the agreement of Parliament first?”
Would this inspire you to go out and vote for reform, even in these times of heated constitutional debate? However, the spirit of the issue is perhaps the more important and relevant to consider in light of increasing desire, politically and publicly, for constitutional and political reform. I will be interested to see the ConDem’s individual approaches to the proposed referendum, and how far they are really willing to go to secure – as Nick Clegg so less than elegantly puts it “A fairer politics in a fairer society.”
I am a supporter of devolution, and believe strongly in a Federal system of government for the British Isles, allowing the constituent nations to take the lead on their own domestic policies whilst retaining a coherent whole for international and macroeconomics issues at a British level. I believe that the proposed changed to Wales’ constitutional status will benefit and improve the ability of the Welsh to effectively govern themselves and to end the Medieval system which effective forces Wales to be governed from Westminster with little or no input or consideration for the needs of the Welsh. This particular referendum proposes further evolution of the “British Constitution” onto a fairer and more equal footing with Scotland and England. Hopefully, in years to come, England will also embrace this evolution as a change for the better, and a perhaps even reach a permanent settlement whereby we can finally see Britain become a 21st Century federal state, as opposed to the 18th Century political dinosaur of today.
We will soon see, with this referendum and those which are likely to occur in the not too distant future how far the ConDem’s really wish to reform British Politics. My belief is that their bark will be more of a legacy than their bite.
LYP canvassed for questions from it’s readers and came up with five points to raise with each of the candidates for the Leade
rship of the Labour Party. As the camapaign reaches it’s climax LYP is publishing the responses of each candidate in turn. First in the hotseat is Diane Abbott who has been the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington since 1987, when she became the first black woman to be elected to the House of Commons. She is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs. In May 2010, after Labour lost the 2010 general election, she entered the race to succeed Gordon Brown as Leader of the Labour Party.
1). Most of our readers are under 25. What would they take away about a
Labour Party led by you from your acceptance speech?
I haven’t written my acceptance speech as yet! I hope that the Labour Party under my leadership will show people that they don’t have to come from a certain background, or have worked as a special advisor, or been a Blairite or Brownite, to lead a political party. I have always been in politics because I believed in making a difference. I have never changed my politics to please people or my party and that’s why I can proudly say I was the only candidate to vote against the Iraq War.My leadership will show that what matters most are your principles, not your connections or where you came from.
2). How would you go about addressing the deficit whilst at the same time protecting services and reassuring the markets?
Firstly, I would reduce the deficit by scrapping the nuclear weapons system Trident. This would save billions of pounds, which could be used to protect public services and reassure the markets, without placing the burden on those who can least afford it.We need to rely less on public sector cuts and more on new sources of revenue. 80% of the current government’s deficit reduction is coming form public sector cuts, I would make that 50%. Public sector cuts not only take demand out of the economy at a time when it is badly needed, but also hurt the vulnerable in society the most. Instead I would come up with new forms of revenue: have a 50% tax for the small proportion that earn over £100,000, change capital gains tax, have a financial transactions tax, double the banking tax, and introduce a mansions tax. This is a practical alternative, and one that will do far more to protect vital public services.
3). What practical suggestions do you have to increase participation of members in the running of the Labour Party?
Ordinary members are always more enthusiastic and willing to participate with the running of the party when they believe they are being listened to. Unlike the other candidates I have worked at all levels of the party, and believe I would be well placed to re-kindle this vital link. I also intend to boost the BAME membership of the party during the campaign.
4). What sets you apart from the other Candidates making you the best person to lead the Labour Party?
I will offer Labour the strong, vibrant and distinctive voice. The party needs a leader who can lead it back to victory but also protect people’s livelihoods, and defend our values. I will begin a new era for the party; one that will work on the best of New Labour but distance itself from the last regime that stopped listening to ordinary people. Labour allowed its values to be corrupted and we became more obsessed with holding onto power than driving through change to help the vast majority. The other candidates, who were at the heart of the old regime, can only offer more of the same.
5). What superhero power would you choose to have for a day, and why?
Probably the ability to fly. I have been travelling up and down the country all summer and I do not drive so it would be a much easier way of getting around.
John Prescott has launched his new campaign- save NHS direct. Lord Prescott, the cyber warrior noted that NHS direct costs £123 million a year and receives 9.5 million calls a year and was a vital part of Labour drive to cut waiting lists from years to weeks. Under the plans the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government will replace the service with a privatised alternative with cuts being placed in training and medical expertise, other plans include making the calls premium rate in order to push up profits.
