A quieter day in the leadership campaign today, as Tony Blair again dominated the airwaves. Whether or not it was a deliberate strategy, it's probably for the best that today was a quiet day in the race. Very little would have made much of an impact today, and a quiet day in the media avoids "feeding the beast". Instead, the candidates concentrated on electioneering to those lucky enough to have their ballot papers already...
DAVID MILIBAND has been in the North West, starting in Bolton, then Preston where he did a Q&A with the Lancashire Evening Post before meeting Unite members at BAE Systems. He then moved on to St Helens and finished the day at a rally in Liverpool with John Hannett (General Secretary, Usdaw), Stephen Twigg MP, Dave Rowntree from Blur and Louise Ellman MP.
In perhaps the most interesting act from a candidate today, David confronted the Blair issue head on with an email to party members, in which he said:
"I’m sick and tired of the caricature that this leadership election is a choice between rejecting or retaining New Labour. It does a disservice to all of the candidates and, even worse, a disservice to the thousands of members who’ve been participating in this contest over the last few months and working hard for years."
Today Diane Abbott gave a speech at Policy Exchange this morning and talked about how Labour should respond to the government’s Big Society agenda and give her vision on how civic society can be strengthened. You can read the full speech below.
"The Left should take leadership on issues around the family and community
My fellow leadership candidates and I have been criss-crossing the country this summer on the leadership trail. From the Highlands of Scotland to South Coast, from Wales to East Anglia, we have taken part in specially staged debates for the delectation of party members.
The media have written off this process as tedious in the extreme. The grander Guardian columnists have obviously met the Miliband brothers at innumerable smart North London dinner parties. What use they argue of a democratic process. Let the Toynbees and the Aaronovitches be the arbiters! And I have to admit that the contest so far has not exactly been “Pop Idol”.
This afternoon I listened to Tony Blair being interviewed on Radio 5 by Richard Bacon, and watched his interview with Andrew Marr again. The one thing that jumps out at you when you’re watching (or listening) to Blair, is the supreme self-confidence that he has – something that no British politician since has managed to convey. Much attention has been given to Blair’s comments in his book that Brown is a “strange” man, but surely if anything Blair is even stranger.
What kind of person has this extreme, unbounded self-confidence and drive? Is it not a strange kind of person who could return to the political stage after three years and dominate it, completely, while at the same time taking part in high-level peace talks). None of the leadership candidates have this frightening self-belief, at least not yet. Perhaps this is for the best. There can be few in the world who have such feelings, whether they are an ability or a handicap. What the Labour Party is looking for next is not a clone of Tony Blair. It's also very clearly not what Cameron is either. Any attempts to paint him, or any other British politician as such a replica should be rebuffed.
It’s probably fair to say that the 2010 Labour leadership contest hasn't been the most exciting campaign ever fought. It's certainly been less fiery than the Tory battles in either 2001 or 2005, but I reckon that's probably because we are not as ideologically divided a party as the Tories were and, deep down, still are. But after three months of campaigning, the ballot papers are hitting our doormats. It’s decision time - and in my case, and no doubt others, I've changed my mind during the campaign. My first preference will be going to Andy Burnham.
I could happily live with some of the other candidates. Both Miliband brothers would make excellent leaders, and the most important thing is that whoever we elect becomes the next Prime Minister.
On the night of the Marr interview with Blair and the Channel 4 leadership hustings I, perhaps somewhat begrudgingly, had to be in the community public hall for a 7PM Annual General Meeting. Now whilst I have the pleasure of Sky+ to record such programmes, the prospect of a community AGM is never a truly exciting one – a small group of people in a large hall, rich tea biscuits, adoption of an annual report, confirmation of minutes and the like. Hardly as exciting as hearing from Tony Blair after three years of silence, or so I thought.
I have spared a moment to look up from my copy of "A Journey", the fastest-selling autobiography of all time, to consider the plight of Christopher Myers. Myers was, very briefly, a special adviser to the foreign secretary William Hague. He resigned this week after Paul Staines reported on his blog that he and Hague had shared a hotel bedroom. Hague has denied any impropriety, but the young man has had to go anyway.
I feel enormous sympathy for him. The story has gone from internet gossip to front-page news within a single news cycle, and his resignation has been brutal and swift. It has raised lots of questions about the role of special advisers, and revealed, yet again, the colossal degree of ignorance about their role and function.
Ballot papers to select Labour’s candidate for London Mayor will be dispatched next week. Ken or Oona: our previous, successful Mayor or the lively, personable former MP?
It’s a hard choice, but one Labour Party members have to make. I have come to my decision. It quite simply has to be Ken.
As a feminist and a longstanding campaigner for more women in public life, I would dearly like to support a female candidate, this would be my natural choice and what people would expect me to do. I find it a real shame that there is no woman standing as Labour Mayoral candidate who has the right experience.
