Posts
Michael Meacher: Interview with Labour Home
Interesting comments over at El Tom's Newer Labour.
He's a class act. But essentially Meacher has the same platform as John McDonnell without quite the same degree of integrity and judgement, something which Meacher himself salutes before spinning yarns about parliamentary nomnations in the bag.
Backing Blair on Iraq, conspiricising on 9-11, owning millions of pounds of residential buy-to-let do not a wise leader or an exemplary socialist make. I look forward to Alex Hilton interviewing John McDonnell, and who knows another candidate who is from the centre left, yet distinctive from the left candidate, and unimpeachable.
Really there should have been some left and centre left primary system. Something like the Unanimous programme could have been the way.
12 comments:
Agreed.
Maybe a left hustings organised by the Grassroots Alliance - which works well at NEC election time.
With all candidates pledged to support the winner.
I would have supported McDonnell over Meacher in the initial stage.
The winner would get some good media to start the campaign.
John McDonnell's campaign has already been backed unanimously or overwhelmingly by every left/centre-left grouping related to the Labour party or trade union movement. Therefore such primaries have already taken place.
In effect these hustings have already taken place - John's candidacy has been approved by virtually all of the component parts of the CLGA - the LRC, Welsh Labour Grassroots, Campaign for Socialism, Network of Socialist Campaign Groups - and just last week, after Meacher announced, CLPD.
Further McDonnell has the backing of broad lefts in Amicus, CWU, TGWU and Unison - plus endrosement from ASLEF - the only affiliated union to have declared.
Polls in Tribune and LabourHome seem to suggest that John has more credibility than Meacher - and he has.
I'm sorry Owen but that is absolute guff.
It is a moot question whether the particular gatherings which have backed John have been representative of their bodies or of the party and movement outside a tiny minority who are delegates to everything going.
I have seen close up how the affiliates section worked in Manchester Withington and it is not good viewing really. A tiny number, or NO real delegates (meaning paid staff instead) deciding to award four (or six?) of the seven (or nine?) nominations used to the candidate that many would regard as the LEAST likely to be helpful to TUs in either an industrial or political sense.
Only two of the processes (Co-op and SEA) look right to these eyes, though I fully accept that these are the processes which exist and they have been used within the rules.
It's not a great model at the moment. And it can safely be ignored in any analysis of support of the candidates from the constituency.
Perhaps you could furnish a list of the actual meetings involved and how many people were present at each meeting? You'd rather not? Oh.
The initial constituency involved are the Commons members of the PLP. There has certainly been no primary process among the PLP. And having the backing of people outside that group is fairly irrelevant in terms of getting over the first hurdle.
Sticking up your hand first and expecting a clear run is NOT DEMOCRATIC and though I have heard John's reasons face to face at the LRC Rally at Life Cafe and he explained his GLC experience and why he thinks it is OK I really don't agree with the rationale that because Ken did it to him and the Labour Group at County Hall John can and should do it to the Labour Left and Centre Left now.
I reckon there are 250 LP MPs to the left of Brown, at least. 150 of them might nominate someone else than Brown to promote the debate and contest we need at very least. That's enough for three candidates to be chosen and championed by a broad left group in the PLP giving the party a real choice, probably making five candidates if an ultra Blairite is added.
I would support that. And I would probably also support John to be the beneficiary of all the 2 and 3 preferences from the other two.
But this process is sad, divisive and undemocratic. It reflects badly on the Labour Left organisationally even though politically and industrially John is a great Champion.
What has been happening is not necessarily a recipe to pull Brown to the left, never mind actually beat him. So what is good about it?
Chris, with all due respect, as someone who has worked in Parliament for a year and a half, to be told that 250 Labour MPs are to the left of Brown in any meaningful sense (i.e. the majority of the PLP) is probably one of the most farcically absurd things I have ever heard in my entire life.
There's only a limited number of MPs who are willing to support a left challenger of some description to Brown - between 50 and 60. In truth, some of those would only do so on the basis there should be a contest.
Your proposed scheme is profoundly undemocratic - i.e. letting a handful of MPs decide for themselves who the candidate should be without any consultation with the grassroots of the Labour party and trade unions. Yes, John was the first to put his name forward, but it was completely up to all the various grassroots organisations to reject his candidacy on the basis that another candidate might emerge. Indeed, this very argument was used in the minority of cases where the campaign was not endorsed with total unanimity. Nonetheless, such arguments failed with all of the groups of the Labour left/centre-left.
To suggest that groups like Amicus Unity Gazette and T&G Broad Left aren't representative is just nonsense. They both effectively control the execs of their unions and both almost single-handedly got their respective general secretaries elected. Other groups - such as the LRC, Welsh Labour Grassroots and CLPD - represent the broad swathe of the Labour left. At LRC Conference alone, there were 450 delegates.
To reiterate, John's campaign has the backing of all these grassroots organisations - including the key union groups. Meacher's own tactic was to ignore the grassroots and follow your strategy - consult MPs behind closed doors. It's failed disastrously. That's really all there is to it.
And finally, again with all due respect (as I think you're a sincere and dedicated activist) - I wouldn't mind your arrogant tone so much if I was confident that you knew your facts. You don't. Sorry.
Well Owen, that's told me.
I agree that having the PLP in charge is undemocratic. But that is unfortunately the way it actually is. They are in the box seat. It is as well to acknowledge that and behave accordingly.
Meacher's video has him doing his left-right analysis of the PLP. Though I believe he is unsuitable to be our leader - and doesn't understand stage left-stage right either - that is about right.
There are IMO far more than 60 MPs who would like to see candidates from the left AND/OR the centre left. Not that will back John or Michael in the vote but who would rather see a contest with a range of choices and might prefer a different victor than Brown for various reasons some of which may not be left/right issues.
