I can't help thinking ...
that just a bit more aggressive courting of the members' section by Johnson, instead of the perceived top-down focus on the MPs carrying it for him, and he might have done it. My calculation is that if he had persuaded 1300 extra members to put him 5th and Harman 6th he would have won. Maybe the problem is that most of us who could have delivered that kind of a campaign for him were working for Hazel ... though one reason we were working for Hazel was that he didn't seem that interested in that kind of focus to the job.
posted by Luke Akehurst at 4:43 pm
15 Comments:
If if if...
4:58 pm, June 24, 2007
Owen at least the candidates I back can get on the ballot paper.
5:01 pm, June 24, 2007
I think it's a pity that you rejoice in the fact that party members and trade unionists have been denied the basic democratic right of electing their leader.
I also think that it's a travesty that a candidate with negligible grassroots support - i.e. Hazel Blears - can get the required nominations, while John McDonnell (who, despite being far less known, had far more grassroots support) was denied a place.
The results show that the PLP is out of step with grassroots opinion - and that is not something to be proud of.
Given Blears has been utterly humiliated for parroting the Blairite line, I hope you will draw the appropriate conclusions over the coming weeks and months.
5:09 pm, June 24, 2007
Blairites have never been very good at humility (admittedly they've not has as much practice at it as we have) so I wouldn't hold your breath Owen
5:11 pm, June 24, 2007
But back in the real world, if a candidate barely has the support of 8% of the Parliamentary Party, how can they credibly put themselves forward as the leader of the Parliamentary Party?
5:53 pm, June 24, 2007
Maybe the problem is that most of us who could have delivered that kind of a campaign for him were working for Hazel .....
Yes... just like they delivered for Hazel! What a team!
6:02 pm, June 24, 2007
Nobody has been denied any rights, Owen, you numpty. We have rules and your boy was so hated he never made it. He - and you (plainly) - are the gimps.
6:56 pm, June 24, 2007
More sophisticated debating from the Blairites.
No prizes for guessing who "anonymous" is...
7:18 pm, June 24, 2007
harriet won - because she addressed the issues - those of us in her campaign team are most pleased - we want the party to work together now to continue to tackle issues that face our society - for example social and affordable housing. Hazel came last for 2 main reason - her campaign was poor - and her ideas were rooted in 1997 - what worked then does not work now - neither Hazel nor or advisers got that..
7:19 pm, June 24, 2007
and of course HH campaigned with the memebrs - the campiagn never took the members for granted..!
8:38 pm, June 24, 2007
"The results show that the PLP is out of step with grassroots opinion - and that is not something to be proud of."
Indeed, I'd second that actually. Way to the right, in backing Johnson so heavily, of party members and even more so trade unionists.
Luke is bound to argue that trade unionists cant be quantified because they vote the line. I'll remember that just in case his lot (god forbid) ever get any positions back.
"Hazel came last for 2 main reason - her campaign was poor - and her ideas were rooted in 1997 - what worked then does not work now - neither Hazel nor or advisers got that.."
Indeed. Her campaign was stuck in the past, and based completely on defending both a past programme, in its entirety, and a past direction, in its entirety; despite us getting bashed at the last election, falling behind in the polls after blair, a general feeling of tiredness and routine in the workings of his government, and having to find new ways to apply socialism to the modern world.
I can give her credit for her activist approach. But that amounts to little if it isn't wedded to activist or TU friendly policy; as the examples of both her and AJ show in a numerical sense.
After last time, the Blairites came out with progress to bring the party closer to the government.
This time it looks like Gordon has got the message. Sure, he's new Labour. But he realises that the government needs to get closer to the party.
Compromise is desirable; but we don't pay those subs to be ignored, kicked, or serenaded with repetitive tunes about how great our world is and why it should never change.
Hazel was half way up my order, but once the word 'lurch' passed her lips, she was right out.
2:41 am, June 25, 2007
The arithmetic on the 1300 5th preferences is very dodgy indeed. I'm disappointed that the arch roundhead (see what I'm doing there?) doesn't get the electoral system.
It was Cruddas' 2nd preferences that mattered in the final analysis.
I reckon if/when we get the breakdown with numbers there'll be a lot of Cruddas' that didn't transfer to Harman that evaporated because their recipient was already out and they only went 1-2 or at least less than the full 1-2-3-4-5.
I underestimated Hain and overestimated Benn but did predict the bounty for Harman to finally overtake Johno when Cruddas votes transferred.
10:27 am, June 25, 2007
Seems right wing arch Blairites like Luke are so out of touch with the grassroots and the party. Blears was rightly humiliated for her terrible bleatings and platitudes. HH did well because she said what people have been waiting to hear- sorry about the War, Guantanamo Bay, civil liberties, cash for honours etc.
3:08 pm, June 25, 2007
Indeed. Luke, it would seem that this was written for you.
3% in the members section? Even when there are only two proper blairite candidates?
That's absolutely appalling.
I would suggest, accurately too, that if anyone should have done more listening to the membership, it should have been Hazel Blears.
Pity she only listens to leaders, then...
2:43 am, June 26, 2007
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! The ginger ferret lost!
5:02 pm, June 26, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home