This came up yesterday in conversation with other Labour Party activists (yes, in a pub!) and the more I think about it the more convincing the argument. Now putting aside my aversion to John McDonnell MP for the moment. I don’t think that anyone seriously believes that he or Michael Meacher will be the next Prime Minister. The Electoral College is split 1/3rd MP’s, 1/3rd Trade union levy payers and 1/3rd ordinary Party members. They will get little or no votes (never mind nominations) from Labour MPs, maybe say 10% top from individual trade unionists(the big unions are not going to support either) and I think a similar amount from ordinary members. I like Luke Akehurst's comparison of two bald men fighting over a comb. Times have changed.
What is important is that Brown would easily defeat such “left wing” candidates without sparking a real debate about post-Blairism and the future of the Party. Instead, what is needed is a challenge from the Right such as Clarke or Reid. Brown would then have to show how his politics and philosophy is different from the Right.
There has been a lot of fuss and bother about encouraging Labour MPs to nominate either McDonnell or Meacher in order to “have a debate” about the future direction of the Party (they can nominate up to 3). This is barking up the wrong tree. What we should be doing is encouraging them to nominate Clarke or Reid.
What is important is that Brown would easily defeat such “left wing” candidates without sparking a real debate about post-Blairism and the future of the Party. Instead, what is needed is a challenge from the Right such as Clarke or Reid. Brown would then have to show how his politics and philosophy is different from the Right.
There has been a lot of fuss and bother about encouraging Labour MPs to nominate either McDonnell or Meacher in order to “have a debate” about the future direction of the Party (they can nominate up to 3). This is barking up the wrong tree. What we should be doing is encouraging them to nominate Clarke or Reid.
