Labour Leadership/Deputy Leadership Election thread

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Very close (and not just at the final round either), though not a surprising result (despite the silly comments made by various hacks on the BBC).

Harman: 15.42% 18.83% 16.18% = 50.43%
Johnson: 17.91% 14.50% 17.15% = 49.56%

Two things stand out;

1. Harman's strength amongst the CLP's.
2. Johnson's relative weakness with Union members; I'm very surprised that he did better with M.P's than Trade Unionists. Maybe Harman being Jack Dromey's wife was a factor.

[afleitch]

At least this pointless affair is over Of course now I'm going to have to learn how to draw a caricature of Harriet Harman.

EDIT: May I also add, on behalf of my fellow Conservatives, thank you for electing Harriet Harman.

[Silent Hunter]

Just to let everyone know, I did not cast any of my votes for Ms. Harman.

[Joe Republic]

Can anybody explain for my benefit why this race was important?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can anybody explain for my benefit why this race was important?

It wasn't really. There have been important Deputy Leader elections before (Healey v Benn and... um... I suppose a case could be made for Griffiths v Bevan, but that's historically interesting rather than being important), but generally it's a consolation prize for leadership election losers, like Prescott and Hattersley.
The only reason why it got a great deal of media interest is because no one wanted to get hammered by Brown in a leadership election (and because those that did didn't have enough support to get onto the ballot). Basically.
A curious aspect of this is that it didn't really break down along Left/Right lines.

[afleitch]

Can anybody explain for my benefit why this race was important?

It wasn't. It did not interest anyone outside the 'Westminster Village' or the party itself and was a sideshow to distract the media from the fact that Gordon Brown was elected as leader and therefore Prime Minister completely unopposed.

[Joe Republic]

Okay, thanks.  So what power does the Deputy Leader have, if any?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Okay, thanks.  So what power does the Deputy Leader have, if any?

In theory, as much as the Leader wants him/her to have. (although the first Deputy Leader was acually more powerful than the first Leader, but that was a century ago).
But being endorsed by the Party as a whole does give whoever has that position something close to being a certain seat in the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet these days. Whether Harman becomes Deputy Prime Minister or not depends whether or not Brown sees the point of keeping that post.

[afleitch]

Whether Harman becomes Deputy Prime Minister or not depends

Don't say that; it gives the Liberal Democrat front bench misplaced hope

[Keystone Phil]

So Gordon becomes PM on Wednesday (so says Yahoo news)? 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So Gordon becomes PM on Wednesday (so says Yahoo news)? 

Yep

[Keystone Phil]

So Gordon becomes PM on Wednesday (so says Yahoo news)? 

Yep

Is it ok to be scared?

[Democratic Hawk]

Just to let everyone know, I did not cast any of my votes for Ms. Harman.

She got my sixth preference, which is hardly a preference at all. I once appeared on TV critisising Harman, so I'd have thought it pretty hypocritical to have ranked her any higher

My vote was Johnson, Blears, Benn, Cruddas, Hain (don't like him personally) and Harman

As for the election itself, transfers were as follows:

All figures denote % of electoral college gained with each passing elimination

Hazel Blears' preferences were cast as follows:

MPs/MEPs: 3.39 Johnson; 0.75 Harman; 0.47 Benn; 0.29 Hain; 0.11 Cruddas
Members: 0.82 Johnson; 0.76 Harman; 0.72 Benn; 0.37 Hain; 0.34 Cruddas
Affiliated: Johnson 1.36; Harman 0.80; Benn 0.63; Cruddas 0.55; Hain 0.44

Overall: Johnson 5.58; Harman 2.30; Benn 1.82; Hain 1.10; Cruddas 1.00

Peter Hain's preferences were cast as follows:

MPs/MEPs: Cruddas 1.56; Harman 1.32; Johnson 1.31; Hain 0.91
Members: Benn 1.36; Harman 1.35; Johnson 0.96; Cruddas 0.57
Affiliated: Harman 1.97; Johnson 1.90; Benn 1.83; Cruddas 1.37

Overall: Harman 4.65; Johnson 4.16; Benn 4.11; Cruddas 3.50

Hillary Benn's preferences were cast as follows:

MPs/MEPs: Johnson 2.61; Harman 1.68; Cruddas 1.35
Members: Harman 3.67; Johnson 3.39; Cruddas 2.23
Affiliated: Cruddas 2.60; Johnson 2.44; Harman 2.34

Overall: Johnson 8.45; Harman 7.70; Cruddas 6.17

John Cruddas' preferences were cast as follows:

MPs/MEPs: Harman 5.13; Johnson 2.52
Members: Harman 5.01; Johnson 3.80
Affiliated: Johnson 6.90; Harman 6.72

Overall: Harman 16.85; Johnson 13.21

Result: Harman 33.58 + 16.85 = 50.43% / Johnson 36.35 + 13.21 = 49.56%

Well, at least, it was between a Brownite and a Blairite - and not some loony leftie polling 50.43% or 49.56% of the vote

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

So Gordon becomes PM on Wednesday (so says Yahoo news)? 

Yep

Is it ok to be scared?

Could be worse , Phil

Brown will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US; Cameron, on the other hand, would wilt if he thought there was a vote or two to be had from doing so

Dave

[Keystone Phil]

So Gordon becomes PM on Wednesday (so says Yahoo news)? 

Yep

Is it ok to be scared?

Were I you, I'd be more scared of Cameron than Brown. Brown will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US; Cameron, on the other hand, would wilt if he thought there was a vote or two to be had from doing so

Dave

I thought that neither were fans of the U.S. I've been realizing that Cameron doesn't stand by us for electoral reasons which is why I have been turned off to him recently. I still prefer the Tories obviously. Any chance that they'll be getting a new leader soon   or are they crazy for Cameron?

