Seeing Off John McDonnell
I once achieved something which Gordon Brown's camp ensured he would not have to do. I defeated John McDonnell in a Labour Party ballot.
It was back on 12 January, 1986. The North East Derbyshire Constituency Labour Party held a selection meeting to appoint its Prospective Parliamentary Candidate. It was held at the Derbyshire Miners' Offices in Chesterfield.
Those Were The Days : Different Shades Of Red
The shortlist of candidates were Reg Race who had previously been a hard left MP in the Campaign Group, John Dunn the Miners' nominee who had played a key roll locally in the 1984 Miners' Strike and at that time was a supporter of the Militant Tendency, the late Ted Fearn who was the Constituency Party Secretary, John McDonnell and myself.
Apart from John McDonnell and Reg Race, it was a local and fairly incestuous affair. Although Reg had recently moved in to a neighbouring area.
I had taught John Dunn on the Derbyshire Miners' Day Release Courses which had at one time been held in the very room in which the five of us were seated whilst we awaited our turn to appear before the Selection Conference. He was an active member of the Constituency Party in which I had held several different posts and I knew him to be a highly able and forceful character. He had been adopted as the Miners' nominee (at least in part) because of the role he had recently played in the Strike.
Ted Fearn like myself taught politics and he was a member of the same Branch of the Constituency Party. We had worked amicably together on a whole number of Labour activities. He was at the Sheffield Poly and I was at the University.
When we were all together, John McDonnell sat staring into the electric fire. It turned out that he was not speaking to Reg Race, whom he later claimed had crossed a picket line when a full-time NUPE officer in the south of England. John had been nominated by the Wingerworth Labour Party, who I viewed as being one of the more moderate Branches in a fairly left-wing Constituency which included Clay Cross, where more than a decade earlier their 100% Labour Council had been involved in a famous rent rebellion against the Tory Government. But John only bagged Wingerworth votes!
Not What You Know, But Who You Know
From what I picked up John was the the most effective speaker that day, but under the old delegatory system votes tended to be tied up before the proceedings started. So John MacDonnell and Reg Race were eliminated on the first ballot. John Dunn went out on the second ballot as (a) the NUM had lost a slice of its past delegates strength due to pit closures and (b) Labour only had a majority of 2,006 in the seat and numbers were scared of losing it if they ran a candidate with known Militant links.
So the final vote was determined between Ted Fearn and myself. I probably made it in the end because of my links with the NUM via my Industrial Day Release teaching. They had earlier decided to opt for me if John Dunn's nomination fell.
So John McDonnell once more had the cards stacked against him. The following day I went with my wife to talk to the Wingerworth Branch of the Party to smooth over their temporary addiction to his charms!
What Might Have Been
But if John had finished top of the poll instead of bottom, he would have arrived in the Commons ten years earlier than he did. Just think of how much that would have advanced his cause. He would probably, at least, have cleared the recent nominations hurdle to face Gordon Brown. So it looks as if in the end, I was to blame for doing Gordon Brown a good turn!
Showing posts with label John McDonnell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McDonnell. Show all posts
Friday, May 25, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Beyond Our Ken
John McDonnell's Role Model
John is not the first member of the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) to fail to gain sufficient nominations to stand for the Leadership of the Labour Party. Ken Livingstone went down that path in 1992.
After Labour's defeat in the 1992 Election, Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley bounced the Labour Party into elections for Leader and Deputy by their premature resignations, which gave the Party little time to give the matter much thought.
We can hardly plead that we were unprepared this time - although what is happening is again devoid of questioning and analysis.
Trying To Talk Ken Out Of Standing
As soon as Neil and Roy announced their intention to resign, SCG weekly meetings were dominated by how we should respond. Opinions differed strongly, with some keen to push Ken Livingstone's candidature. After all, Ken enjoyed a high media profile.
Yet there were strong voices arguing against running any candidate. For a while no-one sort to test the water by moving for a vote on the matter. But time started to run out and those supporting Ken needed to move. This was done at a poorly attended meeting which was held as a parliament was either moving in or out of recess - I forget which.
