Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Quite extraordinary that Corbyn could make it while Benn and Bevan didn't.

Not at all: Bevan never had a realistic chance as the leadership was decided by the PLP in those days (and also Gaitskell was one of the most formidable candidates in the history of the Labour Right), while Benn missed his window by losing his seat in 1983.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So I wonder what will happen next? There seems to be seriously bad blood forming on all sides. This has a severe danger of turning into a toxic few years, whoever wins. We can argue all day about whether Labour are too right or too left; but I think the worse thing will for the party to become one of factional bickering.

Ben Pimlott - who understood Labour better than any other historian - pointed out that while losing an election doesn't always plunge the Party into a civil war it usually does. The one small mercy is that this is happening now and not five years ago.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The other thing to consider is that the Shadow Cabinet are still elected by the PLP right?

No. But the SCG still has that silly self-denying ordinance from the 1980s in place which automatically removes membership from the SCG to MPs who accept frontbench posts. Not that the SCG is all that there is on the Left in the PLP (far from it), but that fact does complicate things.

Mind you, I suspect that Corbyn is intelligent enough to know that going with a factional ShadCab would be bloody stupid even if he'd presumably appoint one with an overall left lean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would have to be considerable give and take on both sides. Firstly because Corbyn The Candidate is a little different to Corbyn The Backbencher (i.e. if he wins he could certainly claim an internal mandate for hard Left economic positions, but not for his other stances as he's barely mentioned them and when he has has played them down), and secondly because a serial rebel might find it hard to impose their will absolutely on the PLP.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well if it makes you feel better, if Corbyn is elected then there will be - one way or another - another leadership election in this parliament, and maybe some of those people will run then...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sure but the funny thing is... at the time that wasn't how that line up was viewed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's the thing though: even were there PR the Labour Party would doubtless remain the massive heterogeneous thing that it is because almost every faction regards itself as the true guardians of its pure and noble tradition etc.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, he was expelled. Given that even most people on the Labour Left now regard him as scum (a feeling enhanced by his vile behavior in the General Election earlier this year) his chances of readmittance would have to be counted as rather low. In any case it isn't the leader who decides who gets to be a member or not. The Labour Party is a lot of things, but one thing it isn't is a dictatorship.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The deadline for submission of CLP supporting nominations is midday today. Last night would have therefore been the last night of CLP nomination meetings.
When HQ releases the official list of nominations, it will be interesting to see which CLPs we didn't take note of, or which CLPs forgot to offically submit their nominations!

Keeping track has been nightmarish...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Updated the CLP nominations map (for leader: will update deputy map later) but this time with the official list. You will note that there are CLPs which were listed as nominating on previous maps but not this one: this may be because they've not got round to it on the Party website (so yeah, I will revise this) but it may be because the CLP cocked up the paperwork.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, official nominations from Affiliates...

Leadership Election

Trade Unions

Corbyn: ASLEF, BFAWU, UNITE, Unison, CWU, TSSA
Burnham: Musicians Union, UCATT, USDAW
Cooper: Community, NUM
Kendall: none

Socialist Societies

Corbyn: Socialist Education Association, Socialist Health Association
Cooper: Jewish Labour Movement (née Poale Zion)
Kendall: Labour Party Irish Society
Burnham: none

Most of the Societies didn't bother to nominate this time, but then they've largely lost whatever influence they had thanks to the new rules so this is not a surprise.

Deputy Leadership Election

Trade Unions

Eagle: CWU, TSSA, UCATT, Unison
Watson: ASLEF, BFAWU, NUM
Flint: Community, Musicians Union, USDAW
Bradshaw: none
Creasy: none

Socialist Societies

Creasy: Socialist Educational Association, Jewish Labour Movement
Flint: Labour Party Irish Association
Watson: Socialist Health Association
Bradshaw: none
Eagle: none

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Deputy map updated as well.

Is there not a property tax in the UK at the moment?

Local government is funded by a very mild property tax called Council Tax (which replaced the Poll Tax which replaced the old Rates system which was actually much better as a property tax to anyone who isn't a Tory than Council Tax). But lmao: imagine the howls of outrage from Tories at further taxation on property.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No-one seems to have noticed that Corbyn's platform is much moderated from Benn's...

Well other than all the people on the soft Left who are supporting him who doubtless wouldn't be were that not the case.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be.

We'll some policy has come up, but just social policy (benefits and stuff) and (in a vague sense) some economic stuff. And on those issues even Corbyn The Backbencher is well within the Labour mainstream, let alone Corbyn The Candidate (as several people have noted the irony of this campaign is that the candidate who has modified and moderated his positions the most is... er... Corbyn). But, yes, the issue is that the things on which he has rather more... er... alternative views have not featured.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For those of us not familiar with Labour party constitution how can be dumped by boxing day? can the PLP declare an election by its own?