[afleitch]

Brown will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US; Cameron, on the other hand, would wilt if he thought there was a vote or two to be had from doing so

Cameron has laid out his approach to the US in far more depth than Brown has. Standing 'shoulder to shoulder' does not mean following the US blindly on every foreign policy (even Thatcher knew that; Grenada for example) It is the duty of the British PM to protect our foreign interests and promote our own foreign policy, not make it subservient to that of the US President.

Cameron has stated he will be critical of US foreign policy when he feels it is in Britains interests. That is always preferrable to blindly following whatever comes out of the White House.

[afleitch]

Some papers are reporting a rumoured spring election.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

A spring election just plays into Cameron's hands imo. It suggests that Brown doesn't want to go head to head with him for too long.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, then can you draft a memo for this man.

[Democratic Hawk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, then can you draft a memo for this man.

Personally, I have nothing but praise for Howard's commitment to war in Iraq effort.  Like, with Bush, I'm probably not close to him on most other issues but I'm with him on Iraq ... er ... and .... the monarchy

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I thought that neither were fans of the U.S.

Brown may or may not be as fervently pro-US as Blair, but, in the grand scheme of things, the Anglo-American 'special relationship' can only endure. There is no alternative. He seems more pro-US than he is pro-EU.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never been turned on with him if I'm brutally honest. I'm not convinced of his sincerity. Of course, the Conservatives taking such an approach as to call for an official inquiry into the war in Iraq must irk many Republicans. It irks me

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just as I'm predisposed towards the Democratic Party

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not unless Brown and Labour open-up a solid and, more importantly, sustainable double-digit lead in the opinion polls and they get all jittery. I think the Conservative lead in the polls can be attributed, to some extent, to Cameron. It's difficult to conceive of them performing better under, say, Ken Clarke, David Davis or Liam Fox

Of course, only time will tell how sustainable any 'Brown bounce' is

Signs are indicating that the Cameron 'honeymoon' is over and not before time . That said, some in the right wing press have been giving him grief for some time and this can only accelerate should the momentum move towards Brown and Labour

Of course, the European Union is certain to become an issue againand we'll have to wait and see how it factors into the political climate

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Brown will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US; Cameron, on the other hand, would wilt if he thought there was a vote or two to be had from doing so

Cameron has laid out his approach to the US in far more depth than Brown has. Standing 'shoulder to shoulder' does not mean following the US blindly on every foreign policy (even Thatcher knew that; Grenada for example) It is the duty of the British PM to protect our foreign interests and promote our own foreign policy, not make it subservient to that of the US President.

Cameron has stated he will be critical of US foreign policy when he feels it is in Britains interests. That is always preferrable to blindly following whatever comes out of the White House.

For the most part, in the precarious world we live in, the UK's national interests are synonymous with those of the US. Indeed, they have to a point put global interests, as far as the war on terror, Iraq and the wider Middle East are concerned, way beyond the petty national interests that predispose France, Germany et al

Only time will tell whether Brown's approach to the Anglo-American 'special relationship' will change significantly from that of Blair but I suspect it will remain essentially as it is, which is reassuring

Believe me there are those within the Labour Party who want more distance between the UK and the US (I'm not one of them) or George W Bush, I should say. The fact is that the Democratic Party is Labour's 'sister' party

But, at the end of the day, doing what is right matters most given that the 'special relationship' is in our national interest

Dave

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did that quote come from?

And Phil, if you want to get a jist of where Cameron stands read this.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/story/0,,1869970,00.html

'Britain does not need to establish her identity by recklessly poking the United States in the eye, as some like to do. But we will serve neither our own, nor America's, nor the world's interests if we are seen as America's unconditional associate in every endeavour.Our duty is to our own citizens, and to our own conception of what is right for the world.

We should be solid but not slavish in our friendship with America.

It all comes down to a sense of confidence. Your long-standing friend will tell you the truth, confident that the friendship will survive. Your newest friend will tell you what you want to hear, eager to please so as not to put the friendship at risk.

We have never, until recently, been uncritical allies of America.

We have for more than half a century acted as a junior partner to the United States. Churchill, though he found it difficult, was junior partner to Roosevelt; Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan, John Major to George Bush Senior in the first Gulf war. It is not an easy part to play, but these three prime ministers learned to carry it through with skill and success.

I worry that we have recently lost the art.

I fear that if we continue as at present we may combine the maximum of exposure with the minimum of real influence over decisions. The sooner we rediscover the right balance, the better for Britain and our alliance.'

[Democratic Hawk]

We have for more than half a century acted as a junior partner to the United States. Churchill, though he found it difficult, was junior partner to Roosevelt ; Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan, John Major to George Bush Senior in the first Gulf war. It is not an easy part to play, but these three prime ministers learned to carry it through with skill and success.

Now that pair would have to be my favourite Anglo-American partnerhip. That's the standard to which our all prime ministers and presidents should aspire. The Reagan/Bush-Thatcher partnership achieved great things on the world stage. Credit where credit is due . That said reasoning with Gorbachev was possible, which is more than can be said for Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, among others

Blair, of course, is no Churchill and Bush is no Roosevelt. Real progress can be made internationally once Bush has left office. American prestige has taken quite a whipping under him

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, then can you draft a memo for this man.

Personally, I have nothing but praise for Howard's commitment to war in Iraq effort.  Like, with Bush, I'm probably not close to him on most other issues but I'm with him on Iraq ... er ... and .... the monarchy

Dave

I only agreed with Howard on three things

1) The intervention into East Timor

2) the reaction to the Port Arthur massacre

3) I'm a constitutional monarchist