Opinionomics | 23 April 2012

Must-read comment and analysis. Featuring the entrepreneurial state, the austere state, and the Unit

1. IMF encourages Europe's economic suicide (Telegraph)

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues that the IMF’s pledge to increase its rescue fund to $1 trillion encourages EMU and German elites to believe wrongly that the essence of this crisis is a speculative attack on the euro.

2. Without state spending there'd be no Google or GlaxoSmithKline (Guardian)

Mariana Mazzucato argues for the "entrepreneurial state"

3. Austerity is no answer (Times)

Sam Fleming writes that western policymakers are, in the words of Andrés Velasco, Chile’s charismatic former finance minster, “screwing up”.

4. Crisis, what crisis? (Stumbling and Mumbling)

Chris Dillow points out that this crisis is worse than in the 1970s, but there is less of the accompanying sense of despair. He asks why this might be.

5. The Amnesia Candidate (New York Times)

"Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are?", asks Paul Krugman.

The shadow of French presidential front-runner François Hollande, who has spooked markets with anti-finance rhetoric. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland