On September 11, the ballot box will be turned upside down to reveal the names of the contestants and the winners that have been selected to win. I guess it should be one of the most anticipated events in the calendar for Labour supporters, but not for me, at least not this time around. I have not been pleased with the candidates that have been put out by the Labour electorate because there were so many good prospective hopefuls that have been sidelined, for people that have a certain kind of quality: to argue an awful lot. Here’s taking a look at two of the frontrunners, of the race, for a start:
Burnham is one candidate so many must have been happy to see toss his name card into the ring fence, because of his previous glittering career as one of the lesser successful candidates of the last election race. No matter that he lost out to Ed Miliband, who came riding on the wave of popularity on trade unions and eventually never made it through the doors of No. 10, and was less charismatic than Milband’s older brother, and the former Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Burnham is one young man many are happy to see back here once more. He gave us all policy workers a lot of headache when he kept barking on and on about the need to reform the NHS for five long years, but then his suggestions never really went anywhere. So, what does he have to offer us this time around?
Andy Burnham wants to talk about growth in the economy. He wants Labour to be successful on that front because Brown didn’t really do a great job there, in the end. Granted he lost after only three years, and there came David Cameron, who mostly spent his time in India on trips, that he came back from empty handed and ‘humilated’ (whispers: but he and his Tory team probably never got any of that!) with no trade deals to Downing Street, it is important to highlight that there is no denying that the latest crop of politicians are dying to contribute to the Westminster debate, like so many others around the world, now.
He wants to bring back the glory of the Tony Blair era back into the minds of many, and is quite passionate about paying a fair tax label, which are some big words there. He believes in providing a more supportive system for those choosing work over a college education than the “survival of the fittest” style that exists today, wants local authorities to be more empowered about admission to schools, wants to have more social housing, more regulation of the private-rented sector, and more control over rundown properties.
That is a whole lot of aspirations from Burnham but I believe that local authorities shouldn’t have any say at all in the admissions of students to schools because those should follow a more strict approach, yes, but be independent and subjected to review, by educational boards, and decided by each school themselves. Local authorities, already have their hands completely full in arguing over fixing the bike systems in their neighbourhoods and attending surgeries to serve the community better, hearing their concerns in a very mature and ordered way, no matter the day or the hours.
There is also the small demands of social housing and how much this could impact the public purse string – at a time, when overcrowded housing is a rampant issue in Great Britain, and we are always asking families to not waste space if they have a lot of it, it is outrageous to demand social housing for families with kids, who probably need all the help they can afford to get into or back into work.
Rundown properties need national investments because a destroyed relic only needs to be done away with and make room for something new in it’s place. With Burnham on the steering wheel there, it’s not hard to imagine where that automobile is going to go – it’s like a car crash waiting to happen, he has already asked for an increase in funding for social housing + more funds to turn around rundown properties that are not getting in anyone’s way, right about now. I think he needs to think harder on a shifting of priorities because the economy still feels like it is a recession, despite high employment figures, for low wages and low household income.
Cooper is a former familiar face in Westminster. She hates the idea of Great Britain being armed with a nuclear programme and adores intervention in Syria to sort out the crisis or whatever it is, that she wants to intervene in the country for, there. She loves to ponder out loud and high, for long hours, about how a hike in corporation taxes could benefit the country, so. She also has a strict policy of being woken early hours by none other than the Prime Minister to think about national security, and she would love to see her constituency have a Haribo factory so that she and the population there can be a witness to the benefits of that tax, themselves.
No need to cry at the drop of a hat now, because she is only doing so because unlike Cameron’s second unproductive term in Downing Street (Oh! Please spare us another set of five years!) she believes it will be good for trade ties. She wants to have savings, think about getting children back to school once more and although all of that is indeed very “noble” post her comment on the Trident, and our country’s national security, I think she should leave Labour Party, and all of the self-inflicted dangerous/exhilarating thinking, with strong individuals and men, instead – it’s the least someone as empowered as her can do! Cooper is not very intelligent on national affairs, at all, and her supporters love her for it, even though they might be a tad bit late and brutish in doing so. She is also one experienced woman on the very cerebral British political stage, who gets mighty snappy when things don’t go her way, at all, in terms of subjects, such as corporation tax.
The Labour leadership race is getting uglier and deadlier by the minute, but one thing I am pleased to see through it all, is just how honest the candidates have been in voicing their “sound bytes” on what they would like to see happen in and what they want from Great Britain. How deliciously predictable!