Benn IN, McDonnell OUT, Wed 6PM nominations

Nominations as of Wednesday 6pm:

[editor's note, by Jag Singh] 10PM Wed: Hilary Benn is in, John McDonnell is bowing out. More soon, but it's confirmed for sure.

(and it's not Alex who is posting, so that's a double guarantee there :-) )


45 nominations required.

LEADERSHIP:

Brown, Gordon 307

McDonnell, John 29

DEPUTY LEADERSHIP:

Benn, Hilary 42

Blears, Hazel 49

Cruddas, Jon 46

Hain, Peter 50

Harman, Harriet 63

Johnson, Alan 70


Display: Sort:

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#1)

Alex can you shift this to the top story to replace the 1pm update?

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#2)

Brown only needs one more nomination to eliminate McDonnell.

It's a bit too close to call with regards to Benn though - hope he makes it!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#3)

McDonnell has no chance anymore as I think a couple of MPs already said they won't nominate anyone

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#4)

ALEX - YOU'VE STILL LEFT THE 1PM ONE UP AT THE TOP - CAN YOU SHIFT THIS UPDATE THERE PLEASE?!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#13)

Thanks, JR!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#5)

McDonnell supporters like myself have to face that he is not going to make the ballot. However, this was half expected. The left should stay in the party and regroup. Supporting Cruddas for Deputy is what we need to focus on now. We also need to change this daft rule that a candidate needs to get 12.5% of the MP's to stand. It should be reduced to 5%. The behaviour of the MP's does not surprise me. Many of them are vying for job offers to impress the big beast Brown. Obviously, personal ambition for some comes above giving a choice to the affiliates and party members. This is going to make it hard for Brown. Remember all the ribbing Major got from us when he became PM without having a mandate from the public. Now Brown doesn't even have a mandate from his own party. John's message has been widespread in the last few months. We are in this for the long haul. Lets look to the future.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#6)

Cruddas lost any credibility he had left today.

I wrote this previously:

He had the chance to do something to promote "Pary Democracy" - which he has been going on and on about for months - and he blew it! Backing John and urging fellow MPs to do so was well within Cruddas' power - this does nothing but further expose his political bankruptcy, falseness and opportunism. His present positions are nothing but a smoke-screen to cover Cruddas' real agenda - his career.

Yes, we must re-group, but not around the likes of Jon Cruddas - careerists and opportunists!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#8)

If it wasn't in Michael Meacher's power to order MPs to vote for McDonnell, I don't see how on Earth it could be in the gift of the more moderate Jon Cruddas'. Personally I think Cruddas is entirely right to come to same conclusion as over 300 of his colleagues that Gordon Brown would make a better Prime Minister than John McDonnell. You don't, but that's your right.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#9)

Are you completely sure that Brown didn't actively disuade PLP member from backing John??? I am not! Brown's victory is the result of anti-democratic manoeuvres, there's no other way around it. Cruddas is, at least to some extent, guilty of the assisting the manoeuvres in questions. Any credibility he managed to build up during these last few months is pretty much gone with the, I am afraid. Again, promoting "Party Democracy" - which he would have done by nominating John - was well within Cruddas power. A vote for Cruddas is a vote for an opportunist.

Having said that, this doesn't imply that I don't agree with some of the "noises" that Cruddas has been making - however, I doubt he believes in his own "programme"!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#17)

Ah, the paranoid rantings of the infuriated hard left. Could it not be that people in the PLP simply didn't want to associate themselves with McDonnell? You've got to remember that even some Campaign Group MPs preferred Meacher over McDonnell! And Meacher's barmy!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#28)

true. But you could say the same for other groupings. Take Ed Milliband. He would have voted for Brown over David Milliband.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#29)

It's nothing to do with paranoid rantings. Are you going to tell me that John Reid is now a fully paid-up Brownite? Nominations are made for a variety of reasons.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#18)

I still don't get why on Brown shouldn't try to get as many people to nominate himself rather than John McDonnell. Isn't that what you do in elections? The fact is that by the time Cruddas nominated Brown a contest out of the question anyway. It is as plain as night follows day that if Jon Cruddas is actually going to acheive anything he will have to work with Gordon Brown.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#19)

No it isn't what you do in elections. You try and get as many VOTES as possible. You seek nominations to get on the ballot paper. Of course Brown would want to demonstrate his dominance by getting considerably more than he need, but carrying on persuading people to nominate after he'd got 100 or so was just a bullying attempt (successful attempt) to avoid a challenge.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#20)

The 12.5% threshold is there for a reason though. It would be totally ridiculous to let a candidate for leader go through onto the ballot with less support than that. All the talk of 'lending nominations' and 'making sure there's a contest' is actually against the spirit of the rules. If John McDonnell couldn't persuade 45 MPs that he would make the best party leader then he shouldn't be on the ballot. Simple as that. I also think it entirely reasonable that candidates fight for every nomination, not say to some MPs, 'no, actually I'm not bothered about your support, I've got enough already.'

