Hackney North results

Unlike Hackney South, Hazel didn't carry Hackney North, though I had the consolation of defeating the Hard Left on the Leadership.

Respect is due to Graham Bash of Briefing for some heavy duty organisation, and Diane Abbott for a very effective pro-Cruddas speech.

Results:

Procedural motion to not take item on leadership: defeated 11-9

Leadership: For Brown 13, Against Brown 6, Abstentions 2

Deputy - settled on 1st round as only 2 candidates nominated:
Cruddas 14
Blears 7
Benn 0
Hain 0
Harman 0
Johnson 0

Not very obsessed by Ken at all, actually

All the comments on previous posts made me embark on some self-criticism. Had I really, as the commenters suggested, got a history on here of unfairly criticising Ken Livingstone?

I’ve done a quick check.

I’ve actually only ever mentioned the guy 14 times out of 506 posts in a year – 2.7% of what I’ve written.

Of these:

This week – pointed out twice that he supported Jon Cruddas – I suppose that could be interpreted as criticism
May – mentioned he had tried to stand as Party Leader in 1992
May – mentioned he had sacked John McDonnell as Deputy Leader of the GLC
April – reported CPGB’s attack on him
April – mentioned his time as Camden Chair of Housing in a tribute to Roy Shaw
January – mentioned he appointed Len Duvall to MPA
December – explained relevance of a new clause in the Code of Conduct to the Finegold case
October – described him as “the one Campaign Grouper who did have the charisma and appeal to be a credible leader”
October – a post criticising the Labour Party (not Ken himself) for not running an internal investigation into the Finegold case
October – criticised his deselection of Reg Freeson in Brent East
September – criticised his attack on Trevor Phillips
August – criticised Emily Thornberry for preferring Nikki Gavron to Ken
May – link to a letter I wrote in 2003

So anyone at the GLA of any party wanting ammo to use against Ken would have to wait sometimes as long as 4 months to find me even mentioning him, and would have found about 5 instances when I’ve directly criticised him, 2 of which referred to events 3 and 20 years before I started blogging.

It must be very dull for them having to read all the other stuff in the vain hope that I’ll get excited about events at their workplace.

Sedgefield 4 Hazel

Sedgefield CLP has nominated Blears. What can that mean?

Brown: no “retreat to the soft options”

Good to see in the Times that Gordon Brown is concerned about the risks of having a left-sounding Deputy Leader.

The real gift to the Tories isn't - contrary to the guff some people have been putting in the comments here - party moderates like me attacking the left. In fact the historical evidence everywhere in the world is that when the moderate wing of a progressive party attacks the left wing, that progressive party increases its chances of getting elected - voters want evidence that the moderates are in charge and the left are marginalised.

The real gift to the Tories for the next General Election from this Deputy Leadership campaign would be if we end up with a Deputy Leader who has publicly differed from the Leader on key policies, and whose victory appears to have strengthened and heartened the left of the party.

To my mind there are 3 candidates of the 6 - Hain, Harman and Cruddas - who have pandered to the left and whose election would damage the electability of the Party. Those of us on the other wing of the party need to be extremely disciplined about the way we cast our votes to ensure that we don't end up in that scenario.

Big Brother

I am keen to point out that Respect member Carol, who has just entered the Big Brother house, is NOT representative of East London residents.

London Calling

Tracksy.com is a wonderful thing.

It tells me stuff like the fact that in recent days I have had 303 hits from the domain name london.gov.uk.

Which could explain the rather hysterical anonymous attempts to police anything mildly critical from my commenters - or me - about the Mayor of London, whose organisation hosts that domain name.

Good to see all those ex-IMG central committee members earning their six figure public salaries with a spot of blogging.

Jon Cruddas: an apology

I had been under the impression that Jon Cruddas was a human being with a sense of humour who enjoyed a bit of political banter.

I need to publicly apologise because his fan club have now made it clear to me in comments on posts below that he is in fact:

a) infallible
b) a superhuman campaigner who has achieved miraculous feats like introducing canvassing to Dagenham CLP some 90 years after Herbert Morrison got the rest of the London Labour Party doing it
c) above outdated concepts such as left and right, and supported by a broad cross-section from all planets of the solar system
d) possessed of a unique insight into the aspirations of the British working class, not least their desire to live on council estates
e) personally channelling Tony Woodley's every utterance
f) the front-runner in the Iowa primary, but prepared to settle for Chairman of the DNC
g) the inventor of the internet
h) anointed by Ken Livingstone, who is also above reproach and never, ever, stood in an election against any Labour Party candidate, particularly not one of Jon's other parliamentary nominators

I do apologise, and will buy Jon, Tom and the rest of his campaign team a pint during the lunch break at the Compass Robin Cook Memorial Conference, if they promise not to heckle my speech at the CND fringe.