There were only seven MPs present for the crucial meeting. These were Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Ken Livingstone, John Austin (who was newly elected and was then known as John Austin-Walker), the late Bernie Grant, the late Bob Cryer and myself.
Crunch Time
At that time, Ken and Bernie had been at loggerheads over the best way to pursue anti-racist activities. Ken was fully involved in the work of the Anti Racist Alliance, whilst Bernie was active with the Anti Nazi League. Ken and Bernie barely seemed to be on speaking terms.
It was, therefore, something of a surprise when Ken informed us that if he stood for the leadership he was in favour of Bernie standing as his running mate for the post of Deputy. Thankfully for Ken, Bernie liked the idea.
Dennis Skinner and Bob Cryer were strong supporters of the notion that the Group should run candidates, so they supported the proposal for a Ken-Bernie ticket.
Tony Benn was probably chairing the meeting, as he did not vote. John Austin-Walker and myself opposed the proposal, as we felt that it would be counter-productive both inside the newly elected Parliamentary Labour Party and throughout the wider movement.
Otherwise tied at 2-2 (Skinner and Cryer vs Austin-Walker and Barnes), the outcome was determined by the votes of the would-be candidates.
Needless to say without Ken and Bernie even having widespread support amongst the missing members of the SCG, they failed badly to obtain the required number of nominations from Labour MPs.
Tony's Contribution
The last time the SCG moved successfully to secure a nomination for the Labour Leadership was in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged the then incumbent Leader, Neil Kinnock. Tony obtained only 11.4% of the vote. (This contest is not to be confused with his famous narrow defeat by Dennis Healy for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party in 1981, during the high-water mark of Bennism.)
Before Tony's name went forward, there were again lengthy weekly debates in the SCG. I remember Red Dawn's reaction (i.e. Dawn Primarolo) in particular. She was a strong supporter of Tony Benn's political position and initially she argued forcefully in support of him standing. But when she discussed the situation with left activists in her Bristol Constituency (the very people who she thought would support her line), she was shocked to find them repeating the same warnings that some of us were putting to her at SCG meetings. She then changed her stance. Perhaps this was the start of her move into the Gordon Brown camp.
An immediate consequence of Tony's failed candidature in 1988 was that the Labour Party raised the hurdle for MPs' nominations beyond the then 10% level - a move that was unhelpful to John McDonnell in the long run.
Yield Not To Temptation
The SCG and the left generally need to learn the futility in current circumstances of running their own candidates for top Labour positions. It takes activists to the top of the hill and lets them roll down again - as will be seen in John4Leader's comment box and on many a blog.
It was the above reasoning which led me to press for Peter Hain to stand for Leader and not just for Deputy. I judged that for the left he was a plausible candidate who would clear the nominations hurdle, run a campaign we could associate ourselves with and give us an opportunity to have a marginal influence on the future direction of the Party. I did not expect him to win, but to have some influence on Gordon Brown via his campaign.
As Peter did not stand for Leader (and few saw the significance of pushing him to stand), I eventually moved at the 11th hour to support John McDonnell - as (given the eventual lack of choice) I would have nominated him if I had still been an MP. Which is more than I did for Ken Livingstone in 1988.
But none of us should be placed in such a position. When it comes to issues as key as the Leadership of the Labour Party, the left and its MPs should make coherent moves to seek out feasible candidates. Unfortunately, that position has never won through in the SCG - except as below.
1988, 1992, 2007 Or 1994?
Although I know what went on in the SCG over the 1988 and 1992 Leadership contests, I'm not privy to what happened this year. But I am keen to find out.
There has, however, been one Leadership election where the SCG adopted the approach I favour. In 1994, I actively campaigned alongside Ken Livingstone and others for Margaret Beckett in the contest which Tony Blair won. Margaret might not seem to be a standard bearer for "left of centre" politics in current circumstances, but she did in 1994 (and for periods afterwards). At the least she would have maintained the Labourite stance of John Smith and would not have propagated a New Labour line - she was the Peter Hain of her time.