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#23)

If you think Brown wasn't bullying and bribing to every last nomination then you're too naive to bother with.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#24)

Sorry that was a bit harsh (I'm upset, but that's not really an excuse). Sorry again - but I think you get my point. If the Brown camp had stopped actively campaiging for nominations once his was secure, John would have got on. No 'lending' to it (although no doubt some 'ensuring there's a contest' - and why not? Do the rest of us not matter?) We appear to have arrived at the Tories pre-1965 method of leadership election. i.e. we don't have one, it's just Buggins' turn!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#26)

Apology accepted. I doubt I'm naive about these things though - I've been on the wrong side of the party machine more than once. The point I was trying to make was that if McDonnell had enough support to be a genuinely credible candidate he would have gotten on the ballot paper whatever Brown did. Incidentally, how do you reckon Brown bribed or bullied Bob Marshall-Andrews? Do you think he's going to be a shock ministerial appiontment??

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#27)

There's no accounting for Bob Marshall-Andrews. No, I can't see a shock ministerial appointment, but he might anticipate a bit of assistance protecting a very narrow majority. I suspect he has miscalculated however.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#14)

Oh come on! Cruddas clearly wants to get a chance to implement his proposals to save the party. Naturally, he has to appeal to the mainstream of the PLP. Rather than someone who still has it all to lose, surely your beef is with the five Campaign Group members who have nominated Brown: it's not like they're in a position where they have to appeal to the middle ground. And considering that at 6pm yesterday Cruddas was a vote short of the nominations, I note that McDonnell hadn't endorsed him, and nor had ten other notable leftwingers - hardly the way to buy support. In the final analysis, I think its clear that the left should have chosen a challenger more able to attract a rainbow of votes. When the Campaign Group has only 24 members, and their candidate has probably the second most left-wing voting record in Parliament (after Corbyn), it should be no surprise that they struggle to reach out to the centre ground or achieve the required number of nominations. P.S. for some reason, Preview suggests that I don't have paragraphs - believe me, I put some in!

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#11)

I have to say I agree that Cruddas should be the one now. I do think the future power of Labour's left will ultimately be with people like Cruddas/Trickett.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#15)

The left have got to learn that rather than just appealing to themselves and only themselves they need to run more inclusive campaigns that will reach out to the vast majority of the party that is neither hard left nor hard right. I think McDonnell did well to get as far as he did. He came across quite well and has gone down with some dignity. But is it surprising that his campaign wasn't taken seriously in the PLP? He is undoubtedly one of the most left-wing parliamentarians around, which is good for whipping up the enthusiasm of the far lefties who spend all day on blogs, but perhaps wasn't so strategically advantageous. McDonnell's involvement in groups like the ""Labour Representation Committee"" (which last time I checked the New Communist Party was affiliated to) and his campaign's apparent emphasis on encouraging Trot types to join the Labour Party was obviously very reminiscent of past entryist madness. I've heard that this is why even some Campaign Group MPs were sceptical of supporting McDonnell and was why the Meacher campaign was launched.

Re: NOMINATIONS UPDATE - WEDNESDAY 6PM (#7)

Channel 4 News said that Brown has got his 308th nomination and therefore, McDonnell has been eliminated.

Re: Benn IN, McDonnell OUT, Wed 6PM nominations (#10)

Cruddas? No.The whole basis of his campaign was renewing Party democracy and issues like Trident.He just helped make our Party a joke by removing our voting rights for leader, and voted for a candidate committed to spending 76billion on Trident.NO WAY JOSE.......

Re: Benn IN, McDonnell OUT, Wed 6PM nominations (#12)

He might not act left, but at least he talks left. I still think he'd be a better choice than any of the others. That said, he could have urged support for John - the marginal number of Brownites who may have withdrawn their support would probably have been negated by a bulk of McDonnell's backers supporting him... Out of interest, who did John nominate for the deputy leadership? If he hasn't nominated, do you think he will tomorrow?

Re: Benn IN, McDonnell OUT, Wed 6PM nominations (#21)

I think by the time Jon made his nomination it had become crystal clear that there wasn't going to be a contest, and that if he really wanted to achieve anything other than generate hot air, he would have to to do it alongside Gordon Brown.

Re: Benn IN, McDonnell OUT, Wed 6PM nominations (#22)

This makes Jon's nomination all the more absurd. As if Brown's 305th nomination (or whatever it was) mattered a damn. So it was politically idiotic.

Re: Benn IN, McDonnell OUT, Wed 6PM nominations (#16)

No, it was always going to be impossible to beat Brown and your campaign's deliberate exclusivity (a hard left candidate apparently only appealing to other hard lefties and trying to bring people even further to the left into the Labour Party) made it likely that McDonnell would not be nominated. I like Cruddas' pragmatism! He has never claimed to be a disciple of the party's left, so he owed nothing to McDonnell. The primary objective has to be getting into a position where he can implement his reforms. That, I'm afraid to say, is more important than McDonnell being given the opportunity to be soundly defeated by Brown in a party election. Cruddas' support wouldn't even have made any difference. TRY ASKING YOURSELF WHY LEFT MPS SUCH AS BOB MARSHALL ANDREWS PREFER BROWN TO MCDONNELL!

Re: Benn IN, McDonnell OUT, Wed 6PM nominations (#25)

Ken Livingstone was twice unable to get 12.5% of a much smaller PLP to join leadership contests. His subsequent successes would suggest that this inability was not due to unpopularity in the movement.