Today we will finally see an end to the Miliblair and Milibrown show.  Or rather, to the first act thereof.  And I think I’ve decided which of the candidates I’d vote for, if anyone asked me.

There are two considerations: who is the best (or least bad) candidate in policy terms, and who will do the best job of keeping the current government on its toes.  For if our recent history teaches us anything, it’s that absence of opposition is a Bad Thing.  That may or may not be less critical when the government is itself a coalition, but I suspect that if Labour fall apart, there’s less pressure on the awkward squads of both governing parties, and more risk of it all falling apart.

Let’s start by eliminating the most unspeakable.  Balls’s newly-discovered debt denial shows either a mindblowing level of economic illiteracy, or a cynical opportunism to make Macchiavelli blush.  I suspect the latter: he’s positioning himself to do maximum damage to the country while not in power, and to try again for the leadership when the leader currently being elected falls.  Soundbite Miliblair has yet to demonstrate the level of corruption of his Guru and Master, but he sounds every bit the devoted disciple, and his behaviour in government was deeply scary.

His little brother seems to be concentrating on catching the mood of the union militants, a direction that threatens a repeat of the lack-of-opposition of the 1980s.  I wouldn’t rule out his using that platform more constructively once elected, but neither would I rule out his taking a path of maximum damage, albeit less blatently than Balls.

Ms Abbott and Mr Burnham seem to me the more interesting candidates: the ones who speak their minds.  Honesty may be problematic in a politician, but I respect it even when I don’t agree with them, and those two seem to show more than their rivals.  Abbott is a mix of certifiable loony and sometimes-interesting, and her strongest point is that she’s not Ms Harfwit.  Burnham too is a mix, but in his case the ideas could perhaps make a real contribution to the national debate.  Specifically, he’s putting forward (albeit timidly) an option that’s neither pure denial nor ever more tax on our already-grossly-overtaxed hard-earned to reduce public-sector cuts.  His tax ideas, with which I partially agree, deserve to enter mainstream debate.

So I think I’d be inclined to vote Burnham as a most-interesting wildcard choice.  With serious reservations about his track record, but less than Miliblair.  Failing that, Milibrown, then just hope like **** he uses his union platform constructively.  Just as well I don’t get a vote, perhaps – though if I had that responsibility, I’d’ve done a bit more research into the candidates.

An ex-minister faces a legal challenge to his reelection, on grounds of a level of alleged dishonesty in his campaign that not only affected the election outcome, but should disqualify him outright from public office (shouldn’t most of them be thrown out on that basis)?  His winning margin over his libdem rival was ultra-small.

If the challenge is successful, it raises an interesting question.  There will be a by-election in which labour will find a new candidate, and the libdem candidate will presumably stand again, as will a bunch of fringe candidates.  But what about the Tories?  Will they field a candidate in this (presumably unwinnable) seat, or stand aside in favour of their coalition partner?

Fielding a candidate would push the coalition partners into what could become a divisive battle, as even a token candidate will come under intense media scrutiny and they’ll be looking for signs of division.  It will also of course split the pro-government vote, thus gifting the election arithmetic to Labour.  But if they don’t, it’ll set a precedent that some may find very uncomfortable, notably among those who are already less than enthusiastic about the coalition.

For what it’s worth, the proposed Alternative Voting system could alleviate the dilemma, by allowing a token Tory candidate to stand in the expectation of his/her partisan supporters giving their second-preference votes to their libdem coalition partner, and not wasting the vote.

I’m flabbergasted!

Not that The Liar has published memoirs: we knew they were coming.  Nor the mindboggling arrogance of those memoirs (at least as reported): again that’s as expected.  But the chattering classes once again seem to give them credence.  Or at least, to believe that he believes them.  I mean, good grief, haven’t we learned from all those years of bitter experience?

I’d sooner take the Prince of Darkness’s word on the history of New Labour.  Obviously not at face value, but Mandelson seems the more interesting and less megalomaniac(!!!) of the two.  Perhaps more to the point, Mandelson has some presence in the real world as opposed to his own pure fantasyland.  Or for a spot of plain speaking, reconstruct fragments from the working-class mascot John Prescott: he’s not articulate enough to lie Blair-style, and what he says (where sufficiently coherent) is at least likely to be what he means.  Prescott has already rubbished what Blair says about Brown: I guess he’s too honest to let that pass when the meeja asked him.

Interesting historic question: could Brown have made a competent leader, if he hadn’t been driven (quite literally) mad by being number two to The Liar?  I mean, back in the 1990s: it was clear by about the time of the second Labour term (2001) that Brown’s grasp was failing in some matters, and in retrospect he was evidently already quite mad.