John is not the first member of the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) to fail to gain sufficient nominations to stand for the Leadership of the Labour Party. Ken Livingstone went down that path in 1992.
After Labour's defeat in the 1992 Election, Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley bounced the Labour Party into elections for Leader and Deputy by their premature resignations, which gave the Party little time to give the matter much thought.
We can hardly plead that we were unprepared this time - although what is happening is again devoid of questioning and analysis.
Trying To Talk Ken Out Of Standing
As soon as Neil and Roy announced their intention to resign, SCG weekly meetings were dominated by how we should respond. Opinions differed strongly, with some keen to push Ken Livingstone's candidature. After all, Ken enjoyed a high media profile.
Yet there were strong voices arguing against running any candidate. For a while no-one sort to test the water by moving for a vote on the matter. But time started to run out and those supporting Ken needed to move. This was done at a poorly attended meeting which was held as a parliament was either moving in or out of recess - I forget which.
There were only seven MPs present for the crucial meeting. These were Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Ken Livingstone, John Austin (who was newly elected and was then known as John Austin-Walker), the late Bernie Grant, the late Bob Cryer and myself.
Crunch Time
At that time, Ken and Bernie had been at loggerheads over the best way to pursue anti-racist activities. Ken was fully involved in the work of the Anti Racist Alliance, whilst Bernie was active with the Anti Nazi League. Ken and Bernie barely seemed to be on speaking terms.
It was, therefore, something of a surprise when Ken informed us that if he stood for the leadership he was in favour of Bernie standing as his running mate for the post of Deputy. Thankfully for Ken, Bernie liked the idea.
Dennis Skinner and Bob Cryer were strong supporters of the notion that the Group should run candidates, so they supported the proposal for a Ken-Bernie ticket.
Tony Benn was probably chairing the meeting, as he did not vote. John Austin-Walker and myself opposed the proposal, as we felt that it would be counter-productive both inside the newly elected Parliamentary Labour Party and throughout the wider movement.
Otherwise tied at 2-2 (Skinner and Cryer vs Austin-Walker and Barnes), the outcome was determined by the votes of the would-be candidates.
Needless to say without Ken and Bernie even having widespread support amongst the missing members of the SCG, they failed badly to obtain the required number of nominations from Labour MPs.
Tony's Contribution
The last time the SCG moved successfully to secure a nomination for the Labour Leadership was in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged the then incumbent Leader, Neil Kinnock. Tony obtained only 11.4% of the vote. (This contest is not to be confused with his famous narrow defeat by Dennis Healy for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party in 1981, during the high-water mark of Bennism.)
Before Tony's name went forward, there were again lengthy weekly debates in the SCG. I remember Red Dawn's reaction (i.e. Dawn Primarolo) in particular. She was a strong supporter of Tony Benn's political position and initially she argued forcefully in support of him standing. But when she discussed the situation with left activists in her Bristol Constituency (the very people who she thought would support her line), she was shocked to find them repeating the same warnings that some of us were putting to her at SCG meetings. She then changed her stance. Perhaps this was the start of her move into the Gordon Brown camp.
An immediate consequence of Tony's failed candidature in 1988 was that the Labour Party raised the hurdle for MPs' nominations beyond the then 10% level - a move that was unhelpful to John McDonnell in the long run.
Yield Not To Temptation
The SCG and the left generally need to learn the futility in current circumstances of running their own candidates for top Labour positions. It takes activists to the top of the hill and lets them roll down again - as will be seen in John4Leader's comment box and on many a blog.
It was the above reasoning which led me to press for Peter Hain to stand for Leader and not just for Deputy. I judged that for the left he was a plausible candidate who would clear the nominations hurdle, run a campaign we could associate ourselves with and give us an opportunity to have a marginal influence on the future direction of the Party. I did not expect him to win, but to have some influence on Gordon Brown via his campaign.