Lots of people at LRC - I knew that. Not necessarily very many who had already thought through how this would all look to the world and whether it is the best way to either beat Brown or achieve any leftwards momentum.
I don't think it is. And I think that like all parties the Labour Party can be profoundly undemocratic at times. This is one of them.
Chris, far more than 60 MPs "of the left" who would not back Meacher or McDonnell. Enlighten us who their candidate could be.If they won't vote for someone of the left, in what sense are they left-wing at all? Conpromise and fudging bought us 13 years of Blairism -not a road to go down again.
Not really left/right issue? I understand these are terms vaguely distasteful to some but that, in the end, is what this is about.Labour Party policy, democratic socialism versus a neo-Conservative Govt far to the right of Wilson and callaghan and utterly at odds with a huge chunk of its membership.
Defeat at the next General Election (looking more likely by the day under Brown) or retaining some credibility with our natural supporters via an honest contest with proper debate.The MPs sway over the electoral college is DEEPLY undemocratic and was introduced by the right in the 1980s as a spoiling tactic to stop the left.
Owen has made the points about the grassroots'organisations. Campaign For labour Party democracy voted 4:1 for John McDonnell - I was at the meeting and there was a proper debate and recorded vote.To suggest his campaign does not have huge grassroots support and is some kind of stitch-up is plain wrong. Thousands of fully paid-up Party members want a leadership candidate yet 44 Mps will decide whether we do or not.How undemocratic is that?
to be told that 250 Labour MPs are to the left of Brown in any meaningful sense (i.e. the majority of the PLP) is probably one of the most farcically absurd things I have ever heard in my entire life.
It's accurate to the extent that the majority of Labour Party MPs would prefer a more left-wing platform than the current leadership stands on. But, out of concern for their careers (or loyalty to the party structure, or fear of the whips, or a genuine belief that anything else will put the Tories back in government), very few would support a challenge to Brown (from anyone), or a challenge to Blairism. At a pinch, some might support someone like Hain running on a left-wing platform - but the number who'll support a backbench challenge is very small. The running therefore has to be done by the party outside Parliament. The majority of the PLP would support McDonnell if he became leader (and would do so more happily than they support Blair), but they won't do anything to risk their position under an assumed Brown leadership. I don't actually think the majority would support Meacher - he's such a ludicrous and weak figure, he's just not a credible leader.
Susan: I DID NOT say more than 60 "of the left" and as a journalist you should have more respect for what people actually say when repeating it. My remarks are about the left and centre left (this term in respect of LP). I stand by them.
The point about not necessarily left/right issues driving people away from Brown I also stick by. It comes down for some of the MPs in marginal seats especially to polls and winnability. Brown is getting a moderately bad run of polls. These can largely be ignored (a) because they are polls, (b) because they are mid term and (c) because they are versus St Tony and St David.
I am not suggesting the McDonnell campaign is some kind of stitch up. I support John in fact. But I would find that a good deal easier to defend if there was a better process to get him on the ballot and have a serious tilt at either beating Brown preferably or at least drawing him back a bit.
I am suggesting that self-nomination by show-of-hand (singular) and then his mates jeering at anyone else with a different idea on who should stand is NOT particularly democratic at all.
There is no other selection activity in the LP that is so haphazardly run than what might be the most important one of all.
In selecting an MP people throw their hats in the ring and there is a two month process to decide who gets through to the later stages and eventually wins.
In local government there is self or other nomination, acceptance onto a panel, nomination and seconding by branches onto long lists, decisions on formats and size of short list, selection meetings.
I have been looking for a real debate in the party to the Left of Brown with at least a couple of candidates going forward with 50 nominations. I really don't think that the current activity in the L/DL selection/election is very helpful in the professed aims of the campaign.
Who knows who a candidate for the centre left might be. Denham, Hain, Trickett, even Benn. That's up to them. But getting two names left on Brown on the ballot is a worthy endeavour that isn't being managed or attempted.
Gregg: we'll have to see what happens when the phoney war turns real, soon. The whole "it's going to be Brown" thing is one of those self-fulfilling prophesies.
Electorates and selectorates often get tempted to bet on the winner rather than back their own agenda. Never more so than with craven MPs.
Brown will want a contest however. To this end he will surely allow at least one or two candidates to be nominated, on top of any from the ultras that defy him as they are toast job-wise anyway if he's even half as destructively control-freaky and favours-orientated as Blair/Campbell/Mandelson.
PS Where are all the positive comments on the John McDonnell video gallery I posted yesterday. Which of the seven policy videos is most impressive? Which is most of a challenge to the Brownies? Which would appeal most to the general membership of LP and movement? C'mon people. This is a Labour of Love but it seems ridiculous that McDonnell supporters fight with your blogger like ferrets in a sack when there is a Meacher post with a ickle bitty comment. But don't bother to take the opportunity to be positive about your own man.
Sorry, Chris. Have been busy organising meetings/writing paid articles/lobbying local people to lobby MP.
Meacher is allegedly down to 2 MPs supporting him.see www.politicalbetting.com
People do appreciate your fairness and support.It's just getting a bit crucial isn't it and nerves are bound to get a little jangly in the weeks ahead. Just had a lovely chat with an octogenarian peace campaigner who was "inspired" by John McDonnell meeting here friday:
Quote: "I got home and immediately wrote to Chris (McCafferty) the minute I got home. I thought socialism was dead and buried and that there was only New Labour. Anything I can do to help, I will." Blogging is great fun but sometimes the old-fashioned forms of communication are much much better.Take care.
Post a Comment