John McDonnell MP and the PLP

otware Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 02:20:12 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Queries and discussion about PLP and John McDonnell's support within it.



Is anybody aware of the level of support he is getting within the PLP? I figure that Clare Short and Meacher will back him, but what of the other 'soft left' MPs. Tony Lloyd and Peter Kilfoyle?

And just out of interest, does the PLP include peers, MEPs, Welsh Assembly Members and MSPs?


tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
John McDonnell MP and the PLP | 20 comments (20 topical)

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#1)

by nickparrott on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:57:26 AM GMT

The PLP consists only of Labour MPs, i.e. members of the House of Commons.


Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#2)

by doctordunc on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:50:47 PM GMT


Candidly - not enough support at the moment.  But the election may be a year away.  The people you have mentioned will wait to see what the options are, I'm sure.  I'm afraid you could be waiting quite a long time before you see anything like a list of supporting MPs, although some have made already made their support very clear (e.g. Lynne Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, John Austin, Kelvin Hopkins)


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#5)

by nickparrott on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:16:32 PM GMT

Further to my last I should perhaps clarify:

Any candidate must receive the nominations of 12.5% of Commons members of the PLP, where there is a contest due to a vacancy arising.  

However, affiliated organisations, CLPs and Labour MEPs can also nominate candidates; these nominations will be published but do not count towards any threshold.

Finally, in the actual ballot, Section 1 of the electoral college consists of both Commons members of the PLP and Labour MEPs.


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#3)

by doctordunc on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:02:50 PM GMT


There is potential problem and tension here. As you say, it is going to be hard work finding the 40-odd MPs to nominate John.  But we know that there are hundreds of party members who are busy getting excited about his challenge.  They are organising public meetings, passing motions in their union branches, etc.  Not only that, but disillusioned members are coming back.  We are not sure of the numbers at this early stage, but there is a massive potential constituency there, if Blair's departure is more than 6 months away.  Further even to that, if you do a cursory scan of political 'blogs' for anti-war groups, muslim groups, etc. there's quite an appetite for joining (or rejoining) the party to participate in this election.  At the LRC, a visiting parliamentarian from Pakistan talked of how he was speaking to meetings of various south-east asian residents of the UK, persuading them to support John in any way they can.  The potential tension of course is if, at the end of it all, they are not given the opportunity to vote, because the PLP denies it them.  If John is nominated and he loses the election, people will have to accept that - the election can't be fixed or anything like that.  But if people - possibly several thousand people - feel that their choice has been denied them by the PLP (and therefore by the system) - that could prove problematic.


Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#4)

by nickparrott on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:10:55 PM GMT

The counterpoint to that must be that if an MP can't even get a small proportion of their colleagues in Parliament to back them, what chance do they have of successfully leading the Parliamentary party, on whom they would rely for a majority if they were in office?


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#8)

by doctordunc on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:11:26 PM GMT


Totally fair point.  It is of course the reason why the nomination system is there.  And the argument Jim Callaghan and Dennis Healey gave for keeping the whole thing in the hands of the PLP...


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#20)

by Henry79 on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 11:36:14 PM GMT

Yes just a side point to this you saw the danger of that with Iain Duncan Smith and the Tories when basically the whole lot of them thought it acceptable to rebel because they didn't support him and he'd rebelled so much- not saying that would happen to McDonnel but just that not having MP support does deprive a leader of a lot of strength


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#6)

by bornin84 on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:18:05 PM GMT

Are 'left-wing' MPs over represented in parliament?

I only ask because when you talk about McDonnell's campaign for the leadership you always talk about hundreds of people supporting him (maybe you are just a pessimistic leftie) but in your final sentence you say 'possibly several thousand people' will support McDonnell!

If say, 10,000 Labour Party members supported him (a number which even you havent foretold yet) that's about 5% of party membership.

If he could muster 45 MPs thats 10% of the PLP.

If someone can correct these figures please do!


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#7)

by doctordunc on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:10:30 PM GMT


No I don't think the left are over-represented in Parliament at all: quite the reverse.  Where I've referred to 'hundreds' that has been quite specifically the several hundred party and union activists who attended the recent LRC conference and voted unanimously to endorse John's candidature.  At this stage that is our only undeniable indication of support.  It is quite clear that every one at that conference represented hundreds of others.  I am quite convinced that, were it happen that there is a leadership contest between Gordon Brown and John McDonnell a very sizeable proportion of the members of the party (much more than 10%!!) will vote for John.  Many of those may not be active enough to feel cheated if he is not nominated however.  I posited a more modest figure who might feel that way.


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#9)

by bornin84 on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:14:53 PM GMT

Fair enough! We shall see...

I can understand why the LRC could only get a few hundred to their conference. I suppose that's one of the problems of being so London/Westminster-centric.


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell and PLP (#10)

by doctordunc on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:39:08 PM GMT


Not necessarily entirely sensible, but if we took votes for Christine Shawcroft in the NEC elections as broadly indicative of support for McDonnell if there were an election today, that would be about 18,000 (approximately half of those people who bothered to vote).  That is clearly when there was rather more choice than there is likely to be in a leadership election and many of those who didn't vote for Christine but did vote for Ann Black (say) may divide either way between John and Gordon (if they are the candidates, and they are the only ones who have declared themselves so far).  What the 130,000 or so people who chose not to vote will do is, surely, anyone's guess!!  But there are six months or more to go until there's an election.  In that time a lot could change.


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#11)

by davidfloyd on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:55:26 PM GMT

I'm yet to be convinced that McDonnell can get the backing of a majority of the Campaign Group, let alone the total needs to get on the ballot.


Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#12)

by JonRogers on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 01:26:48 AM GMT

I think the point is that those of us who share John's politics intend to get involved and change the minds of MPs who, as yet, are certainly not persuaded in sufficient numbers. John could even now run a New Labour candidate (such as Gordon Brown) close amongst individual members and - depending on the attitude of the union leaders (who are themselves not immune to pressure) could do even better among trade union voters.

The question MPs who are trade union members have to consider is whether they will use their nominating rights to put someone on the ballot papers who supports trade union policies - or whether they think that Gordon Brown has it sewn up, that he can offer them patronage and that their careers are more important to them than the people who put them where they are today.

You have to hope it isn't too hard a choice :)


Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#13)

by nickparrott on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 05:57:55 AM GMT

Two things - firstly I'm a little sceptical about your assertion that John McDonnell could even now run Brown close among Labour Party and trade union members?

It's one thing to say (as some of John's backers have argued) that he will develop a profile over the long period between now and the leadership election. But it's quite another to suggest that level of support exists now. I have to say I would take some convincing of this, including some actual solid evidence.

Secondly - this may have been intended as a joke (hard to tell tone, obviously) but it is a bit annoying whenever anyone on either the right or the left tries to smear their opponents' motives by (for example) asserting that anyone who doesn't vote one way is a careerist who must be doing it out of personal ambition.

There are bound to be some careerists in all parties (and most organisations) but for the vast majority of Labour MPs that won't be an important factor in how they vote.

It is, I hasten to add, equally annoying when people on the right bandy about accusations that anyone who ever disagrees with the government must be a Trot/wrecker/etc.

I hope the whole debate does not get conducted in these terms or we'll all be the losers...


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#14)

by davidfloyd on Sun Aug 13, 2006 at 07:47:39 PM GMT

"Two things - firstly I'm a little sceptical about your assertion that John McDonnell could even now run Brown close among Labour Party and trade union members?"

I think being a little sceptical is more than a little generous. McDonnell is not currently running Brown close amongst party members on the Labour Left.

From the people on the Left that I've talked, I'm unclear whether he'd even be able to push 're-open nominations' into third place at this point. I await with bated breath, any credible poll that suggests otherwise.

Amongst MPs, declared supporters can still be counted on two hands and - at this rate - it's unclear whether toes will ever be needed.

There's nothing careerist about not wanting to see the proud and vitally important political traditions represented by the battle for greater equality of wealth and power marched into a long, dark empty tunnel from which they may never return.


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#15)

by doctordunc on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 08:11:57 PM GMT

Sorry Nick and the other chap: I reckon Jon's not too far off the mark with reference to Labour Party and Trade Union members (obviously in the context of there actually being a leadership campaign whereby people are made aware of the policies of the two candidates): I think the NEC elections indicate that, amongst Labour Party members active enough to vote, approximately just under half might well be persuaded to vote for a candidate of the genuine left, making a significant critique of the current policy assumptions - and at the moment that is only McDonnell (and is likely to remain so).  The other half could well be split between Brown and another 'mainstream' challenger (perhaps John Reid).  Of course, there will be a higher turnout in a leadership election than in the NEC elections and that adds further uncertainty.  But set that in the context of approximately a year's campaign where McDonnell and his supporters will launch his campaign in various cities and speak at countless branches and meetings up and down the country.  The campaign is likely to be much more far-reaching and exhaustive than any other candidate's campaign (one of the benefits of declaring so early) - obviously he has the disadvantage of the media largely ignoring him (whereas BBC 24 will go to a live feed of Brown talking to three suits at a dinner) but I am confident that Labour Party and Trade Union activists are more impressed by proper campaigning than fatcat smarming.


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#16)

by nickparrott on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 08:42:43 PM GMT

"the NEC elections indicate that, amongst Labour Party members active enough to vote, approximately just under half might well be persuaded to vote for a candidate of the genuine left"

I think you missed out a critical few words there though - active enough to vote in the NEC elections. I think (hope!) turnout in the leadership election will be far, far higher. The NEC elections may well be indicative of the mood of the activists but less so of the members and lesser still of trade union members.

That said, they clearly do tell us there is a potential audience for left-wing candidates in internal elections but even then, it was a narrow victory and the importance of incumbency and name recognition were also obvious.

"The other half could well be split between Brown and another 'mainstream' challenger (perhaps John Reid)."

However, it is a preferential voting system so I think the importance of vote splitting is rather less than perhaps you imply.

"But set that in the context of approximately a year's campaign..."

Fair enough, but Jon wasn't talking about in a year, he was saying that McDonnell could run Brown close even now.

"I am confident that Labour Party and Trade Union activists are more impressed by proper campaigning..."

Again though, there is a difference between the activists and the membership. I'm not sure that Labour Party members are quite as hard left as you seem to think - check out some of the polling I put up on the more recent thread.

As for trade union members, I'm not aware of any polling, so who knows. I would have thought that press coverage will be critical with them, as may be the recommendations of the union's NEC.

I repeat my extreme scepticism that even now McDonnell could run Brown close amongst either Party or union members.

Obviously what happens in the year, two years, or however long we have until the election, is far harder to predict - not least who is and is not a candidate, which is obviously crucial!


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#17)

by doctordunc on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 08:52:55 PM GMT


Hi Nick,

I've just been reading the poll results in detail.  If anything I find them rather encouraging.  I don't think people need consider themselves 'hard left' or 'very left wing' to support the policies we're putting forward here.  Looking at the policies section it is clear the mainstream of the party opposes Blair's military adventures, Brown's privatisation obsession, etc: I am sure they would want - rather than constantly opposing things - to have the chance to support something: a leadership campaign based on policies they do support.

I think the NEC results do demonstrate a strong indication of feelings in the party; and there has been some good recent research suggesting that, for the first time in the Party's history, the inactive members may be to left of the active members (when measured by attitudes to policies) and that can only be encouraging.


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#18)

by doctordunc on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 08:54:16 PM GMT


(Just to explain the last point - it isn't encouraging in itself, but it is if we conclude that support for McDonnell could be high amongst activists, but that inactive members will vote in the election)


[ Parent ]

Re: John McDonnell MP and the PLP (#19)

by JonRogers on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:44:21 AM GMT

Which is - of course - what we will try to do :)


[ Parent ]

John McDonnell MP and the PLP | 20 comments (20 topical)