As Peter did not stand for Leader (and few saw the significance of pushing him to stand), I eventually moved at the 11th hour to support John McDonnell - as (given the eventual lack of choice) I would have nominated him if I had still been an MP. Which is more than I did for Ken Livingstone in 1988.
But none of us should be placed in such a position. When it comes to issues as key as the Leadership of the Labour Party, the left and its MPs should make coherent moves to seek out feasible candidates. Unfortunately, that position has never won through in the SCG - except as below.
1988, 1992, 2007 Or 1994?
Although I know what went on in the SCG over the 1988 and 1992 Leadership contests, I'm not privy to what happened this year. But I am keen to find out.
There has, however, been one Leadership election where the SCG adopted the approach I favour. In 1994, I actively campaigned alongside Ken Livingstone and others for Margaret Beckett in the contest which Tony Blair won. Margaret might not seem to be a standard bearer for "left of centre" politics in current circumstances, but she did in 1994 (and for periods afterwards). At the least she would have maintained the Labourite stance of John Smith and would not have propagated a New Labour line - she was the Peter Hain of her time.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Shortest Campaign In The History of the Blogosphere?
At 2.53pm yesterday, I posted this item in which I finally came out in support of John McDonnell's campaign for the Leadership of the Labour Party. The Labour Party then revealed that by 6pm, John had only received 27 nominations and still required a further 18 to qualify as a candidate - almost 40% of the few who had not been through the procedure.
So unless rabbit's are about to be pulled out of hats, John's campaign has bitten the dust. If he pulls out of the contest now in favour of Michael Meacher, then I will not join in. Michael has no credibility or emotional appeal for me.
So it is looking as if I will be returning to my normal state of the pessimism of the intellect after just over a 3 hour bout of the optimism of the will.
So unless rabbit's are about to be pulled out of hats, John's campaign has bitten the dust. If he pulls out of the contest now in favour of Michael Meacher, then I will not join in. Michael has no credibility or emotional appeal for me.
So it is looking as if I will be returning to my normal state of the pessimism of the intellect after just over a 3 hour bout of the optimism of the will.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Then Comrades Come Rally
Peter Misses Out
I kept pressing for Peter Hain to stand for the Leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds that he was a closet Libertarian Socialist who could come forward with a feasible left-leaning platform that could stimulate a much needed debate in the Labour Party. I felt that he could have given Gordon a good run for his campaign money.
But it is not to be and Peter will only be a candidate for Deputy. I will give him my vote, as I hope that he can use the position as a launch pad in a future Leadership campaign - if, for instance, Labour lose the next General Election.
John Benefits
Given that the only possible Leadership contest now seems to be between Gordon and John, then I have no difficulty in making my mind up between them. I am not New Labour and reject the powers and freedoms of the market. So I can't support Gordon, even if he is developing a leftish form of New Labourism.
I am all for the debate for the leadership providing a democratic socialist challenge to New Labour. John who has ability, conviction and a pleasing personality; will certainly fly this red flag. I might be being carried away in a wave of emotion, but I will now join with my former comrades in the Socialist Campaign Group and give John my full and active support. If all else fails, at least I will enjoy myself.
'Another World Is Possible"
The above is the title of John's Campaign document. His Campaign operates from www.john4leader.org.uk and info@john4leader.org.uk. See here.
My own statement for use in his Campaign is -
"John has wide ranging abilities, understandings and commitments. When dealing with issue after issue, he invariably thinks through sets of serious proposals and pursues them with determination and dedication. Without John as a candidate for Leader, there will be no debate in the coming key weeks inside the Labour Party about whether its future can rise beyond the confines of New Labour and embrace the norms of democratic socialism."
If I am now guilty of an emotional spasm, then long live red emotional spasms.
I kept pressing for Peter Hain to stand for the Leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds that he was a closet Libertarian Socialist who could come forward with a feasible left-leaning platform that could stimulate a much needed debate in the Labour Party. I felt that he could have given Gordon a good run for his campaign money.