4 Reasons not to vote Cruddas

From his website, some of the fresh new, innovative thinkers and campaigners who are "nothing to do with the 1980s", factionalism, breaking the whip or any of that silliness. Oh no.:

There's another half dozen Campaign Groupers on there too, but no one would recognise them so posting pictures seemed a bit of a waste.

Just bear in mind when voting, every extra Cruddas vote cheers up Ken, Diane, Glenda and Michael. Make them miserable instead - vote for someone else.

Party on comrades!

The Cruddas campaign has sent me an email inviting me to host a party.

They want me to throw open my home for a house party.

Well, any excuse ...

But perhaps most of my friends might be a bit upset to get round to Beatty Road N16 expecting claret and nibbles and find they are there "to discuss the campaign and the state of the Labour Party in their areas ... to help Jon win this election."

This is not America.

We are not in the middle of the Iowa caucuses.

Jon Cruddas isn't the mockney Howard Dean.

And just in case he is - let's remember that Howard Dean lost. He excited all the excitable students and activists and scared the hell out of everyone else.

Will Jon's own house party be in Dagenham or Notting Hill?

Newsnight hustings

My take on the Newsnight hustings:

Blears - the shortness is actually an advantage - makes her memorable compared to the others. Straight answers and no silly attempts to court the left. As she said in answer to who would she vote for if not standing: "Jon for his campaigning, Alan for his politics, Harriet to have a woman in the leadership team, but I'm standing so you can have a woman with a campaigning record and good politics".

Cruddas - wants everyone to live in council houses is the way it came across - when in fact the working classes mainly want to own homes. "I want loads more council houses" may make sense but is only one step away from "I want everyone to work down the pits" in terms of the message it sends. Good that he's into campaigning - shame many of his supporters are into meetings not canvassing - and if we are just going to elect a good campaigner as Deputy Leader then there are about 10 people on Hazel's campaign team better qualified. Can I be Deputy Leader, I'm good at leafleting?

Johnson - sensible answers, charming, but appeared diffident and laid back. Can't imagine him stirring people to canvass until their knuckles bleed with a rousing rant from the battle bus steps.

Hain - wants to be the "umbilical cord between the Cabinet and party". Which provoked the reaction "yuck, I don't want him as my umbilical cord" from the other half of my household. Postured left until asked about any actual policies.

Benn - very clever, really sound answer on Iraq/liberal interventionism, inspiring for party members but unlikely to appeal to the wider public - too cerebral.

Harman - awful. Just awful. Actually beyond awful. Cringeworthy efforts to appear leftwing - e.g. refusing to give a straight yes or no on Trident, delivered in the style of her former colleague Pat Hewitt.

Compass

There's no need for me to have a go at Compass today, as some old friends have returned to the blogosphere to do it for me: http://idiots4labour.wordpress.com/

Rumours of my defeat have been greatly exaggerated

I've received a slightly oddly worded spam email from the Benn campaign.

Sent to councillors - and about local government - it tells me:

"You have represented one of the many council seats we lost."

This was news to me as I wasn't up for election this year and didn't lose my seat when I was in 2006 (in fact we haven't lost my seat in an election since 1968).

And if I had lost my seat, what would be the point in sending an email to my council email address?

Meetings

I was at Brentwood & Ongar CLP last night for another debate about Trident replacement versus Kate Hudson, Chair of CND.

Some bloke called John McDonnell was also supposed to be speaking, but pulled out at the last minute...

I've now been invited to debate the same subject at CND's fringe meeting at the Compass annual conference vs. Jon Trickett MP on Sat 9 June, so I look forward to seeing some of the regular commenters on this blog in the audience.

Meanwhile, Hackney South CLP was holding its supporting nominations meeting, and went for Brown + Blears. Hazel beat Alan Johnson in the 3rd round of voting by 13 votes to 11. Benn came third. Harman and Cruddas had got only 1 vote each on the first round, and Hain zero, which tallies with the zero he's got so far of the 100+ members of my own CLP, Hackney North, I've spoken to.

Any one got any numbers for voting figures on DL nominations in their own CLP they want to share?

Great moments on the BBC's "This Week"

Last night: Diane Abbott's facial expression - and "talk to the hand" gesture, when Matthew Taylor said how proud he was that his son went to the local comprehensive.

The Labour left - completely out of touch with the British people

My post below about today's ICM poll bounce for Labour has led to predictable howls from the Hard Left, which seem to imply they think John McDonnell would have been more popular than Gordon Brown with the public.

They should read the detail of the poll. Then they might recover from the delusion - created by public opposition to the single issue of the Iraq War - that there is public support for a substantial shift to the left by Labour.

