If I was a Socialist,

I have been lightly following the Labour leadership contest since it started a few months ago. Unlike most people my focus was not on which of the contestants will be the best PM in waiting, but which one will be best for Labour and the Socialist cause. My interest started while debating with my Labour supporting family members and friends, who complained that the lines between right and left politics are very blurred today. And, feel this blurring is the main reason we had a hung election and a coalition government. Although they feel strongly about the expenses scandal, the recession and the economic hardship, they still believe that the similarities and the overlap in the main three parties is the main reason for our current style government.

Hovering over the centre ground has been gradual but consistent; it started in the late 1980s when the west broke up the eastern block, by tearing down Communism and the Berlin Wall. At that time the shift was welcomed as the progressive and forward thinking alternative to the Iron Curtain and its divisive totalitarian rule. With further diluting of the left and modernising of the right everybody found themselves in the centre, it was good for commerce, travel, globalization and most developments. But like most changes it is not to everybody’s taste, and there are still those who want the clear lines to be redrawn.

This morning armed with my second cup of Joe, I sat down for 90 minutes to watch the Labour Leadership Debate on Sky. Although this one was not as exciting as the earlier debates, and by far less disciplined, I still got what I wanted out of it. Out of the five contestants, three are modern socialists, and even with the Brownite tag attached to the two Eds they are still New Labour with a blue rinse, which means the only true Labour candidates are Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham.

Both showed compassion conviction of belief and a clear understanding of everyday issues. They were direct, almost unlike politicians, which can translate wrongly for those who are looking for a certain polished always prepared political leader. However, Diane refusing to answer the general questions is one of those simple things that could easily backfire and sink a candidate and it did for me. Knowing what the punters like to watch, and how much they pay for milk or petrol, is basic fundamental, door step politics. Especially for Diane, since her whole demeanour and politics are very different from “the main stream”. Besides, refusing to answer just made her come across as difficult and unyielding, which might work for the backbench and House of Commons debates but is not a leadership quality.

Which brings me nicely to the final candidate and surprisingly my favourite candidate – Andy Burnham – but first let me make it absolutely clear that I like him on personality, attitude, and the compassion and commitment he showed, not his polices or politics. Besides scoring highest on the general questions, 3 out of 5, he came across real, natural and unrehearsed, he spoke from the heart when giving his answers, and although I did not agree with some of them, they made me think. Where David Miliband and Ed Balls just irritated me, one with his arrogance and the other with his righteousness, Andy Burnham engaged me!