Testing Cameron
Over the election, David Cameron said any petition that gets over 100,000 signatures will get a debate in the House of Commons, Prescott has taken Cameron at face value and in less than 24 hours the petition has gained nearly 4,000 signatures. It is good to see that the Prescott activism he preached at the election is being practiced. This is a key indicator that Labour is starting to come through the dark period of reflection after the election defeat, Prescott holding the Tories to account compliments the end of a long leadership election after four long months of a damaging government.
The debate is, is it acceptable to privatise the NHS direct and has the service been effective?
If you wish to find out more visit
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-NHS-Direct/145169792182716?v=wall&ref=ts
http://www.savenhsdirect.co.uk/
There have been reports in the press this morning saying MPs have abusive to IPSA staff, this problems exist throughout parliament with self important MPs swearing at staff. This is unacceptable, although the odd swearword is acceptable under stress in frustration, if I aimed a foul language at a member of my staff it would be counted as bullying they would sue me.
Who do these self important, over paid tosses think they are? Any MP who swears at a member of staff should be sacked; they should remember they are public servants!!
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/latest-national-news/Expenses-staff-39abused-by-MPs39.6495423.jp
The Institute of Fiscal Studies, usually one of the most respected economic think tanks in British politics, has been at the centre of the todays row over the progressive nature of the June Budget. Predictably, Labour, trade unions and other opposition groups have jumped on the report as evidence of the damage the Coalition’s plans will do to the poor while the Coalition and their acolytes have hit back with some force.
Of course it is the oldest trick in the book to hit back against the source of such a critical report, decrying them as biased and inaccurate. To do so to the IFS seems very unusual however. Certainly, Tory sources are right to point to Labour criticism of the IFS after the March Budget and to contrast it with their use of the IFS as a source of integrity today. However, Labour hypocrisy aside, the rubbishing of the IFS today has been taken to hysterical levels.
The think-tank were used throughout the election campaign as an example by all parties of their fiscal credentials, particularly by the Lib Dems. Indeed, the IFS was a regular fall back in interviews for Liberal Democrats in establishing their fiscal honesty in contrast to their opponents. Today however, the Deputy Prime Minister has attacked the IFS report as partial while Conservatives across the blogosphere have derided the IFS as some kind of crypto-socialist hippie group (odd as they seem pretty centre right to me).
It’s safe to say we can ignore attacks on the reputation of the IFS as the idiotic defensive moves that they are. However, coalition advocates have stressed a number of points about the report that need examining. Some of these are ludicrous (attacking the term progressive, despite that word being used by Osborne himself to describe his budget) and some are simply clutching at straws, particularly LibDem Voice claiming that studying the incomes of the bottom ten per cent was wrong as they could include rich Oxbridge students (go figure).
However, the main criticism is that the report does not indicate Government moves to get people off benefits, or the potential for economic growth and job creation. This is simply an abusrd criticism. The report details the effects of Government tax and benefit measures. It of course cannot hypothesise dozens of contradictory claims on future growth, make solid predictions on that growth and the jobs market and then supplement them onto the incomes of millions of people. Quite simply, it details the effects of the Governments measures in the budget on different income groups in the next four years. What it shows is shocking.
As a result of the June Budget, the poorest 10% of people will lose more both as a proportion of their income and in real terms than the richest 10%. To call this progressive is simply mind boggling. The IFS found that the only truth in the budgets claim to be progressive was when measures introduced by Labour in the March budget were taken into account. The measures introduced by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government were deeply regressive.George Osborne’s claim to helping the poor in a progressive way has been blown apart by his own figures.
The most worrying aspect of this is that the report cannot detail yet the effects of the upcoming spending review. With planned cuts of up to 25% in some departments, there can be no doubt that the poor will suffer the most (as they rely much more on the state than those with higher incomes). The Liberal Democrats proclaimed that fairness had been hardwired into the budget while Cameron proclaimed progressive, compassionate Conservatism. On the key test of these truths, they are utterly failing.
I was very heartened when I read that Souse footy legend Jamie Carragher had given £10K to Andy Burnham’s Leadership campaign fund. A cel
eb with an interest in politics and a man keen to show his support for the Labour Party in public. His choice of Burnham results from Andy’s campaign being based in the North West, something that appeals to many of us who feel that there is too much of a London centric bent to things. How much work outside London has Diane Abbott put in, failing to turn up or even send a speaker to the Hull Hustings and she was the least interested in the eventually aborted “By the Grassroots For the Grassroots” event in Brough this month.