Asked:
"When people talk about politics, they sometimes talk about left and right and the centre. Where would you put yourself on this scale?" the public answer:
Very left wing 3%
Fairly left wing 6%
Slightly left of centre 13%
Centre 43%
Slightly right of centre 9%
Fairly right wing 6%
Very right wing 2%

That's why elections are fought in the centre ground - not just to win a small number of marginal seats - important though that is - but because that's the politics that the vast bulk of the public believe in.

McDonnell's campaign was based on policies that appeal to - if this poll is correct - about 3% of the population.

Lists

For the second time in a week - I'd better be careful this doesn't become a habit - I find myself agreeing with Jon Cruddas.

His team think all 6 Deputy Leadership campaigns should have access to a full membership list.

I agree - we need a level playing field so all candidates can contact all members directly.

For the record, the article's insinuation that Hazel Blears has access to a national list as Party Chair is completely false. If only!

The campaign that has the best chance of getting something like a complete list is Johnson's, because he has the lion's share of the MEPs, and each MEP has the whole membership list for their region (I'm braced for the inevitable comments onslaught about my own track record in previous campaigns involving membership lists supplied by MEPs ...)

But a level playing field also means that once you have the list there needs to be some equity of funding - or spending limits - so that those campaigns, like Cruddas', with deep pockets, aren't the only ones who can afford to send mailshots.

And it means that all the campaigns should also have the ability to send mailshots to and canvass the membership lists of all the trade unions and other affiliates - in my own union if you were a rank-and-file member relying on material sent out by the union for information about the candidates, you would be forgiven for thinking given the tone of the coverage that Mr Cruddas was the only candidate standing, or at least the only one with any connection to a trade union.

The public gives its verdict on McDonnell not getting nominated

Today's ICM poll in the Guardian - first one since it became clear Brown would get the leadership uncontested:

"Labour's high profile has pushed its rating to 32%. That is up two points on last month and equal to its score at the end of 2006. The Conservatives - under pressure over grammar schools and Labour's handover - have fallen three points, to 34%, well below recent highs in Guardian/ICM polls. The Conservatives last scored as low as 34% in April 2006."

John who?

Praise for Blears from an unexpected quarter

Having said nice things about Jon Cruddas yesterday, I'm pleased to see that one of his supporters Kerron Cross, previously rather hostile to Hazel, has been extremely complimentary about her performance at last night's Christian Socialist Movement hustings:

http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2007/05/csm-hustings.html

2 observations:

- the number of Cruddas supporters with Blears as their second preference is very high (based on my anecdotal experience) - people that are judging the candidates not on ideology but their commitment to focusing on party building and campaigning work
- Hazel is getting plaudits from every hustings so far - the more members that hear her in person the more votes (and crucial high preference transfers) she is getting - I keep getting people saying things like "I didn't expect to be supporting her, but having seen them all, now I am".

Stalin in Hackney

Local trivia for my Hackney readers - the latest biog of Stalin reveals that the 5th Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party took place in 1907....in the Brotherhood Church in De Beauvoir at the junction of Southgate Road/Balmes Road N1. ( now demolished ).

Lenin , Stalin and Trotsky were all in attendance , having arrived by train at Liverpool Street Station a few days earlier.

Agreeing with Cruddas

For the record, I think Jon Cruddas is right about the immigration/social housing issue and Margaret Hodge's intervention has been clumsy and unhelpful.

The problem in Barking & Dagenham - and many other boroughs - is a chronic under-supply of social housing - making it very difficult for people not in crisis circumstances to get a council property, or for those in smaller ones to get a larger one when their family grows - caused by years of right-to-buy, and largely unconnected to immigration.

The newly arrived immigrant families in Barking & Dagenham tend to live in private rented homes - the ethnic minority families appearing on council estates there are in many cases actually not being allocated social housing - they are families that can afford to buy for the first time and the only property they can afford in London are ex-right-to-buy council homes in B&D - the generation of people who first bought them having sold at a tidy profit and moved down the A13 to Canvey Island where I was candidate in 2005, replacing folks who have become immigrants themselves ... in Spain.

I think right-to-buy was in itself a fantastic idea that gave many working class families their first chance at home ownership. The tragedy was that councils couldn't spend the receipts on replacement council housing for the people that needed it and could not afford to buy.

Credit where it's due, Cruddas has got social housing on Labour's policy agenda when it had been shamefully absent for too long. As a councillor representing a ward dominated by estates, and with most of my caseload consisting of people desperate to be rehoused, I applaud that. There are a lot of good reasons why I won't be voting for him to be Deputy Leader - not least because Hazel would do the job better - but I'm happy to record that in this instance I broadly agree with him.

USDAW backs Blears

The executive of Labour's 5th largest affiliate, shop workers' union USDAW, has voted unanimously to nominate Hazel Blears for Deputy Leader.

USDAW is nowadays almost as powerful as the once far bigger GMB and TGWU section of Unite within the Labour Party - with just over 323,000 members affiliated compared to 400,000 each for them.

Total affiliations listed in the TULO handbook are:

Amicus 630,100
UNISON 500,000
GMB 400,000
TGWU 400,000
USDAW 323,652
CWU 210,000
Community 55,246
UCATT 51,000
TSSA 27,653
ASLEF 15,500
MU 10,500
BECTU 7,310
BFAWU 5,100
NUM 1,813
Unity 1,000
NACODS 410

Bullying backfires

This silly bit of political bullying is backfiring. I've just had a previously undecided party member tell me they are disgusted by it and are now seriously considering voting for Blears to try to rein in the anonymous MPs behind this story.

I hope this is true

If the Guardian report is true, and Brown is planning a fully elected Lords - and elected by a proportional system - it's fantastic news. I had worried that Brown was instinctively conservative on constitutional issues but the opposite seems to be the case.

Leadership elections Swedish style

One of my hobbies is pointing out how hardline the Swedish Social Democrats are on disciplinary matters to naive British lefties.

They've just had a leadership "election", which elected party moderniser and right-winger Mona Sahlin.

An Election Committee of Party high-ups "consults" local branches.

Then it decides who the most suitable candidate is and presents a single name to an extraordinary party conference. Which then unanimously elects the nominee.

No nominations, no OMOV, no electoral college...

Proposed rule change

The CLPD have reacted to John McDonnell's unpopularity amongst fellow MPs by calling for the threshold for nominations to be reduced from 12.5% of the PLP to 7.5% (26, geddit?).

I'd like to go one further with my own proposed rule change - abolish the threshold completely and bring in simple self-nomination, but with a criteria that any MP who has broken the whip in the course of the current parliament would be barred from running for leader or deputy.

That should keep everyone happy shouldn't it? (I think it even reduces the excess number of Deputy Leadership candidates by one, and would have stopped Charles Clarke running).

Before the howls of protest start, the above is intended to be a source of amusement rather than a serious suggestion. A bit like John McDonnell's campaign in fact.

The first commenter to draw an analogy with Stalin wins a "I probably am so morally confused I think that real dictators shouldn't be overthrown and that Cuba is a workers' paradise but make daft analogies between a man responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and a democratic socialist whose crime appears to be being too popular with his fellow MPs" award.

Missing the story

Actually my post below missed the real story about Harman's views on parental choice:

1990s - exercises it by sending one kid to grammar school (and the others to faith schools but I'll let her off that as they were comprehensives)

Early 2oo7 - posts letter on her website saying she fully supports comprehensive education

16 May 2007 - expresses scepticism about both parental choice agenda and faith schools

20 May 2007 - Sunday Times - seems to be in favour of parental choice again

I'm confused. But not as confused as Harriet is.

Words fail me

... at the latest gem from Harriet Harman in the Sunday Times:

"Last week Brown declared health would be his “passion” when he takes over as prime minister. However, Harriet Harman, a deputy leadership contender, has said it is acceptable for cabinet ministers to opt out of the NHS.
In an interview in The Sunday Times she argues ministers should be free to use private health insurance and send their children to selective schools if they wish, saying that politicians are no different from other parents faced with such decisions.
“Parents make their own choices, whether they are politicians or not,” she said."

Er... aren't there a couple of other principles involved like politicians using the services they preside over rather than opting out of them, and democratic socialists being opposed in principle to selection in education or queue-jumping with private health care?

This is headlined, presumably by a subeditor with a good sense of irony, "Because I’ll make Gordon look good".

The whole article is here.

It quotes ministerial colleagues saying Harman is "Crap", "desperate" and "bloody incompetent". I would add "hasn't got a clue about the basic principles of the Labour movement regarding education and the NHS".

For those of you that missed the hustings:

Hazel Blears on Wednesday night:

“like all of you I am sick of tired people actually putting us into separate camps. So let's end it right here – no more Blairites, no more Brownites, just Labour because we're all….In case anybody hasn't noticed, Granita is shut.

… It's about electing a team that can go on to win the next election and I think that the deputy leader should be Labour's campaigner in chief – motivating, enthusing, leading the charge, out there on the streets in our estates. I don't believe the deputy leader should be the deputy prime minister. I think this is a vital Labour party job, elected by the members, not an add-on to some prestigious government department; and this is no weekend job, it's going to be a full time job to get us to win us that next election.

I'm Labour through and through, and I've always put Labour first. I am loyal to our leadership because I believe that unity and loyalty are how you win trust with the public and it's also how you win elections. But make no mistake. I'm nobody's fool and I will fight all the way for the things I believe in. I grew up in Salford in the 50s and 60s, my dad was a fitter in a factory and was an AEU shop steward, my mum was a secretary for the electricians union, they left school at 14, my brother drives a Manchester bus. I don't need a sociologist to talk to me about white working class: I did it the hard way, and that makes you pretty tough.

And if I could sum up the attitudes and values of working class families in this country it would really be this: it's about ambition. And it's ambition not just for themselves but for their communities. It's to get a better house, a better job, make a better neighbourhood and to have a better future for the next generation. I've never met a miner who wanted his son to be a miner, and that's why I believe that Labour should be the party of ambition and success, giving people the chance to work, the powers to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, driving up standards in inner city schools so the middle class don't opt out and leave the area. Ambition, success – but also fairness. Labour values and the values of the British people.

I think the deputy leader should focus ruthlessly on winning the fourth term, especially in marginal seats in London and the southeast. Focused on recruiting that new generation of activists because activism is how you win elections. And finally, use every platform to attack the Tories. David Cameron's not going to have an easy ride over the next six months because we're all going to be out there fighting David Cameron and the Tories.”

A wide open race

Assuming that everyone in the MPs and MEPs 1/3 of the electoral college votes the way they nominated for Deputy Leader (which is a big assumption as people will swap around as the front-runners emerge and, for instance, because some people tactically nominated Benn to get him on the ballot but won't vote for him) - the actual shares of the electoral college tied up are:

Johnson 7.4%
Harman 6.0%
Hain 4.7%
Cruddas 4.6%
Blears 4.5%
Benn 4.4%

21 MPs and MEPs - 1.9% of the entire electoral college - did not nominate.

Who are they and what way might they vote?

Firstly there is a group with strong connections to Gordon Brown who we can presume are being held back to pile in behind his favoured candidate:
Gordon Brown - might not vote if he wants to stay above the fray
Jack Straw - his Campaign Manager
Doug Henderson - long-term Brown supporter
George Mudie - worked with Nick Brown to organise 2004 tuition fees revolt
Ian Austin - one of his PPSs
Ann Keen - his other PPS
Alan Keen - Ann Keen's husband
Sylvia Heal - Ann Keen's sister but might not vote as she is Deputy Speaker

The others are:
Margaret Beckett
Anne Begg - probably a potential Harman supporter?
Tony Blair - may not vote if wants to stay above the fray, if he does will be Johnson or Blears
Charles Clarke - I'm guessing he will go for Johnson or Blears
David Clelland - ditto
John Denham - difficult to call which way he will go as he's a kind-of anti-war Blairite
Roger Godsiff - also unpredictable, formerly hard right so probably not a fan of Harman or Hain, but rebels quite a bit now
Keith Hill - Blair's PPS - likely to back Johnson or Blears
Piara Khabra - rumoured not to be well, very important vote as he can sway the votes of several thousand Sikh members in his Ealing Southall CLP, which has the largest membership in the UK
John McDonnell - I'm guessing he will like his closest supporters be switching from Cruddas to Benn
John Spellar - almost certain to back Johnson and I'm guessing second preference is Blears
Richard Corbett MEP - Johnson or Blears?
Linda McAvan MEP

In terms of the other two thirds of the electoral college there's everything still to play for.

I'm picking up movement from Cruddas to Benn and from Johnson and Harman to Blears amongst activists but out there amongst the 90% of the membership who are not active (and on an even greater scale amongst trade unionists) people have not yet tuned into this contest, none of the names have high recognition (except Benn because of his dad, which cuts both ways) and people at the moment can't differentiate between a crowded field of candidates.

I'm old enough to have been a member during the 1988, 1992 and 1994 contests and the key thing to remember is that these are very fluid processes, particularly now that with OMOV so many people are involved.

In the '94 contest Beckett started out as the establishment's preferred candidate as incumbent, but said something wrong during the campaign and much of the moderate vote flipped over mid-campaign to Prescott - e.g. Labour Students nominated Beckett but voted for Prescott.

Key factors are:
- momentum - once someone gets a bandwagon going it develops a life of its own - similarly in reverse if the vultures are seen circling over a campaign
- the ground war - endorsements from TU General Secretaries are all very well but do they have the grassroots networks in place in the big workplaces to turn out their members? - some do, some don't and in some of the big unions the General Secretaries don't politically control every region or industrial sector of their union; similarly with MPs - are the MPs backing you the kind that will go door-to-door in their CLP getting members to vote for you or can they only deliver their own vote?
- the air war - will the 90% of members and 99% of trade unionists who don't go to a hustings see you in the papers and on the telly and if they do will it differentiate you in their minds from the other 5? Will your issues resonate at this level? - these are people who have never and will never go to a party meeting and their views and interests are nearer to those of ordinary voters than they are to those of political activists.

Expect the unexpected - and don't expect the candidates to emerge in the same order they are in in terms of nominations.

Brown across the line

I was in the audience at the Brown press conference this afternoon and pleased to hear some of the policy thrust - a Constitutional Reform Bill (sounds dull but will help restore public trust in Government), affordable housing (an absolutely key issue in London and the SE) and an immediate priority of sorting out the NHS - which is what voters want and a policy area where we need to reclaim our natural home turf.

Brown was relaxed and cheerful, as most people would be that just got endorsed by 313 of their colleagues would be.

Buried in the nominations from MPs listed on the party website are the first 7 CLPs to nominate Gordon, and the first 3 affiliates. As more and more CLPs meet over the next few weeks it is going to become abundantly apparent that the party in the country is as united behind him as the party in Westminster is.

Just a case of history repeating itself

I was wrong to suggest in a post below that the Hard Left was blaming people like me for McDonnell's dismal failure to get on the ballot paper.

In fact, in the best Pythonesque traditions, the "People's Liberation Front of Judea" are blaming - in the most vitriolic way they can - in the comments here for instance - the "Judean People's Liberation Front" i.e. Jon Cruddas, Jon Trickett and Compass, for getting various suckers from the Campaign Group to nominate Cruddas, then not reciprocating and instead nominating Brown.

It's always pleasing that the Labour left can be relied on in almost any circumstances to fulfil the role of being their own worst enemies.

But the Hard Left's attempt to portray their failure to get on the ballot as a new and hence newsworthy phenomenon is ahistorical.

In 1992 they failed to get enough nominations (I think it was for Livingstone that time) and hence only the soft left Bryan Gould made it onto the ballot versus Smith.

The same thing happened in 1994 when only the soft left candidates Beckett and Prescott made it through to face Blair.

The dismal lack of support in the PLP for the Hard Left is actually down to the immense strategic mistake made by Tony Benn in 1988 in triggering an unnecessary leadership election against Kinnock. This had 3 impacts:

- it split the Campaign Group and the rump has never been a power in the PLP since
- it led to the threshold for getting nominated in open leadership elections and for triggering contests against an incumbent mid-term both being raised so that the candidate of a tiny fringe of the PLP couldn't force an unnecessary, time-consuming, expensive ballot
- it gave Kinnock the mandate to drive through the Policy Review and accelerate the junking of Benn's policy shiboliths

Plus ca change.

Dear Harriet

Last night at the hustings you "expressed scepticism about parental choice" according to the Guardian.

I actually agree with your stated position on this.

However, didn't you famously exercise parental choice by sending your kids not to the local comprehensive where you live but to St Olave's - a selective grammar school in Bromley?

Hypocrite is a harsh word but one that in this instance you surely completely deserve to have applied to you.

Hazel ahead in Newsnight straw poll

I had to give up my ticket to tonight's Deputy Leadership hustings because my son was at home teething and took precedence.

So I've just watched Newsnight's coverage and seen Michael Crick say that Hazel was the candidate who impressed him and the audience most and then announce the outcome of a straw poll secret ballot of the 500 members in the audience for the debate:

Blears 26%
Benn 22%
Johnson 15%
Harman 14%
Cruddas 13%
Hain 10%

He said Cruddas was "obviously hampered by his lack of front line ministerial experience".

Line of the night from Hazel:

"I don't need a sociologist to tell me about the views of the white working class."

UPDATE: Crick says Hazel won after transfers of eliminated candidates too - and that he was surprised she did so well when the audience was London-based and middle class.

Nominations update

MP Nominations update - 6pm 16 MayCandidates for the leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party have received the following number of nominations as of 6pm 16 May:

Candidates for Leader
Gordon Brown
307 MP nominations
John McDonnell
29 MP nominations

Candidates for Deputy Leader
Hilary Benn
42 MP nominations
Hazel Blears
49 MP nominations
Jon Cruddas
46 MP nominations
Peter Hain
50 MP nominations
Harriet Harman
63 MP nominations
Alan Johnson
70 MP nominations


Benn not on the ballot yet.

McDonnell making no further progress.

New supporting nominations:

Brown - Eltham CLP, Labour Students

Hain - ASLEF

Only themselves to blame

Much squealing from the Hard Left about McDonnell's expected inability to get on the ballot paper.

Apparently this is all the fault of people like me.

Actually I feel sorry for ordinary members who should have had a chance to vote for Gordon rather than him get it without a ballot.

I don't feel sorry for the political incompetents running the Hard Left who:

- made a laughing stock of themselves arguing over Meacher vs McDonnell
- ended up running a candidate who has no cross-over appeal beyond the ultras at all - a guy who whilst he is a good communicator and by all accounts a personable man has never held executive office since the early '80s (surely some recent experience of running something is required in a potential PM); has either the worst or second worst disciplinary record on 3-line whips; and is so left-field that he was sacked by Ken Livingstone - of all people - for extremism

It's all the fault of that nasty old rulebook saying you need 45 nominators ... except that 5 or possibly 6 MPs have proved themselves capable of finding the 45 signatures needed for Deputy Leader - only McDonnell seems unable to do this. And why should candidates representing less than such a small number of MPs be entitled to run?

