Leadership Elections: The Story So Far?

grayee Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:13:41 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Interesting results so far. It appears that McDonnell(I'm going to try to be as objective as possible, probably not successfully) is struggling to get 45 nominations. Which I find fascinating. If the Hard-ish Left cannot even get 12.5% of PLP nominations (and I think that each MP can actually nominate up to 3 candidates) then I think we may be seeing something momentous happening. This could be Blair's lasting legacy to the Party?



Still, wait and see. Perhaps he is holding back support to build up media interest? (Surely no politician could be so naive?). I must admit that I don’t see many of the “usual suspects” missing from the list of his declared supporters who actually filled out and returned nomination forms.
Personally I would have loved there to have been a real contest for the Leadership. Peter Hain would have made a convincing opponent to Gordon Brown. A conviction Blairite could also have posed a real, meaningful challenge. McDonnell would be better than nothing. But, assuming he manages to get enough nominations to stand. It is clear (to me anyway) that there he has no widespread support and the “Hard Left” is completely marginalised in the Party. MP’s would not dare to ignore their CLP’s or trade union affiliates if they felt that there was any significant support for McDonnell.

So, in one way it would be pointless to have a “contest for the stake of a contest”, since the real test of Labour Party opinion will not happen because Brown is not facing a mainstream “left” or “right” challenge.

So Hazel, Peter, Harriet and Alan have enough nominations. I assume that Jon will get one more nomination? Maybe the debate about the future direction of the Party will take place in the deputy leadership election?

UNISON National Labour Link committee meet tomorrow to decide on who (or if) to recommend to members. UNISON has made it clear that no-one but this committee will make recommendations on behalf of “Labour Link”. There is no trade union “block” vote and UNISON levy payers will have a secret ballot to vote for candidates.

However, the unions will be influential. The sensible announcement that UNISON and GMB (together they have in membership about a third of the 3.3 million trade unionists who will have a vote!) are working together to “maximise” influence over the leadership elections also seems to me to be another indication that we might be on the road to merger.



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? | 25 comments (25 topical)

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#1)

by otware on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:36:39 PM GMT

Well I think part of the reason that the so-called 'hard left' are a very small minority in the PLP is that the party leadership uses AWS and parachuting candidates into CLPs to stop potential left wing candidates. It certainly seems that leftist candidates have a big job-on to be selected without interference from the party leadership.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#6)

by grayee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:47:29 AM GMT

Hi Otware, I think you are wrong; I have been involved with 2 East London selection processes for PPC in the last couple of years - West Ham and Bethnal Green and Bow. I accept that things never run perfectly, but "hard left" candidates had as much right to enter and seek nomination as anyone else (any paid up member can apply - In BG&B there were 64!). I would argue that there is just no support for such candidates in the vast majority (perhaps not all) of CLP's. We just don't "buy it". Time has moved on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#2)

by doctordunc on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:51:40 PM GMT

Where did you here this 'they can nominate up to 3' thing? I don't think they can! (Certainly MPs don't know that they can, if they can - as a conversation I had with an MP earlier would bear testament!) Pretty sure you've mixed that up with something else? Obviously I think you've called this completely wrong. I'm still optimistic that John will be on the ballot paper (there were people claiming that he had 15 or less supporters only a week or so ago; there's quite a lot of momentum with John right now). Once on the ballot paper, John's going to surprise a lot of you, certainly. I'll be interested to hear what happens at the Union Link meeting tomorrow. Duncan


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#4)

by JR on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:38:53 AM GMT

MP's are only allowed to make a maximum of one nomination each per contest.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#9)

by David Boothroyd on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:16:15 AM GMT

I think the 'three nominations' comes from elections from the PLP to the NEC, where the PLP has three places.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#3)

by grayee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:33:05 AM GMT

I got the "3" nominations thingy from a MP (who thought it was silly to nominate more than one person). Must admit that no-one appears to have nominated more than one candidate so far. Will try and check tomorrow.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#21)

by grayee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:14:52 PM GMT

Apologies, clearly I have got this 3 nomination votes thing wrong - must check my facts in the future. It did seem odd.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#5)

by JR on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:46:02 AM GMT

The point you make grayee is fundamentally correct - the hard left have been marginalised and have been for a long time. As I've repeated time and time again, this forum is hardly representative of the amount of lefties in the actual party. In a sense it is Blair's legacy, since his shift of the party to the right has brought us so much success that many previously ardent lefties have admitted that shifting left again would send us straight to the opposition benches. I keep hearing this 'momentum is with McDonnell' - what is meant here by 'momentum'? If momentum means that after day one, you have the fewest nominations out of all of the leadership / deputy leadership contenders, then he certainly has that.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#16)

by jkitleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:01:31 PM GMT

it hasn't won us so many election. Again the sclae of Blair's victory in 1997 was spectacular, so spectacular that any candidate slightly to the left of Blair would have become PM. Blair didn't win single handedly, Kinnock, Smith, Brown etc. would have won by a landslide in 1997, maybe not as large a victory as Blair's, but a landslide.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#17)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:21:08 PM GMT

I often hear people saying we'd have won under Smith or Kinnock in 1997 - I never hear them back that up with facts though.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#18)

by jkitleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:16:01 PM GMT

because Tories were divided over Europe, we started hitting our heights under Smith (Tories were not only behind in opinion polls, but had lost their lead on economic competence) the chaos on 16th September,the fact that we won a 179 seat majority that no Labour leader could have undone (because government's lose , oppositions don't win).