But it is not to be and Peter will only be a candidate for Deputy. I will give him my vote, as I hope that he can use the position as a launch pad in a future Leadership campaign - if, for instance, Labour lose the next General Election.
John Benefits
Given that the only possible Leadership contest now seems to be between Gordon and John, then I have no difficulty in making my mind up between them. I am not New Labour and reject the powers and freedoms of the market. So I can't support Gordon, even if he is developing a leftish form of New Labourism.
I am all for the debate for the leadership providing a democratic socialist challenge to New Labour. John who has ability, conviction and a pleasing personality; will certainly fly this red flag. I might be being carried away in a wave of emotion, but I will now join with my former comrades in the Socialist Campaign Group and give John my full and active support. If all else fails, at least I will enjoy myself.
'Another World Is Possible"
The above is the title of John's Campaign document. His Campaign operates from www.john4leader.org.uk and info@john4leader.org.uk. See here.
My own statement for use in his Campaign is -
"John has wide ranging abilities, understandings and commitments. When dealing with issue after issue, he invariably thinks through sets of serious proposals and pursues them with determination and dedication. Without John as a candidate for Leader, there will be no debate in the coming key weeks inside the Labour Party about whether its future can rise beyond the confines of New Labour and embrace the norms of democratic socialism."
If I am now guilty of an emotional spasm, then long live red emotional spasms.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
I Had A Dream
It is not fair. There is speculation about the make-up of a Gordon Brown Cabinet, but I have not seen any speculation about the make-up of a John McDonnell Cabinet. Yet I can see it now through the ether and via an intelligent look at the make-up of the Socialist Campaign Group. The membership of the Group neatly fits the current posts.
Prime Minister...............John MacDonnell
Deputy Prime Minister........Jeremy Corbyn(1)
Chancellor of the Exchequer..Kelvin Hopkins
Chief Secretary,Treasury.....Mike Wood
Foreign Secretary............Bob Wareing(2)
International Development....Diane Abbott(3)
Home Secretary...............Neil Gerrard
Education & Skills...........Lynne Jones
Health.......................Ian Gibson
Environment..................Alan Simpson(4)
Trade & Industry.............Mick Clapham
Work & Pensions..............Katy Clark
Defence......................Harry Cohen
Justice & Lord Chancellor....Lord Marshall-Andrews QC
Community & Women............Ann Cryer
Culture, Media, Sport........Bill Etherington(5)
Social Exclusion.............Linda Riordan
Transport & Scotland.........David Hamilton
N.Ireland & Wales............John Austin(6)
Minister Without Portfolio...Dave Anderson(7)
Chief Whip...................Austin Mitchell
Leader of the Commons........David Taylor
Leader of the Lords..........Lord Skinner of Bolsover(8)
Lords Chief Whip.............Lord Cook of Stockton
Notes
1 = This appointment is on the assumption that Jon Cruddas wins the Deputy Leader vote and is committed not to take the linked post of Deputy Prime Minister. If someone else wins the Deputy Leader vote, then Jeremy will be appointed as British Ambassador to the United States.
2 = Bob's first visit will be to Belgrade.
3 = Diane is seen as the new Claire Short.
4 = As part of the deal under which Michael Meacher dropped out of standing for Leader in favour of John, he will job-share with Alan.
5 = Bill qualifies as Sports Minister because he is a Sunderland supporter and the Stadium of Light is in his Constituency.
6 = For John's past services to Sinn Fein.
7 = Dave's membership of the Socialist Campaign Group seems to have lapsed. If he pays his subscription he will be given a Portfolio.
8 = Dennis's appointment is in order to usher legislation to abolish the Lords through the Upper House. The nation will then be known as Skinnerville.
Comment
I hope that my former Comrades in the Campaign Group forgive the above. Some of the appointments would actually be rather good ones. And if we are given the choice, I will be voting for John.