Andy’s celeb backer led me to look into who else was getting involved donation wise in this campaign.
A simple search produced a rather worrying set of backers for front runner David Miliband.
David has raised £324,000 of donations his campaign – more than six times the amount his brother raised who comes in second on the wonga front.
First up. Anthony Bailey.
Bailey is a lobbyist. His clients include BAE Systems, the arms firm embroiled in many bribery scandals.
Bailey’s clients also include the reactionary customer of BAE, Saudi Arabia, and he has represented other countries with dubious human rights regimes like Syria and Morocco and oil firms like Shell. His main lobbying vehicle is his company Eligo International.
Bailey loves to emphasise his relationships with European royalty. He brought together his arms trade, lobbying and royalist businesses together in one grotesque package when he launched Painting and Patronage – a BAE-funded promotion of the paintings of Prince Charles and Saudi Prince Khalid.
And he likes to impose his personal religious beliefs on the rest of us. Bailey is a keen promoter of religious academy schools, especially those linked to the Anglican United Learning Trust, a distinctly dodgy organisation who are enthusiastically anti Trade Union in their outlook and dealings with staff in their schools.
Since 2003 he has encouraged anti-abortion politics by acting as patron of the “all-party parliamentary pro-life group.”
Modernising Miliband isn’t only funded by royalist anti-abortion arms trade lobbyists.
Next up comes a £50,000 donation to Miliband’s Labour leadership campaign fund from David Claydon, a leading British banker.
Claydon became a Morgan Stanley managing director in 2005, where he stayed until he joined Union Bank of Switzerland this May.
Both Morgan Stanley and UBS were deeply involved in the financial crisis, both losing hundreds of millions of pounds thanks to overextended loans. UBS is also one of the government’s advisers trying to privatise Royal Mail.
David Sainsbury bankrolled the SDP. Now he is paying £63,000 to Miliband’s leadership campaign. Parry Mitchell, who made his millions in the leasing business, helped found the SDP in 1980. He stood twice for the party, in Ealing and Acton in 1983 and Salisbury in 1987. He gave £10,000 to Miliband’s campaign. Miliband is the SDP’s plan B.
But not all Miliband’s cash-rich pals have skeletons in their closet and film producer Duncan Kenworthy, who gave £25,000 is exactly the sort of inspirational self made character who hasn’t forgotten that social responsibility comes with wealth. He doesn’t work for arms dealers or bankers – he made his money co-creating Fraggle Rock and producing Four Weddings And A Funeral.
My research also uncovered some rather anodyne, management speak bollix coming from David’s recent utterings to the Fabian Society; “ “We need to engage honestly with our strengths and weaknesses so we can fashion a Labour ethic for our time that helps us define our priorities and rebuild trust with the electorate.” Meaningless waffle that could just as easily apply to a company selling toilet paper. But this takes the biscuit; “We need to understand how we find ourselves in this position and to break its dynamics and generate a different outcome.” Aaargh.
Whilst I am glad that we haven’t indulged in intercine warfare in this campaign, I want to see more of a debate where we actually point out when we think things are going a bit dodgy in the Labour Party. We became far to “relaxed” (to quote a phrase) about money and glamour, with lobbyists and the general flotsam and jetsam surrounding Westminster. Time to break out, time to get real and time to get grounded.
On the evidence of having seen David speak twice, joined a phone in (cringe worthy) and the above connections I am alarmed by the prospect of a Party led by David Miliband.
Just over a year has now gone by since convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from his Scottish prison on “compassionate grounds”, with supposedly less than three months to live from Cancer. At the time, I was one of only a few people on the political left disgusted by this travesty of justice. As disgust grew on the far side of the Atlantic, and the British government grew ever quieter leaving the Scottish administration to fend for itself, I found myself quite isolated among my circle of friends. “Where is your traditional lefty sense of compassion?” one individual even asked me, to which I replied that I believed that the need for fairness and justice superseded the need to let a convicted mass murderer die a hero in his native land, regardless of the state of his health.
A year on, and Hilary Clinton, and Congressmen and victims families are still outraged – absolutely justifiably. I found myself saddened to see one desperate mother on ITV news with a photo of her son asking why he and his fellow victims had been forgotten. The idea that these people have become an afterthought of history in the name of “compassion” is as saddening as it is disturbing. I do not for one moment believe the right-wing media hype that British “Politically Correct Justice” favours the criminal over the victim, but it is hard to see in this case where any justice has been served.
With terrible new facts coming to light, namely that Megrahi refused cancer treatment whilst in prison to secure his “compassionate” release, only to receive and respond well to treatment on his return to Libya, must further call into question the logic of this decision and further anger the families of those who lose their lives. The fact that he has been released and is now receiving the treatment he refused whilst in a UK prison says a lot about the character of the man, and the character of those in the Scottish government and elsewhere who were so desperate to comply in securing his release.
Whilst I am not naïve enough to presume that Megrahi was the only man guilty of being involved in Lockerbie, the fact of the matter remains that this man has obstructed the delivery of justice to all those responsible as much as Colonel Gadaffi’s government in Libya has.
I wonder if, now we are a year on and as more and that more facts come to light, I am still the only person who thinks that the ridiculous and illogical desire for “compassion” over justice displayed by Alex Salmond’s administration has allowed Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to truly get away with the murder.
Rumours have been flying around all day that former Liberal leader from the 2001 and 2005 elections Charles Kennedy may be jumping from the Lib Dems to his boyhood Labour Party. The Scot who took his party to an ethical centre left position quit following revelations over his drinking habits.
Now the Clegg factor appears to be rubbing off, with many calling Clegg a yellow Tory, many appear to be looking for cracks in the unholy alliance between Liberals and the Conservatives, so it was no surprise when a blog saying that everything but the deal had been done was passed around online.
Latest rumours say that although CK would like to make the switch, it’s not going to happen with Liberal big wigs already pulling him back into line, although it was also been said from a senior labour source that they “would like CK” to at least sit with Labour in opposition.
The blogosphere has today been dominated by rumours of a proposed defection by Charles Kennedy and up to 5 other Liberals to Labour. The rumour, apparently confirmed by three sources, is hardly surprising considering a rash of stories in recent months about Kennedy’s disquiet over the coalition. Ignoring the potential that this is a typical ’silly season’ rumour, it does provoke interesting questions regarding the coalition and party loyalty.
The Lib Dems u-turn on economics and support for a savage right-wing ideological assault on public services with the Tories undoubtedly has caused great anger among Lib Dem members and MP’s, particularly from those on the left of the party. For people like myself and Charles Kennedy, whose politics are opposed to everything the Tories stand for, the anger cannot be hidden by support for the party’s very mild gains in Government. Yet, while Kennedy may be furious in private and be ready to rebel and revolt, defecting to Labour is an altogether different proposition. I find it unlikely that a Lib Dem such as Kennedy who has attacked Labour from the left many times, notably on Iraq, would join a party that they derided just three months ago.
A lot has changed in the last 102 days. Yet Labour has not yet changed sufficiently. Talk of new agendas and new directions under new leadership is of course expected yet we will not know Labour’s direction in the next few years for at least another 6 months. Much depends on which Miliband is successful. A victory for David would be a disaster, a continuation of the failures of New Labour and a misunderstanding of what the country needs. A real change of direction under Ed Miliband, creating a wider party that could offer a vibrant, centre left alternative to the coaliton would be the sort of party that disaffected liberals such as Kennedy could flock to. Yet Labour is not yet there and it would seem senseless for Kennedy to leave the Lib Dems for the sort of centre-right Blairite party he so readily attacked as leader.
Labour have repeatedly attacked the Lib Dems for throwing off their beliefs to join the Tories. They are right. But the same problem would stand if Kennedy defected to an un-reformed Labour Party. I have never believed in party loyalty, believing instead in loyalty to principles over the insane tribalism that New Labour always represented. It is on this test that the Lib Dems are now failing. Kennedy would be staying true to his principles by rebelling on issues from within the coalition, marshalling the back-benchers to ensure the coalition should be anchored more towards the centre ground Liberal Conservatism liberals expected, rather than unbridled Thatcherism. A true engagement on these issues, meeting ministers, amending legislation and provoking rebellion in the Parliamentary party would be much more effective than offering Labour a propaganda coup before it deserves it. If that eventually fails and Ed Miliband changes Labour then defections would be understandable because the Lib Dems would be too far removed from their principles to be helped.
This story may run for a while yet I will stick my neck out and say Charles Kennedy will not defect to Labour in the next month!