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#19)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:29:03 PM GMT

But the high level of reporting of the divisions and mistakes between 1994 and 1997 was because the country did not fear Blair's Labour party. Don't you ever wonder why Labour mistakes/scandals have been in the news so much more since Cameron took over? It's not because Labour have become suddenly started making more mistakes and engaging in more scandalous activity - it's because the country and the media no longer fear the Tory alternative and are therefore willing to point out/listen to Labour's downside. How many stories of Tory scandals/splits/screw-ups did the Sun, the Times etc break that they would have kept to themselves or put deep in the back of the paper if they hadn't been convinced that Labour had changed? How much of the Tory splits were caused by the utter panic that ensued from realising that they were suddenly facing an unbeatable leader of the Labour party? How many of the things that pursuaded voters that they didn't need to fear Labour anymore (and therefore stop another 1992-style last-minute fear-induced swing back to the Tories) would not have happened under Smith's team (from which Campbell, Mandelson and Gould were excluded)?


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#20)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:30:38 PM GMT

Let's try that with spaces...

The high level of reporting of the divisions and mistakes between 1994 and 1997 was because the country did not fear Blair's Labour party. Don't you ever wonder why Labour mistakes/scandals have been in the news so much more since Cameron took over? It's not because Labour have become suddenly started making more mistakes and engaging in more scandalous activity - it's because the country and the media no longer fear the Tory alternative and are therefore willing to point out/listen to Labour's downside.

How many stories of Tory scandals/splits/screw-ups did the Sun, the Times etc break that they would have kept to themselves or put deep in the back of the paper if they hadn't been convinced that Labour had changed?

How much were the Tory splits caused by the utter panic that ensued from realising that they were suddenly facing an unbeatable leader of the Labour party?

How many of the things that pursuaded voters that they didn't need to fear Labour anymore (and therefore stop another 1992-style last-minute fear-induced swing back to the Tories) would not have happened under Smith's team (from which Campbell, Mandelson and Gould were excluded)?


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#23)

by jkitleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:00:17 PM GMT

but there were far more mistakes from 1992-1994. The splits were already clear with the fiasco of the suspensions of the Maastricht Rebels. Tories had lost their lead on economic competence, which is, in actual fact, pretty much the only thing that decides elections. People stopped being scared of Labour, as they turned to them after Black Wednesday, and the Tories incompetence over the Maastricht Treaty. That didn't happen in 1994-1997, it was a continuation. So even if the scandals hadn't been reported, it wasn't the scandals which sent the Tories out of office, it was Black Wednesday, and the Maastricht Treaty defeats.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#24)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:13:50 PM GMT

Mistakes of the magnitude of Masstricht and Black Wednesday also happened between 1987 and 1992. And they often led to large Labour polling leads. But the fear of Labour reversed them at election time.

It could have just as easily happened to Smith.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#25)

by jkitleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:23:08 PM GMT

it is precisely because it had happened before, that people finally lost their patience with the Tories.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#7)

by grayee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:57:33 AM GMT

I know this post by JR will "concern" some people but I think this is largely fair comment. That the amount of "spin" about McDonnell and his chances would make Mandleson blush (if such a thing was possible). Why is this? Does this tell us anything? I think it does.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#8)

by Unity on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:27:52 AM GMT

Latest word is that Cruddas has his 45 nominations - the last one came in just too late to be included in the last update on the Party's site.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#10)

by Curlew on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:33:13 AM GMT

That is good news...I think. Does he really want to be buried in the job of deputy? Always having to keep his mouth shut - always having to vote with his boss? I'd vote for him - but he should really think about what he wants for sure!


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#11)

by Mozzer1989 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:49:21 PM GMT

Have to say, I agree with JR


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#12)

by SW on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:07:26 PM GMT

Surely it reflects GB's 13 year-strategy of scaring off anyone tempted to even nominate an alternative. Hilary Benn's struggle to get on the ballot is most surprising to me...I thought he was a nice guy who would pick up lots of nominations. But maybe the lesson is that nice guys lose out to those that do deals.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#13)

by JR on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:21:41 PM GMT

I'm sure Hilary will get the 45.


[ Parent ]

Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#14)

by jgc on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:29:12 PM GMT

Perhaps an issue here is that there is no one in the PLP with sufficient stature to be able to mount a challenge to Gordon Brown. John McDonnell is not universally liked even within the campaign group which has clearly led to the rather sad public squabbling between him and Michael Meacher. It might have been better to have found someone else who could have commanded enough support to get nominated.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#15)

by MatthewStiles on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:04:46 PM GMT

You comment "If the Hard-ish Left cannot even get 12.5% of PLP nominations (and I think that each MP can actually nominate up to 3 candidates) then I think we may be seeing something momentous happening." However, in 1992 and 1994, Ken Livingstone also failed to get the nominations needed to stand in the leadership elections so this is nothing new actually (and the 12.5% rule was brought in after the Benn challenge to Kinnock in 1998 but I think I read you used to be in the Lib Dems so perhaps you can be forgiven for failing to notice, apologies if I am mistaken). Also the comment that an MP can make 3 nominations is plainly wrong, 1 is the maximum.


Re: Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? (#22)

by grayee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:18:44 PM GMT

Thanks Matthew for putting me right on these things.


[ Parent ]

Leadership Elections: The Story So Far? | 25 comments (25 topical)