Prime Minister...............John MacDonnell
Deputy Prime Minister........Jeremy Corbyn(1)
Chancellor of the Exchequer..Kelvin Hopkins
Chief Secretary,Treasury.....Mike Wood
Foreign Secretary............Bob Wareing(2)
International Development....Diane Abbott(3)
Home Secretary...............Neil Gerrard
Education & Skills...........Lynne Jones
Health.......................Ian Gibson
Environment..................Alan Simpson(4)
Trade & Industry.............Mick Clapham
Work & Pensions..............Katy Clark
Defence......................Harry Cohen
Justice & Lord Chancellor....Lord Marshall-Andrews QC
Community & Women............Ann Cryer
Culture, Media, Sport........Bill Etherington(5)
Social Exclusion.............Linda Riordan
Transport & Scotland.........David Hamilton
N.Ireland & Wales............John Austin(6)
Minister Without Portfolio...Dave Anderson(7)
Chief Whip...................Austin Mitchell
Leader of the Commons........David Taylor
Leader of the Lords..........Lord Skinner of Bolsover(8)
Lords Chief Whip.............Lord Cook of Stockton
Notes
1 = This appointment is on the assumption that Jon Cruddas wins the Deputy Leader vote and is committed not to take the linked post of Deputy Prime Minister. If someone else wins the Deputy Leader vote, then Jeremy will be appointed as British Ambassador to the United States.
2 = Bob's first visit will be to Belgrade.
3 = Diane is seen as the new Claire Short.
4 = As part of the deal under which Michael Meacher dropped out of standing for Leader in favour of John, he will job-share with Alan.
5 = Bill qualifies as Sports Minister because he is a Sunderland supporter and the Stadium of Light is in his Constituency.
6 = For John's past services to Sinn Fein.
7 = Dave's membership of the Socialist Campaign Group seems to have lapsed. If he pays his subscription he will be given a Portfolio.
8 = Dennis's appointment is in order to usher legislation to abolish the Lords through the Upper House. The nation will then be known as Skinnerville.
Comment
I hope that my former Comrades in the Campaign Group forgive the above. Some of the appointments would actually be rather good ones. And if we are given the choice, I will be voting for John.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
John McDonnell's Farm
See here for an exchange between John McDonnell and myself via my comment box. When he becomes Prime Minister and transforms the House of Lords into a socialist institution, I have high hopes that he will call upon me to be a commissar(responsible for political education and organisation.)
Thursday, March 01, 2007
So far, everyones a fruit and nut case
The Labour Leadership contest is in danger of turning into a complete and utter farce.
The Three Stooges : Clarke, Milburn and Meacher
Ignoring the Byzantine policy-making structure which they helped to foist upon the Labour Party, Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn now propose to set up their own policy debate via a web-site. Yet as every blogger knows, comment boxes seriously degenerate after the first wave of entries - just have a look at Harry's Place.
John McDonnell is probably correct when he states that "nobody can believe that this is anything other than a smokescreen for the launch of a pre-emptive coup against Gordon Brown by the Blairite ultra-right." For when this duo are supposed to be tackling Gordon Brown on policy matters, instead they concentrate on what really worries them - his slump in the opinion polls put down to a lack of charisma.
On the third stooge, see this one I made earlier.
At The Starting Blocks
A. Gordon Brown. He has been the economic wing of New Labour, even though he has had one of the longest sulks about his leader, even challenging that of Ted Heath over Margaret Thatcher. For those in a democratic socialist position, he is a non-starter - unless he is suddenly going to return to the days of John Smith.
B. John McDonnell. He was fine when we shared rebel division lobbies against New Labour excesses. But everything can't be put back in one fell swoop. His campaign isn't meant to build a meaningful challenge to old, new or right-wing Blairism. He is merely for spreading the socialist gospel. But even that aim will backfire in widespead defeat.
C. Micheal Meacher. He has no credabilty on his chosen ground of the centre-left. He tucked in with the New Labour Government and then got the sack. He had missed his chance to resign and build a base amongst the very back-benchers he is now trying to appeal to. When he was finally free to move, he came up with a futile conspiracy theory about 9/11. He had been surfing the net without discernment.