I'm not an expert on Party procedure (and the rules were recently changed so I may be out of date on some details), but the PLP has no power to void a leadership election. What it does have is the power to call a new one provided that a fifth of the PLP (this figure may have changed, but it certainly used to be a fifth) nominate a given candidate. I'm not sure whether the election process would then kick off as if there were a vacancy or if the timetable would be instead automatically linked to Conference. The incumbent would, however, have the right to run again. Or to put things differently: no, if Corbyn wins the PLP can't dump him by Boxing Day by procedural means. Forcing a resignation might be a different matter and one not governed by procedure. It would be for the best if (not matter what happens) things don't get that nasty...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's worth noting that the driving issues behind previous bouts of really vicious factionalism in Labour have invariably been over foreign and defence policy. Debates about other things have generally been less toxic even when there have been sharp differences (and sometimes when they haven't been it was - partly - because they were linked to those more contentious issues: this was the case with the rows over Clause IV in the early 1960s).* So... to strike a cautiously - and quite possibly probably unduly, who knows - optimistic note, I would draw attention to the fact that Corbyn is not running on his (very very left-wing) stances on foreign and defence policy and has even tried to play them down at times during the campaign. And this is the case with the wider (newly energised) Labour Left as well, particularly at the younger end of it. Which might (maybe, hopefully, God willing) mean that any oncoming factional brutality - because there's going to be at least a little bit no matter what happens - is less extensive than has been the case in the past.

_{*And also, bluntly, most ordinary Labour Moderates have not historically been/are not now exactly what you'd call centrist on social policy or economics... even the opposition to widespread nationalisation which spread out from the PLP into the Right elements of the CLPs was a matter of practical politics.}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...whilst the membership has become more left wing due to Ed pushing the party to the left and also labour becoming the opposition.

Well it's a bit more complicated than that: what happened in the early 1970s (i.e. sudden growth of the Left as a result of a Conservative government presiding over - imposing some (and that certainly includes these people) would argue - attacks on living standards) is pretty clearly happening again. I did wonder (back in 2010) whether it might do, but had started to assume that the answer was negative as it didn't seem to be happening: apparently the key word is sudden.

Important note for everyone: ballot papers aren't sent out until the middle of the month and voting continues well into September. In certain respects the contest is only just beginning.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think I've become freakishly optimistic. I'm hoping Corbyn can utilise his support to help the party as a whole, while the leadership is given to a soft left pair of hands.

If he wins (and it is still very much an 'if') then maybe that is how it will be. Against that it can be noted that Corbyn has no experience of political responsibility or of dealing with political pressure. On the bright side, that means that if he were to self-destruct messily as Leader it would happen long before the General Election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to resent that charge, but it isn't an entirely unfair characterisation in some cases. But generally its more a matter of believing very strongly that pragmatism is important.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Neil Kinnock has endorsed Burnham.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Neil Kinnock has endorsed Burnham.

Logical. How is his status among the members today?

Respected Party elder.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Any word on his son? I remember be nominated(endorsed?) that nobody chick who dropped out after not enough people nominated her.

He's backing Cooper. He's at least a couple of notches to the right of his dad, of course.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm sure that explaining such matters to bemused voters on the doorstep will be great fun.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's a case for the railways and utilities being in the public sector but by the late 1970's there was a lot more of the British economy that was nationalised. A lot of it was very badly run (British Leyland, British Steel, British Telecom, Sealink) and lost a lot taxpayers money year after year.

Most of the nationalised companies were indeed very badly run, but it isn't certain whether that was because they were nationalised companies or because they were British companies. Mismanagement 'was' serious to the point of chronic across British industry, after all...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm...? Rather a lot - particular at the industrial end: I grew up in the Midlands and remember well what happened to Longbridge - continued to be terribly managed in the private sector with dire consequences for their workers and ultimately for any hope of a 'balanced' economy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Its Dan Hodges. Maybe some of what he says he's heard is true. Certainly much will have been made up to entertain the people who pay his wages. Probably some of it is made up for the purpose of pure mischief. Maybe some of it is also made up to pursue whatever factional agenda he has these days (if he still has one). Who knows what the true balance is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

British Leyland was a monument to the unions.

The thing is, that isn't actually true even if it is widely believed. The problem was that the chronic mismanagement that plagued BMH a) carried over into the new mega-firm and b) that attempts to counter the toxic legacy of BMH mismanagement by former LMC figures were disastrously incompetent. Its well publicised industrial troubles - and it is always worth remembering that the issue here was shop steward militancy rather than anything directed from national union leaderships - were also largely a consequence of mismanagement and even if they doubtless contributed to the sense of chaos were not actually responsible for the firms structural failings (which were actually at there worst when it was still in private hands).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why can't people understand AV voting ffs. Kendall withdrawing would make no difference because the votes transfer. If she comes 4th her votes will most likely go to Cooper pushing her to 2nd. All it would do it make it look more and more like the establishment v Corbyn.

Most people commenting don't understand the system being used because they don't understand any aspect of the election at all but are instead making a series of assumptions.