Friday, May 18, 2007

Leadership Elections: Treachery, Forgery or Hogwash ?


Did someone forge Marsha Singh signature on a nomination paper for John McDonnell? Why are some of JM supporters waging vicious and very personal “Kamikaze" attacks against Jon Cruddas? Rumour mill is going into overdrive, I have been doing some digging but as a Westminster village outsider, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of such reports. But they do reflect what many people appear to believe.

Marsha Singh is reported in the Guardian and the Telegraph & Argus (Pinkie and Perky) to claim that he only signed a nomination paper for Michael Meacher and that the nomination paper that was sent in apparently from him for McDonnell was forged. He clearly denies ever signing for McDonnell. Many Meacher MP supporters (I use the term “many” in the strictest literal sense, as more than 3 or even how many can you fit into a telephone booth sense… ) now claims that they were so angry at this “forgery” that this is the reason why they refused to back McDonnell. Hmmm.

Grimupnorth (my best ever mate comrade) claims (without linking the source?) that Alan Simpson MP and Mike Wood MP, state that it was "agreed" to transfer the “vote”? Not sure how this could happen unless this is an admission that they did forge his signature (at best thinking they had his “permission”) or that Marsha Singh is lying and that he signed two sets of nominations – one for Meacher and one for McDonnell (and then one for Brown?).

Grayee best guessimate is that someone did forge his Marsha Singh signature thinking that this was a little “white lie” since he had offered his support to Meacher and Meacher had urged his supporters to support McDonnell.

The plot thickens about the abuse that poor old Jon Cruddas is getting from some far left sites (I can link if you want). The unspoken reason is apparently this – Jon “promised” to nominate McDonnell for leader (if true a “coup”) if McDonnell supporters voted for him as deputy leader. A number (refer to definition of “many” above) of McDonnell supporters did nominate Jon.

The accusation is that Jon deliberately broke this deal and once he got the votes for deputy leader he then voted for Brown.

Grayee best guessiestimate is that Jon did wait a little while to nominate Brown for Leader. However, I cannot believe that someone with his political talents would ever agree to support McDonnell in return for their votes. Maybe there was a cock-up or maybe there was wishful thinking? Maybe this is just bitter recriminations against a “Left” candidate who was actually nominated?

12 comments:

Archie said...

It is very intriguing isnt it?

Whatever deals were done, and like you I find it hard to imagine Cruddas would, I think he intended to nominate John if it proved vital... which would explain why someone so involved in the nomination processes would wait so long to nominate himself

In the end nominating McDonnell wouldve only served to give the media the 'loony left' stick to beat him with, without getting McDonnell on the ballot

John Gray said...

yeah, I think some of the Far left are trying to blame someone (anyone) for the scale of JM defeat.

Anonymous said...

Commissar,

I don't agree. One of the key planks of Cruddas' campaign is renewing party democracy, re-involving activists, etc. What better way to do that than for Cruddas and his supporters to nominate John McDonnell to ensure that party members have an election. They could even have declared publicly that they were voting for Brown, but just ensuring that members had a choice.

Thousands of people joined or rejoined the party to have the chance to vote; thousands of others were excited by the prospect. They've now been disenfranchised and, as a result, will be demoralised by the experience.

If indeed the Cruddas lot did come to a deal with McDonnell, then I think it's pretty shocking if they reneged on it - regardless of whether or not you think it was tactically wise for them to enter into such a deal.

Finally, John Gray, McDonnell didn't suffer a "defeat" - because there wasn't an election for him to be defeated in. Party members and trade unionists haven't had the chance to have a say as to who they'd prefer to vote for. We've been deprived of an election.

The Guardian piece you've referred to - here - makes it clear that Brown went to every length to prevent an election taking place.

John Gray said...

Hi Dan (or whoever you are)
I think you will agree with me that it is very unlikely that Cruddas did the dirty on any deal.

But I must disagree with you if you think (and I honestly don’t know how?) that JM hasn’t suffered a defeat (Massive). MP’s only voted for Brown if they thought that there CLP’s would support them. I understand that Brown would have loved to have an election with anyone who had any real support. But since JM had such an awful level of support – why bother?

(I assume that it is not just me that the “Labourhome” site has been taken over by a Spam thingy)

Anonymous said...

What do you mean "whoever you are"? Didn't see you saying that to Commissar and I'm actually using my name!

According to YouGov, John McDonnell was the second most popular candidate (after Meacher and Clarke) - and that was before any media exposure. I think we could have expected McDonnell to get a good share of the vote. But that's the whole point. We don't know because we've been denied an election.

I saw you posting around encouraging people to join the party so they'd have a chance to vote in the leadership election. Surely you see that the thousands who have joined - and tens of thousands of other Labour party members - are deeply annoyed that they've been disenfranchised? Polls showed that members overwhelmingly supported a contest.

It seems to me that people like yourself are so blinded by your hatred for John that you're prepared to oppose even letting members decide for themselves what they think about him. I also don't understand why you and others have to come across as so nasty - unlike other Labour rightwingers I work with and respect. Don't you see how nasty and full of hate it makes you look?

John Gray said...

Hi Dan
Sorry to have upset you. However if you click on “Commissar” you go straight to his blogsite, so you know who it is. You are just signed in as “dan” (with no apparent link). I know that some people have to blog anonymously to save their job etc – but I would prefer it if people identify themselves (not that you have to have a “blog” to make a comment). I think that is reasonable.

Actually, the YouGov poll showed that McDonnell was 3rd most poplar (Reid got 17% in a straight fight with Brown - more than McDonnell 9% and Meacher 6% combined! Brown of course got 80%.

Personally, being a political anorak, I am disappointed that there is no election. However, frankly if “Left” cannot even get 12.5% of MP’s to nominate a candidate (this is in a government which has experienced rebellions of 140+ MP’s after all) then an election would just be a farce. I honestly believe that the scale of support by MP’s does reflect Party/Trade union opinion. I think the YouGov 80% is pretty accurate.

I accept that some people who joined the Party simply to vote will be annoyed. However, stay in the Party, go to your CLP meeting and in the future, vote against the reselection of those MP’s who backed Brown.

I still think that Brown would have been more than happy to have an election – with a credible candidate.

Let me make this clear – I don’t hate anyone (except maybe GG). I would agree with a number of his declared policies, however, I will attack John McDonnell and hold him responsible for his actions and his political position. Which if the Labour Party adopted I honestly believe would mean that the Tories would be power for another generation.

I’m still trying to work out why you think this post or my comments upset you so much? I do tend to find that many (not all) on the extreme “left” find it very difficult to cope with criticism or contrary views. A bit like religious fundamentalists, they think that their position is so right and so obviously clear that if their opponents cannot agree with them then this must because they are some horrible ogre. Such is life.

Anonymous said...

Hey John,

Well thanks for your commiserations - I saw your comment in the other box.

I think the guardian piece - posted by Dan - is very revealing.

Commissar's comment, whilst being all wrong, only serves to further expose Cruddas.

"Whatever deals were done, and like you I find it hard to imagine Cruddas would, I think he intended to nominate John if it proved vital... "

When he nominated Brown, Cruddas wasn't just one among many - he was among those who helped Brown to pass the 308 "quota of nominations", necessary to eliminate John McDonnell before the contest entered its final stage. It is on that basis that I, and others, criticise Jon Cruddas.

Of course, if you want to be picky, this isn't Cruddas' only crime. He is also to blame for having put on a "Left" facade in order to increase the momentum of his campaign, make a positive impression on the T.Us and grassroots' networks. Furthermore, he lwas only too happy to be seen as the "outsider" in a contest between otherwise fairly similar candidates.

What's more is that Cruddas
has been going on and on about "Party Democracy", and when he actually had the chance to promote it - which he would have by nominating McDonnell and helped ensuring that there would be a contest - he remarkably failed to do so - it was well within his power to do so. It is on account of this hypocrisy - for having put his career before his Party and "Party Democracy" - that a Cruddas candidacy cannot be supported by those, who such as myself, place them sincerely on the Left of the Party.

Finally, I believ that, had Cruddas nominated John, he could have brought Trickett (and a number of other "Compassites") to do the same. Instead he allowed McDonnellites to believe that he would - if only for the sake of "Party Democracy" - assist them in a moment of need, as Commissar's statement shows.

Therefore, Jon Cruddas cannot, should he win, be trusted to deliver what he promised. He, like many other "New Labourites", has sacrificed his principles - if he had any to begin with - on the altar of careerism.

Comradely,

Mikael

John Gray said...

Hi Mikael
Firstly, sorry I am rather late in making a response. I have not decided who I will support for DL. I must make up my mind pretty soon. However, I do think that your reasoning not to support Jon is pretty ropey. Okay, if you have any real evidence that he did the “dirty” and deliberately lied to anyone that is different. However, I think most folk, always thought he would vote for Brown, because it was obvious that Brown was the “best” non-Blairite candidate for the party. Jon is to the “left” of Brown, but would have worked out (like I guess all the other candidates) that Brown would as leader be someone who will progress social justice in this country and defeat the Tories.
This “eating your own baby” attitude shown by some on the hard left towards Jon is just daft. Brings to mind the age old “Wreakers and splitters” jibes.
If on these grounds you don’t want to vote for Jon, then you might as well don’t vote for anyone. However, to my mind there are clear differences between them which would mean making a considered vote. Bearing in mind that the DL contest is to me yet another illustration that the Party is not influenced by Marxist or Leninist traditions anymore.

Anonymous said...

Brown could always offer McDonnell (and Meacher and Charles Clarke) a cabinet place. He said he wanted a "government of all the talents"...

John Gray said...

Hi Get Real
Brown is capable of bold and unexpected moves (such as independence of Bank of England over interest rates). He may try to bring in a leading Blairite or someone from the Left (not a good bet however).

Sorry, I don’t think that McDonnell is talented. Obviously, he is not an idiot however he has “led” (note inverted commas) the “left” of the Party to its most crushing defeat since the abolition of clause 4.

BTW - I’ve decided not to refer to people who post comments without signing into a google account as “whoever you are” since it appears to wind folk up. Will mention it to anon comments or very silly names.

Anonymous said...

John - I don't understand how this was the most crushing defeat of the left since the defeat over clause IV - since the PLP has denied the party a leadership election.

John Gray said...

Oh come on, this is disastrous. The PLP has never, I think, been so dominated by the centre and the right (in Labour Party terms). I accept that others do not share this view; however, I think I’m correct in saying that the vast majority of MP’s do take note of their members and their CLP’s. It is in the long run suicidal to do otherwise. If McDonnell had any serious level of support there would have been enough MP’s to think about motivating activists to campaign for them at the next general election to have nominated him (and then till vote Brown).

The most interesting issue is that while the fight over Clause 4 was pretty much a straight left v right argument. The only argument over the Leadership is right v. centre. The Left are no were to be seen. Which I argue is what happened to McDonnell. I do feel that if a more mainstream left candidate has been selected then he (yes another he) probably would have been nominative (and lost).

This is not denying an election, since any nomination of left candidate would have been irrelevant.