It's not the rulebook, it's not people like me - it's the long-term rejection by Labour of any return to the politics of the 1980s, the lack of any credible left leader since Tony Benn, the consensus of support from Bob Marshall-Andrews to Alan Milburn for Brown, and the chronic lack of self-awareness of the Hard Left - which enables them to think John McDonnell was a serious leadership candidate - that has got them into this mess.

Don't blame us, comrades. Blame yourselves and go away and consider whether maybe the unpopularity of your candidate and your politics is because they are totally and utterly wrong and misguided, not because they are hard-done-by.

Changes overnight

Brown +15
McDonnell +2

Benn +6
Blears +1
Cruddas +2
Hain +1
Harman +1
Johnson +4

Affiliates + CLPs:

Gordon is off the blocks with Community (formerly the ISTC) and South Holland and the Deepings CLP and Rugby CLP.

No CLPs or TUs yet for any DL candidates.

Nominations latest at 1pm

Candidates for the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour Party have received the following number of nominations as of 1pm on Wednesday 16 May.
Candidates for Leader of the Labour Party
Gordon Brown
297 nominations
John McDonnell
29 nominations

Candidates for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Hilary Benn
40 nominations
Hazel Blears
49 nominations
Jon Cruddas
46 nominations
Peter Hain
50 nominations
Harriet Harman
61 nominations
Alan Johnson
68 nominations

The enigma of Jon Cruddas' fan club

Some of my favourite people in politics have nominated Cruddas: Frank Dobson, Tom Watson, others that I know less well but know to be sound like Mike Gapes, Martin Salter and Khalid Mahmood.

Alongside them on the Cruddas list of nominators are Campaign Group members Diane Abbott, Harry Cohen, Ann Cryer, Neil Gerrard, Ian Gibson, David Hamilton, Kelvin Hopkins, Lynne Jones and Austin Mitchell.

The team meetings must be interesting ... I can imagine Diane and Tom getting on fantastically ... one of these sets of people is being taken for a ride, but I'm not sure which.

And where are the rest of the Campaign Group?

The small battalions of the Hard Left

From 49.9% of the electoral college with Benn just a couple of decades ago to the pathetic rag-tag-and-bobtail 27 nominations that McDonnell can muster now:

http://www.labour.org.uk/leadership/john_mcdonnell123

Who are the Brownites backing?

Not all the key Brownites are backing Harman by any means:

John Healey, Stephen Timms, Andrew Smith - backing Benn
Ruth Kelly - backing Blears
Tom Watson, Gavin Strang - backing Cruddas
Douglas Alexander, Nick Brown, Yvette Cooper, Alistair Darling, Nigel Griffiths, Geoff Hoon, Ed Miliband - backing Harman
Ed Balls - backing Johnson

Still to declare: Jack Straw, Ian Austin, Doug Henderson, Dawn Primarolo, Geoffrey Robinson

Update on the Cabinet

More on what the Cabinet think of their colleagues:

Blair, Brown - not likely to nominate
Blears, Johnson, Benn, Hain - candidates

Reid, Jowell, Armstrong, Kelly, Hutton, Smith - backing Blears
Darling, Hewitt, Alexander - backing Harman
Prescott, Miliband - backing Johnson
Timms - backing Benn

Which means the ones still to declare are Straw, Beckett, Browne.

The regional factor - update

Update on which regions Deputy Leader nominations are coming from:

London: Blears 8, Cruddas 8, Harman 7, Johnson 6, Benn 5, Hain 2
South East: Harman 7, Hain 4, Benn 3, Blears 1, Cruddas 1, Johnson 1
South West: Johnson 4, Harman 2, Hain 2, Benn 1, Blears 1, Cruddas 0
East: Harman 5, Cruddas 2, Johnson 2, Hain 1, Benn 0, Blears 0
East Midlands: Johnson 6, Harman 5, Benn 4, Blears 3, Cruddas 2, Hain 2
West Midlands: Johnson 9, Harman 6, Blears 5, Cruddas 5, Benn 4, Hain 1
North West: Blears 13, Cruddas 13, Johnson 10, Hain 8, Benn 4, Harman 3
Yorkshire: Johnson 13, Benn 8, Cruddas 6, Hain 5, Harman 5, Blears 3
North: Blears 7, Harman 6, Johnson 6, Hain 5, Benn 2, Cruddas 0
Wales: Hain 15, Harman 5, Cruddas 2, Johnson 2, Benn 1, Blears 1
Scotland: Harman 9, Blears 6, Cruddas 5, Johnson 5, Hain 4, Benn 2

My hunch is that given where the membership is heaviest, whoever is knocked out last out of Hazel or Alan can beat Harman in the final round (assuming Benn doesn't get nominated).

