CLPs back PLP line on Brown
CLP nominations have closed. Brown got - and my counting may be a bit inaccurate as there were so many - 402.
That compares with the last leadership election in 1994 when the winner, Blair, got just 58 nominations, Prescott got 39 and Beckett 12.
So Brown got almost 4 times as many nominations as all the 1994 candidates put together.
These were not nominations by default either - the hard left fought tooth & nail at GC after GC to deny nominations to Brown.
It shows active members are very much of the same opinion as the PLP about who they want as Leader.
And it shows a level of engagement in the election process that is far higher than 13 years ago - surely a sign of health in terms of the Party's grassroots.
In the union section, Brown has the nomination from every trade union big enough to be represented on Labour's NEC.
posted by Luke Akehurst at 1:27 pm
12 Comments:
Or it shows that plenty of people disillusioned with New Labour have left the party.
1:50 pm, June 01, 2007
People doing well in uncontested elections is always terribly impressive.
1:51 pm, June 01, 2007
Hard left, tooth and nail in constituency after constituency ... how many CLPs does this really apply to Lukey? The "hard left" from Withington CLP went to a hustings in Central rather than going to the (rather meaningless) nominations.
Though obviously if they had gone to the latter they would not be leaking the results, generalising or pontificating.
3:20 pm, June 01, 2007
Most people I know on the left didn't bother to turn up to GC because it was a total waste of time!
Furthermore 250 or so CLPs have not nominated Brown.
Even if the anti-Brownite faction was only, say, 25% - that would always be a minority in each CLP despite nominating Broon, wouldn't it?
And anyway, we don't know what would have happened in an actual contest where someone credible was actually debating Brown so this is all completely meaningless!
3:53 pm, June 01, 2007
Sorry Luke. Have just done an interview with Radio 5 Live. My CLP didn't nominate Brown and they are more interested in the 200-plus who didn't nominate than those who did. You are talking utter rubbish.Party officers have been ringing up CLPs getting them to nominate - the majority probably did thinking it was pointless .Show of unity? Don't make me laugh.....NONE ofthe 3 CLPs in my area have nomniated Brown (Batley and Spen,Calder Valley, Halifax)
5:51 pm, June 01, 2007
" a level of engagement in the election process that is far higher than 13 years ago - surely a sign of health in terms of the Party's grassroots." Beyond parody......
5:54 pm, June 01, 2007
I'd be more interested to hear of any examples of places where a nomination for Brown was proposed and rejected, because that would be truly extraordinary in an uncontested election!
Sorry Luke, but I really can't see what there is this for your to smile about - other than it makes us look a bit of a joke that our members have nothing better to do than to nominate the one candidate in a non-election!
6:11 pm, June 01, 2007
And it shows a level of engagement in the election process that is far higher than 13 years ago - surely a sign of health in terms of the Party's grassroots.
Straightforward nonsense.
There is a single candidate and there is no election.
There is pressure from the party machine, as with the PLP, to get CLPs to nominate the single candidate.
Luke, why have you got to the stage of sounding like a Communist from the Soviet Union?
Over 200 CLPs failed to nominate. 400 did in a Communist style nominations process with a single candidate - but don't pretend that is democracy.
With the PLP decsion already taken, the fix was in before that point; many critical members would have thought the process futile and meaningless at the CLP nomination stage.
As a democrat, and put in position of being asked to nominate a single candidate, I would feel personally insulted.
Democracy is not about putting up a single candidate and asking for "nominations". Don't spin that as democracy, a proper vote, or some sort of grassroots show of strength - that's just insulting folk's intelligence.
2:52 am, June 02, 2007
Just for your info - Preston CLP (which had previously backed John McDonnell 10-2) have nominated Brown. They did so not because they've had a sudden conversion to the right - they just didn't see the point of not doing so.
10:14 am, June 02, 2007
There was a point - which is why Calder Valley CLP did not nominate.
It was the only way we had left to register our opposition.I'm very pleased over 200 CLPs did not endorse this Stalinist nightmare. See BBC website for more.....
10:52 am, June 02, 2007
The fact is that Brown has run the economy brilliantly, that levels of investment in public services has been unprecedented, that over the years neither the Left nor the Uber Blairites have been able to find a candidate who can match his abilities, and the vast majority of party members i speak to, do want Brown as leader. Look at the current implosion in ther Tory party - does anybody on the left of the party genuinely believe that the Tories would be savaging themselves if Cameron was facing McDonnell?
3:40 pm, June 02, 2007
and here is what David Mellor is reported as saying: "Gordon Brown could yet project himself as the man of substance and principle, and the Tories are in danger of looking a bit young, a bit glib....Mellor goes on to say (Cameron)needs to "Put down some principles."
Gordon is setting out policies and his vision for the country whilst the Tories work out how to spin their way of their current crisis.
4:01 pm, June 02, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home