• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So, Labour leadership contest?

Lucky

Graduate Poster
Lucky
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
1,180
Location
Yorkshire
I don't suppose it's as momentous as the US presidential thing, but it certainly deserves more media (and Forum?) coverage than it's got in proportion.

Interesting news today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6652651.stm
- and the first public indication of how well John McDonnell plays his cards.

As it happens, I met JMcD a few weeks ago. The Kid (student at Leeds Uni) is active in the john4leader campaign, and persuaded me and spouse to go with him to a McDonnell meeting at Bradford Uni (Kid lives in hopes that he can persuade me to return to political activism – but never in this universe!). Anyway, it was a very small meeting (seemed not to be advertised) so we just had an informal chat for an hour or so. I have to say I was seriously impressed with McDonnell: intelligent, knowledgeable, competent and principled (who does he not sound like?).

Btw, McDonnell is not some lone left loony (that was Meacher); he's the official candidate of the Labour Left (so far as it exists these days).

He has until Thursday to get on the ballot paper. Still very far from certain, but it looks a lot more likely that it did a few months ago. If it happens, British politics will be revitalised, and as that's the very last thing Nu-Labour wants they will move heaven and earth to prevent it. No CTs required – we are talking about 352 Labour MPs, and many of them are already committed one way or the other. A handful of MPs will determine whether there is a leadership election, and it's not too difficult to imagine the kinds of pressure/temptation ...

It's a close call, and we don't have all the information, but my best guess (and my hope) is that McDonnell will be on the ballot paper.

Lastly, sad but true: if I want to judge an aspiring British politician on the left these days, I have to apply the anti-Israel/anti-Semitism test. McDonnell's neither - good enough for me.
 
Lucky said:
Lastly, sad but true: if I want to judge an aspiring British politician on the left these days, I have to apply the anti-Israel/anti-Semitism test. McDonnell's neither - good enough for me.
Click to expand...

you might have to clarify that last bit....

i agree that the Ken Livingstone, George Galloway type lefties are significantly to the side of Palestine, and you could make a case for an anti-israeli slant - but anti-semitism =! anti-israeli, so i'd want to see evidence of anti-semitism from the british political left.....
 
Even if McDonnell does scrape enough votes for a contest, he's got no chance of winning it (will happily eat my words if proven wrong). Surely any such leadership contest is only going to "legitamise" Brown not only as party leader but Prime Minister as well? I know that in theory it was the labour party that was elected not Blair as an individual but in an age of personality politics I'm just not sure that's true any more. Blair was simply a slightly less worse choice than Michael Howard last time.

What we should have is a general election regardless, but that ain't gonna happen. Brown's been scowling for ten years awaiting his turn as PM. He's not gonna risk losing the chance of having at least a couple of years in the role on any vague notion of democracy.

Not that the thought of having Cameron instead is any more appealing...

(and I don't get the anti-semitism thing at all)
 
Last edited:
JonWhite said:
Even if McDonnell does scrape enough votes for a contest, he's got no chance of winning it (will happily eat my words if proven wrong). Surely any such leadership contest is only going to "legitamise" Brown not only as leader but Prime Minister as well? I know that in theory it was the labour party that was elected not Blair as an individual but in an age of personality politics I'm just not sure that's true any more.

What we should have is a general election regardless, but that ain't gonna happen. Brown's been scowling for ten years awaiting his chance as PM. He's not gonna risk losing the chance of having at least a couple of years in the role on any vague notion of democracy.
Click to expand...

I disagree - it was announced prior to the last General Election that Blair was going and also I don't want to see government unilaterally making that kind of change unless it is first put forward in a party constitution or an election manifesto and then forms the bases of a parliamentary debate.
 
I was under the impression that Blair fought the last election on the basis that he would serve full term but wouldn't fight another, not that he would step down (or rather be pushed) half way through.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
My recollection was that he announced in October 2004 that he would not serve another full term and he would go in good time to allow his predecessor sufficient time to settle in before fighting the next General Election.


ETA: This article would seem to indicate my recollection was wrong(ish?): http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/when+did+blair+promise+to+step+down/169525
Click to expand...

It would appear not based on the BBC's post election coverage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4526435.stm

"Downing Street has said there is "no change" from Mr Blair's statement last year that he would serve a full third term."
 