Ed Miliband is right; the process by which parents can vote on whether to maintain academic selection simply doesn't work. Yes, we need a review: justice demands it. The policy that Miliband wants to review allows selective entry into grammar schools to remain unless a majority of local eligible parents vote for it to change or grammar school governing bodies decide to change their admission policies to admit children of all abilities. To date, no governing bodies have done this. Before a ballot can be held, 20% of eligible parents in the areas concerned must sign a petition calling for a ballot. To require all of the 164 grammar schools in England to take children of all abilities would need 48 petitions and ballots.
A massive day in the leadership contest today, as ballot papers begin to drop on doormats across the country, the candidates face each other in a live televised debate on Channel 4, and someone called Tony Blair has released a book that may be of some interest...
"We believe he has the intellect, talent and experience to take on the Tories - and eventually become PM."
"And we urge all those with a vote in the contest to rally behind him."
"Backing Mr Miliband has not been an easy decision. All five candidates have something to offer."
"But all Labour supporters agree on onething: the party must reconnect with the people. The Mirror firmlybelieves David Miliband is the man to steer Labour to this recovery."
Thirty two. That’s the total number of new academies opening today under the government’s so-called "school’s revolution".
There are around 20,000 schools in the country so a massive 0.16% of schools have joined Mr Gove’s brave new world.
It is an understatement to say that this paltry number will be a disappointment to hapless Education Secretary Michael Gove, who has said that he wants to see academies become “the norm” for every school in England.
Gove has staked his reputation on establishing a market in school places before spending cuts mean that the surplus capacity in the system necessary to give parents to kind of open choice of school place he wants is removed.
Yoosk have been collating questions for the leadership candidates over the past few weeks. Ed Balls is the fourth candidate to face the Yoosk team, and answers questions on his biggest weakness, his popularity (or otherwise), and university places.
This is about making your vote in the Labour party leadership election this week do what you want it to do, and how not to make it self-defeating. It's not about who I think you should vote for. So in the examples I give, I have given the five candidates pseudonyms: A, B, C, D and E. For the purposes of this article, I am taking the view that the only two candidates for the Labour leadership who possess the basic qualities required in a party and national leader are "C" and "B"; and that of those two, "C" seems to me to have the edge over "B" on policy and values, and moreover to look reasonably 'papabile'. However, of the five candidates, only "A’s" views on almost all major issues chime with mine – on the UK nuclear deterrent, Iraq and Afghanistan, other foreign wars, prisons, terrorism, civil rights, taxation, the economy, and more.
A recent article in the Guardian has vividly illustrated the extent that the British workers movement became entwined in Cold War machinations during the post-war period. We're talking about millions of dollars, much of which would have gone to the families of striking miners. The Thatcher government desperately wanted to stop the money arriving in the UK. Both they and the NUM knew that in the final analysis, only the Soviets could provide this kind of financial backing to enable the organisation and continuation of the miners strike.
In this specific instance, the government had of course already frozen the NUM's funds and sequestrated its assets. The miners' resulting dependence on external help reflects that they had been effectively outmanoeuvred at every stage, by a government determined to wage a fight to the bitter end. It also illustrates that when thrown back on its own resources, the labour movement was not as strong, or as well-resourced, as appearances might suggest.
A first major test for the coalition arrives on September 9th in terms of the council by-elections in Norwich. Based on my experience, there are some encouraging signs for Labour. I haven’t been able to get up there so I’ve been phoning electors. Although phoning people is not a method I prefer, you don’t get the "false positives" that occur on the doorstep, when if you smile at people (and especially if you’re wearing a suit) Tories will sometimes say that they support you. On the phone, they can just tell you to go away.
In the ward that I’ve been working, it’s been like pushing at an open door. Although I have been adopting the recommended neutral approach, Labour voters have been falling over themselves to tell me how loyal they are to Labour and how much they dislike the coalition. The cuts to elderly peoples’ benefits have clearly got under the electors’ skins and are mentioned most often as an issue. I have come across just one Green in the entire ward, even though the Greens infested Norwich during the European elections and at one point we risked losing our candidate.
History never repeats itself; at best it sometimes rhymes. So said Mark Twain and in immediate defiance of this dictum, the quote has been repeated over and over. So one more time is neither here nor there. It is not too extravagant a guess to suppose that this sentiment is applicable to economic history.
And there are two predominant versions of economic history out there in the political market place. One is articulated by George Osborne and the other by Ed Balls. If the latter wins the Labour leadership then it will be an economic and political death match between the two visions. Only one can win and if you win, you win big and if you lose, you’re broke.
Today I’m setting out the details of what we understand the scale of the cuts in London is shaping up to be. Our argument is simple – London can’t afford the cuts.
We have both a responsibility explain why it is wrong not just from the point of view of the human cost but the cost to future growth and prosperity to take an axe to jobs, services and pay. And the first opportunity to send a message by removing a powerful incumbent Conservative politician will be in London in 2012.
Reports tend to focus on individual years of the budget cuts. But taken across the period set out in George Osborne’s budget earlier this year the figures are breathtaking.
By 
By 
By 
The 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
The 
By 
