I suppose this is Brown's fault too.

BrownSupporter Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:36:21 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

You couldn't make it up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2084946,00.html

 

<h1>Call for inquiry into leftwing leadership fight</h1>



Patrick Wintour and Will Woodward
Tuesday May 22, 2007
The Guardian

Recriminations are growing over the way Michael Meacher lost the chance to go forward as candidate of the left to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership, evidence seen by the Guardian shows. Mr Meacher, the former environment minister, stepped aside to allow John McDonnell to be the standard bearer for the left, only for his rival to fail to garner enough support to make it on to the ballot paper.

 

With questions growing about the failed campaign, two MPs originally claimed by Mr McDonnell to be supporters have denied ever nominating him. Papers seen by the Guardian show that the McDonnell camp had claimed the support of Jon Trickett, Labour MP for Hemsworth.

But Mr Trickett said yesterday: "I nominated Gordon Brown for the leadership and never nominated anyone else." If Mr Trickett's name had not appeared as a supporter of Mr McDonnell at an initial meeting between the two camps, Mr Meacher would have had one more nomination than Mr McDonnell, and would have gone forward as the candidate of the left.

Mr Meacher has written to Peter Watt, Labour's general secretary, to ask him to investigate how the error occurred. Mr Watt may refuse to intervene on the grounds that the deal between Mr McDonnell and Mr Meacher was a private matter. Last week it was disclosed that Mr McDonnell's camp had claimed the support of Bradford West MP Marsha Singh. Mr Singh then insisted that he had only nominated Mr Meacher, and was adamant that he had never signed any nomination paper in support of Mr McDonnell.

At the first meeting of the two camps last week, it was agreed that that the two men had 22 nominations each. The two camps reconvened last Monday, by which time Mr McDonnell had apparently secured a decisive 24-21 lead.

A spokesman for Mr McDonnell's campaign said: "I don't know anything about that [Trickett]. The process was agreed and completely accepted by both campaigns and the two sets of supporters.

"There was no dispute over the fact that John was the candidate who had the majority of support. Our feeling is that people are trying to create some mischief."






tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
I suppose this is Brown's fault too. | 25 comments (25 topical)

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#1)

by grimupnorth on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:54:56 AM GMT

The Singh issue was clarified in a letter published in the Guardian last week and signed by Mike Wood and Alan Simpson, campaign managers for John McDonnell and Michael Meacher. The McDonnell team NEVER claimed support from Singh.This is just someone creating mischief and trying to discredit John McDonnell. I have no idea who they are but they should stop it. John Trickett, Cruddas et al have made it clear they never promised anything. End of story.


Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#2)

by grimupnorth on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:09:11 PM GMT

And just to clarify things further: We were disappointed at Patrick Wintour's piece on the leadership challenge to Gordon Brown (Report, May 17). For the record, the rules for which left candidate went forward were agreed by us as campaign managers, not just the candidates. It was agreed that the initial meeting would look at signed declarations of support for each candidate, followed by a process of representatives from both teams checking out duplicate or uncertain declarations. Marsha Singh's declaration was one of several that were to be clarified. This process was undertaken on an entirely comradely basis. Marsha's nomination was properly allocated to Michael Meacher, but made no difference to the overall result, which was amicably agreed. The real political story revolves around the denial of the party's right to have an election for its next leader. Both John McDonnell and Michael Meacher come out of this with great credit and integrity; the same cannot be said of an article more obsessed with tittle-tattle than the big issues of our time. Alan Simpson MP Mike Wood MP Campaign managers for the Meacher and McDonnell campaigns


Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#11)

by LeftrightLeftright on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:43:10 PM GMT

Grim, in your first post you say that John McDonnell never claimed support from Marsha Singh. But in your second post, Alan and Mike's letter makes it clear that there were duplicated nominations. Both posts can't be true at the same time.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#13)

by LeftrightLeftright on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:44:32 PM GMT

Sorry, not "nominations" but declarations or pledges of support.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#18)

by grimupnorth on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:49:18 PM GMT

Look,the only endorsements which were made public were those on the John4Leader website. Marsha Singh's name was not there. His name was never publicly associated with the campaign.I think Alan and Mike make it clear that they were painstakingly scrupulous and that there was no skulduggery.It was agreed by both candidates they would not discuss how many names they had or who had supported whom. John McDonnell was pressed on this by Jon Snow but refused to ashe had promised Meacher he wouldn't. It is a shame that someone has chosen to make mischief.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#20)

by LeftrightLeftright on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:31:56 PM GMT

None of the declarations/pledges of support were made public. The article doesn't mention any public declarations. Nor do any of the comments preceding your one above. That's a red herring. Marsha Singh's support was apparently duplicated for both Michael and John, requiring clarification. Sure it was clarified, but it doesn't mean John was not claiming Singh's support at the initial meeting. That's the contradiction UI was pointing to.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#3)

by Curlew on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:04:11 PM GMT

No doubt there will be more stuff like this until the new cabinet is announced. Trickett was a late nominator and is now trying to show some loyalty.

I have to say it's a bit scary how frightened the PLP are of Brown.


Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#4)

by doctordunc on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:15:30 PM GMT

Yes, his quotation is priceless:

But Mr Trickett said yesterday: "I nominated Gordon Brown for the leadership and never nominated anyone else."

Not exactly what's at issue though, is it Jon?


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#5)

by grimupnorth on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:34:56 PM GMT

All bow before our Great Leader! If you're into conspiracy theories, mine is that Brown wanted to stand against Meacher and was actively trying to facilitate it.And utterly destroy the Left. Standing against McDonnell was not a good one for him because of the trade union and constituency backing which would have meant a significant part of the Party being seen not to be in agreementwith New New labour .So the tanks were hauled out...... Despite the fact he steamrollered the PLP, Brown is probably still seething with rage. I believe he is very good at that.And that is my very last word on this......


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#6)

by Curlew on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:54:57 PM GMT

No conspiracy Grim, just politics, I fear.

The left is going to be under attack (even for fighting amongst ourselves vis a vis Meacher McDonnell - now Michael 'it is time to grow-up' I say) for the next few weeks.

We should hold firm, keep our own counsel, and keep the right guessing.

Just been re-reading Animal Farm - what a genius was Orwell.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#7)

by Glass House on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:59:50 PM GMT

I remember a day when I was at University - I just sat in the sunny garden and read Animal Farm from cover to cover. It was great.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#15)

by Mikael on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:27:38 PM GMT

I can't believe you waite until university to read Animal Farm, Glass!

I don't think you understood very well, however. Though the book is of course intended an allegory of the Soviet Union, it is quite clear that its main criticism is directed at bureaucracy - at the clique which ran the nation - as opposed to the Socialist project, in which Orwell firmly believed.

Having said that, if you're in to Orwell, maybe you ought to read The road to Wigan Pier instead, it provides a great analysis of the disgustingly corrupt right-wing clique by which the Labour movement is usually run. Orwell was indeed a genius. Indeed he was intelligent enough to warn - at least implicitly - the movement about the dangers to come. That dangers is today known as New Labour - and, trust me, soon it will done and dealt with!


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#16)

by Mikael on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:28:30 PM GMT

"be done...", of course!


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#19)

by Glass House on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:14:20 PM GMT

I think Orwell would be unhappy with certain elements within New Labour. But I also think he would be unhappy with certain elements of the oppositionalist left.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#21)

by Mikael on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:48:07 PM GMT

And just which of these elements would he be most unhappy with??? I frankly believe that - while he may well have disapproved of the alleged infighting of those whom you refer to as opositionalist - he would have considered the so-called "New Labour project" alien to the Labour movement - which, of course, it is!

Orwell was a Socialist and would most certainly have opposed the creeping privatisation and cuts imposed by the New Labour government. As you know, Orwell wrote for Tribune - the "oppositionalist" Labour Left of his time - and, again, was a Socialist who, if he engagement with the paper in question is to be taken seriously, would most certainly have advocated the nationalisation of, at least, the "commanding heights" of the economy - as Bevanites (the Tribunites of the day) did back then!


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#22)

by JR on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:30:58 PM GMT

It doesn't really matter what Orwell would or would not think since he's no longer with us. As I've said before, it's ridiculous when people drag up historical figures and ask whether they would approve of today's events. Since they don't belong to this age, it is completely irrelevant.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#23)

by jkitleft on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:25:46 PM GMT

the troble is, many people don't forget about history. Rightly so. People will draw from history's ideas, and that's why I think Animal Farm, or the quarrels within socialism are still relevant today.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#24)

by JR on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:33:54 PM GMT

I don't to be honest. The socialism that Orwell believed in, is not wanted by Britain today - things have changed.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#25)

by jkitleft on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:19:55 PM GMT

The trouble is JR, that people aren't as interested in politics as us. People don't really have a preferance to socialism or conservatism. There are always reasons for people being elected 1979- Tories win because of strikes 1983- Left split, Falklands factor 1987- Left split again 1992- Media coverage 1997- Black Wednesday, Torie sleaze, splits on Europe, want for change, Blair young leader 2001- Blair has better coverage than Hague, Tories still haven't recovered 2005- 'We're not as bad as the Tories', Howard creepy So you can say, that socialism isn't as popular. Or we can look at the fact that people are ignorant of politics and policies, and certain people will get elected because of factors other than policies.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#8)

by doctordunc on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:11:04 PM GMT

I'm sure Michael will see that the mischief has been being brewed elsewhere.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#9)

by BrownSupporter on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:49:24 PM GMT

So the shambles of the left IS Brown's fault! I try to take the piss but you guys are beyond parody!


Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#10)

by JR on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:42:38 PM GMT

They are indeed. But don't worry, we're not all insane on here.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#14)

by red flagger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:27:13 PM GMT

I always enjoy a good insult thrown at me.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#12)

by e10rifles on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:44:16 PM GMT

The shambles of the left is not Brown's fault. The bullying and bribing of MPs not to nominate a left candidate is. The nonsense in this article was dealt with above without reference to blaming Brown.


[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose this is Brown's fault too. (#17)

by grimupnorth on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:43:44 PM GMT

Indeed.


[ Parent ]

I suppose this is Brown's fault too. | 25 comments (25 topical)