D. Godot or God-damn-it. This is the yet unknown candidate of the dreams of Charles Clarke and Allan Milburn (they are probably waiting for us to turn out on the streets to shout for them.) If what emerges is a substitute for Blair/Brown or the right wing varient feared by John McDonnell, then this could be the candidate from hell.
Who Is Doing The Thinking On The Centre-Left ?
The leftward leaning (but pro-capitalist) think-tank Compass has washed its hands of the Leadership Contest and is running a strange and premature ballot for its members for the Deputy Leadership instead. As the returning officer, it is asking its members to vote for Jon Cruddas. Are they serious ?
As I keep arguing, only Peter Hain (of the booming Northern Ireland economy) can save the centre-left from the folly of a Leadership contest where it currently has no real presence. OK, I am on the left but we can't do anything without a centre. Why do I seem to be the only to be making the case for Peter4Leader? Perhaps I am the only one who isn't mad after ten years of New Labouring.
If Peter does not make a move, then I will probably have to end up voting for John McDonnell (if he makes the ballot paper). But this will be due to a non-emotional spasm and will be an act of desparation. And without John in the contest, it will have to be Gordon or abstention. I can't belieeeve it.
The Three Stooges : Clarke, Milburn and Meacher
Ignoring the Byzantine policy-making structure which they helped to foist upon the Labour Party, Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn now propose to set up their own policy debate via a web-site. Yet as every blogger knows, comment boxes seriously degenerate after the first wave of entries - just have a look at Harry's Place.
John McDonnell is probably correct when he states that "nobody can believe that this is anything other than a smokescreen for the launch of a pre-emptive coup against Gordon Brown by the Blairite ultra-right." For when this duo are supposed to be tackling Gordon Brown on policy matters, instead they concentrate on what really worries them - his slump in the opinion polls put down to a lack of charisma.
On the third stooge, see this one I made earlier.
At The Starting Blocks
A. Gordon Brown. He has been the economic wing of New Labour, even though he has had one of the longest sulks about his leader, even challenging that of Ted Heath over Margaret Thatcher. For those in a democratic socialist position, he is a non-starter - unless he is suddenly going to return to the days of John Smith.
B. John McDonnell. He was fine when we shared rebel division lobbies against New Labour excesses. But everything can't be put back in one fell swoop. His campaign isn't meant to build a meaningful challenge to old, new or right-wing Blairism. He is merely for spreading the socialist gospel. But even that aim will backfire in widespead defeat.
C. Micheal Meacher. He has no credabilty on his chosen ground of the centre-left. He tucked in with the New Labour Government and then got the sack. He had missed his chance to resign and build a base amongst the very back-benchers he is now trying to appeal to. When he was finally free to move, he came up with a futile conspiracy theory about 9/11. He had been surfing the net without discernment.
D. Godot or God-damn-it. This is the yet unknown candidate of the dreams of Charles Clarke and Allan Milburn (they are probably waiting for us to turn out on the streets to shout for them.) If what emerges is a substitute for Blair/Brown or the right wing varient feared by John McDonnell, then this could be the candidate from hell.
Who Is Doing The Thinking On The Centre-Left ?
The leftward leaning (but pro-capitalist) think-tank Compass has washed its hands of the Leadership Contest and is running a strange and premature ballot for its members for the Deputy Leadership instead. As the returning officer, it is asking its members to vote for Jon Cruddas. Are they serious ?
As I keep arguing, only Peter Hain (of the booming Northern Ireland economy) can save the centre-left from the folly of a Leadership contest where it currently has no real presence. OK, I am on the left but we can't do anything without a centre. Why do I seem to be the only to be making the case for Peter4Leader? Perhaps I am the only one who isn't mad after ten years of New Labouring.
If Peter does not make a move, then I will probably have to end up voting for John McDonnell (if he makes the ballot paper). But this will be due to a non-emotional spasm and will be an act of desparation. And without John in the contest, it will have to be Gordon or abstention. I can't belieeeve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)