The Welsh transfers will be important as personal loyalty to Hain is over-riding some fairly moderate politics with some of his backers i.e. they may transfer to Hazel or Alan. Benn supporters are probably being courted heavily for if their man drops out too.

Cruddas polling well in NW and London - the key internal Labour urban battlegrounds with large Guardianista CLPs, but nowhere in the south outside London having dissed key seats, or in the working class heartlands.

Nominations

First day's nominations are up on the party website:

MP Nominations update - 6pm 15 MayCandidates for the leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party have received the following number of nominations as of 6pm 15 May.
Candidates for Leader
Gordon Brown
282 MP nominations
John McDonnell
27 MP nominations

Candidates for Deputy Leader
Hilary Benn
34 MP nominations
Hazel Blears
48 MP nominations
Jon Cruddas
44 MP nominations
Peter Hain
49 MP nominations
Harriet Harman
60 MP nominations
Alan Johnson
64 MP nominations

Gala Dinner

I was at the Labour Party Gala Dinner last night - another emotional (for the audience) farewell speech from Blair, and much lobbying of the MPs present by Hain and Blears and their respective campaign managers Phil Woolas and Caroline Flint - I didn't spot any of the other Deputy Leadership candidates.

Blair told a good anecdote about Christine Shawcroft at the NEC saying she was surprised by how much her GC had wanted to talk about his achievements and they had "almost passed a vote of thanks".

I hope Peter Hain didn't think I was being patronising when I congratulated him on getting nominated ...

Charles Clarke told me he isn't nominating anyone, but was affronted by my suggestion this put him in the same camp as John Spellar - "I'm not in the same camp as John Spellar on anything".

One MP actually filled in their nomination paper in front of me (for Blears, of course) - disappointingly the actual nomination form is a rather drab sheet of A4 - I guess I had a mental image of it being a hand-engraved vellum scroll.

The gossip was:
- Benn going absolutely nowhere and no one in the PLP seems to be feeling particularly sorry for him
- Cruddas not making any traction amongst MPs and seen as presumptuous for running as a relatively new backbencher by longer-serving MPs - probably will get nominated but only just
- Harman getting a huge push by the core Brownites
- Johnson going backwards - PLP support has dropped off in the last few weeks - and attempting to portray himself as unity candidate between Blears and Harman

Regional trends

Interesting data from the lists of MP supporters of those 3 DL candidates who have so far declared their hands.

Assuming that the MPs have some sway organisationally in their own CLPs in terms of mobilising members to vote, this could be significant as Labour membership is not evenly distributed - it is heavily loaded towards two regions, London and the North West:

London: 8 Blears, 6 Harman, 3 Hain
South East: 7 Harman, 4 Hain, 1 Blears
South West: 3 Harman, 2 Hain, 1 Blears
East: 5 Harman, 1 Hain
East Midlands: 3 Blears, 3 Harman, 2 Hain
West Midlands: 4 Blears, 4 Harman, 1 Hain
North West: 12 Blears, 8 Hain, 2 Harman
Yorkshire: 5 Hain, 3 Blears, 2 Harman
North: 8 Blears, 6 Hain, 4 Harman
Wales: 12 Hain, 4 Harman, 1 Blears
Scotland: 6 Blears, 4 Harman, 3 Hain

Unlike Hain and Blears, Harman is not ahead in her home region.

What do the Cabinet think of each other?

Position taken by Cabinet Ministers (those who are MPs) so far in the Deputy Leadership election:

Blair, Prescott, Brown - not likely to nominate

Blears, Johnson, Benn, Hain - candidates

Reid, Jowell, Armstrong, Kelly, Hutton - backing Blears

Darling (according to Guardian), Hewitt, Alexander (according to Guardian) - backing Harman

Timms - backing Benn

Which means the ones still to declare are Straw, Beckett, Miliband, Browne, Smith.

Straw's nomination will be interesting as he is Brown's campaign manager.

Are any of Hain's closest colleagues going to back him?

1st weekend of campaign

Judging by the YouGov poll in the Sunday Times showing the Tory lead collapsing, the leadership change-over seems to be playing well with the public.

It certainly is with members - the people I've spoken to this weekend are delighted that we seem to be managing to change leader with a sense of dignity and have a debate without infighting. There is a genuine sense of excitement and anticipation that Brown will unveil a policy agenda that effectively relaunches the government - without junking our hard-won achievements of the last 10 years.

I was personally delighted as a long-term supporter of electoral reform, that according to press coverage of yesterday's Fabian hustings he said he was not opposed to electoral reform as long as it maintained the constituency link.

Across the line

Hazel is now past the magic 44 thanks to Hilary Armstrong, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn and Martyn Jones: http://www.hazelblears.com/?cat=11