Whatever he said - and I do recall him saying he'd serve a full term - everybody knew that was impossible as it would be a practical necessity to get a successor elected and give him or her time to make his or her personal mark before the next election.

So it was inevitable that this would happen.

By the way, I'm now a bit closer to understanding why it was that one Labour luminary gaffed by calling Jack McConnell (Labour First Minister of Scotland, for maybe another 24 hours) "Jack McDonnell". Still unforgivable not to know the name of your party's own Leader in Scotland, but if there's a real McDonnell around, easier to understand.

Rolfe.
 
And is it only me that keeps shouting at the TV screen going "What difference between Blair and Brown are you talking about?" They've shared power for 10 years.
 
I simply believed the full term idea from the position of voter.

I don't see a problem with calling an election - it's certainly within the current administration's rights to do so. Not having that in their previous election manifesto doesn't mean much - is any election manifesto worth believing any more?

I would argue that all terms should be fixed and not at the discretion of the incumbent party, subject to a change of leadership.
 
JonWhite said:
I simply believed the full term idea from the position of voter.
Click to expand...

As you can see above this was interpreted by other voters in quite different ways.

JonWhite said:
...snip... is any election manifesto worth believing any more?
Click to expand...

Yes - otherwise how can you hold your MP to account, how can you hold the government to account, how can you decide how to vote and so on?



JonWhite said:
I would argue that all terms should be fixed and not at the discretion of the incumbant party, subject to a change of leadership.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but surely you recognise that is a rather big change in how government works in the UK?
 
Darat said:
And is it only me that keeps shouting at the TV screen going "What difference between Blair and Brown are you talking about?" They've shared power for 10 years.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

That's the biggest problem with the general election call. What's the point? Brown = Blair = Cameron anyway!

But at least it would be a token show of democracy.
 
Darat said:
Yes - otherwise how can you hold your MP to account, how can you hold the government to account, how can you decide how to vote and so on?
Click to expand...

The labour party's already shown a disregard for it's own manifesto, so why should we now believe it? I would personally like to see a manifesto being legally binding subject to proviso's such as issues of security (independantly judged).
 
JonWhite said:
Absolutely!

That's the biggest problem with the general election call. What's the point? Brown = Blair = Cameron anyway!

But at least it would be a token show of democracy.
Click to expand...

I disagree - so far I have very few facts that I can come to a conclusion about Cameron - he needs to start talking policies that he will implemen before we can tell if he is just a variation on Blair/Brown social deomcracy.

As much as it really is hard to say I will vote for any party that closest matches what I think should happen in this country. For many years this was quite an easy decision, today it is more difficult as the three main parties have certainly all moved to a very similar position in the political spectrum. You really do have to think more about how to vote - perhaps that's why voter turn out is down? :)
 
Darat said:
And is it only me that keeps shouting at the TV screen going "What difference between Blair and Brown are you talking about?" They've shared power for 10 years.
Click to expand...

I disagree that they have been “sharing power” since at least 2001 Brown had been effectively controlling UK domestic policy by himself. Blair ahs just fitted from pet project to pet project (usually foreign affairs based).
 
JonWhite said:
The labour party's already shown a disregard for it's own manifesto, so why should we now believe it? I would personally like to see a manifesto being legally binding subject to proviso's such as issues of security (independantly judged).
Click to expand...

All parties break manifesto promises - it is nothing unique to the Labour party. However that does not mean you cannot use it to judge them and asses them.
 
Did anyone watch all the the C4 Dispatches yesterday? I only saw bits of it and none at all after Panorama started at 8.30. The bits I saw certainly portrayed someone who might be a bit dodgy as far as running the country goes. Inability to see anyone else's point of view, absolute inability to change his own mind or point of view after discussion, in fact apparent inability to take on board either that anyone else might have a point of view or any reason why he should bother to listen to it. Other people divided into "friends" (yes-men) and "not friends" (anyone with the temerity to disagree with him).

Was this just a hatchet job, or is there any truth to the protrait?

Rolfe.
 
JonWhite said:
But as a change for the better giving an understanding of what you're getting, why not?
Click to expand...

I tend to be conservative about these things - so for me I need to be convinced there are many positive benefits for making such a change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom