Unsurprising? I think it is.
140 Mps voted against Iraq
100 against Trident
wasn't that much to suppose some would vote for a candidate who shared their "principles." Well, no doubt the non-Labour left will be having a right old laugh. It's a bleak day for Labour and for democracy.Disgraceful.

Well, what happens now for the Labour left?

After months and months of hearing that he would definitely be on the ballot paper, that he had mass support in the party and the unions it's depressing to hear he's thrown in the towel.

No I'm not a Labour Party member, no I don't feel I have much in common politically with the Labour left but it is still an indication of how the forces of the left have shrunk and this obviously not a good thing.

The only small consolation is that people will stop asking/demanding I join the Labour Party to vote for McDonnell at every single political event I go along to.

"After months and months of hearing that he would definitely be on the ballot paper"

Who said that? It's always been touch and go.

As the debate's moving here, I'm going to copy and paste this from the previous post:

Peversely, I've a feeling this could be a good thing. McDonnell almost certainly wouldn't have won this contest, but now we'll never know - and the story will always be that a timid, overly-whipped and out-of-touch PLP denied party members and trade unionists a say over the leadership.

Brown is going to be a Blairite PM, so we'll lose the next general election - bad for us all in the short term, but we have to lose one day, and this could be the one to lose. If it's a defeat as bad or worse than that suffered by the Tories in 1997, then the whole leadership will be discredited. The Brownite right will be discredited anyway, by Brown; and the Blairite right will still be discredited by not having had the guts to challenge Brown. The left, on the other hand, will be able to say it did challenge Brown (and was only blocked by a subservient PLP, with the electoral wipe-out of 2009 being the inevitable price); and a left-wing candidate stands a better chance of winning a contest in Opposition anyway. And by 2010, we'll be getting close to the next swing of the political pendulum and so the end of the Thatcherite era.

So, Labour elects (say) Katy Clark as its leader in 2010 and returns to government in 2014, heralding a change in the political landscape on a par with 1906, 1945 and 1979. Blair and Brown will occupy the same position within the Labour Party that Macmillan did under Thatcher - scorned and derided relics.

Latest on BBC: McDonnell will fight on and has not conceded yet.

The BBC are reporting 'Chancellor Gordon Brown's only rival for the Labour leadership has promised to "play until the whistle" in his attempt to get enough support to stand.'

"Looks like the rumours were wrong, and McDonnell will fight 'until the final whistle', as he puts it. Not that that changes anything, really."

Fabulous display of optimism, Dave! You do want John to get on the ballot, don't you???

Effectively, then, this means that Labour - unique among the main parties - has a leader chosen not by democracy but by discussion over dinner at a poncey Islington restaurant, 13 years ago. Magnificient stuff.

Jon Cruddas has confirmed he's to nominate Brown therefore showing what he really thinks about democracy and accountability in the party.

He voted to EXCLUDE members from the active participation in a democratic contest and debate.

Cruddas's position is now straightforwardly undemocratic.

Brown will now go on a hustings in the manner of the Chinese Communist Party or the Soviet Union: as the single, only approved candidate, no meaningful opposition or debate, and if a vote is allowed there will only be one name on the ballot paper. Gordon Brown.

After ten years in power, the Labour Party should really ask itself how it wound up with a Communist style hustings process for the next leader and PM, with the party and public completely and deliberately excluded, and the whole thing now completely stage managed.

It' still 29 as of 18:00.

http://www.labour.org.uk/leadership/john_mcdonnell123?PublishKey=0dc15a5f-a192-36a4-cdc7-3dcbdf8c2047

Dave's posts recently do remind me a bit of Fraser from Dad's Army "We're doomed". He is probably right but that doesn't mean anyone should give up trying until it's over. You could have argued that we shouldn't have bothered campaigning against the Tories in elections in the 80's as they were bound to win.

Does anyone know who's responsible for the party website? They need to take the "Join to Vote" page down immediately - it's fucking embarrassing:

"Being a member of a political party means a lot and in the coming months our members will be asked to choose a new Leader and Deputy Leader for the Labour Party, and, for the first time in history, the next Prime Minister. Never before has the membership of any political party had such a responsiblity for shaping the future of British politics, nor such a responsibility to the people of Britain, and the history of our movement. It is an honour and a privilege."

16 left to nominate.
16 needed for McDonnell.

The fat lady is making her way to the stage...

Jon Cruddas has confirmed he's to nominate Brown

He hasn't bothered to reply to my email asking him to nominate McDonnell in order to make it more likely that members will have a say in deciding the leader. Cruddas is probably too worried about jeopardising any future cabinet career. The man's a joke.

If you want someone to blame, blame McDonnell. It is only a few days ago that he said:

The good news for the Labour Party is that there is clearly sufficient support to ensure that a leadership candidate will come forward from the Centre-Left.

Maybe - but he's not centre-left and there was never any prospect of him winning the sufficient level of support in the PLP.

You were all sold a pup.

Cruddas didn't answer my e-mail either. Now we know why........

Many of Meacher's "backers" were bogus.

For example, one was Andy Reed who publicly declared on his blog on Sunday that he was backing Brown.

The idea he was ever going to do anything else than nominate Brown was farcical.

The same goes for half the others.

Harry, the same scenario re the nominations had occurred to me .But even then I thought the PLP would understand that Party members and trade unions desperately wanted to have their say and act accordingly. Seems we were wrong.I under-estimated their supine-ness.

Condolences to the McDonnellites on here - you tried your best to keep alive the dream that the Labour Party could be reclaimed for socialism.

Now Gordon Brown is going to finish off the job that Blair began - slowly but surely destroying the Labour Party as a progressive party. Socialists in the Labour Party should either split off and form a new 'Independent Labour Party' or join up with Respect - further work inside the Labour Party is surely now futile.

Snowball,

If you really want to start a strategy of pissing off socialists in the Labour party and achieving nothing but wanting to punch your irritating smug little self, then carry on going.

The idea of joining a pseudo-left populist party with absolutely no base in the working class and the support of about 0.1% of the population is just a joke.

If you had any decency you'd shut the fuck up for a few days instead of gloating over Brown's victory.

At the end of the day, you wanted the same outcome as the Brownites - John McDonnell to be kept off the ballot paper. Accordingly I put you both in the same box - "SCUM"

Snowball,

Get back to me once you've actually managed to "claim" RESPECT for Socialism. RESPECT's always been a ridiculous SWP front consisting mainly Islamic activists and has never had anything to do with Socialism.

At least the Labour Party is based on the T.Us, whereas you're ridiculous "front" is based on nothing but GG's "sense of self".

The Labour Left will rise again - John's campaign and its success among rank-and-file members are proof of that!

Damn RESPECT, the CNWP and the spineless cowards who refused to nominate John McDonnell. See you all in the dust-bin of history!

Reclaim Labour for Socialism!

Damn RESPECT, the CNWP and the spineless cowards who refused to nominate John McDonnell. See you all in the dust-bin of history!

That could have been better phrased. I'm visualising Jeff Goldblum in The tall guy -

"See you all in the dustbin of history! Not that I'll be in the dustbin of history... I mean, I'll see you when I look down into the dustbin of history - just before I empty it into the skip of history! Ha!"

307 MPs (including mine own) have 'nominated' Brown. Interesting use of the verb. Unless I've miscounted, there are still 17 undecided of whom John could conceivably get 16... naah.

Spineless is right, but you left out 'bastards'. Spineless anti-democratic right-wing idiot bastards.

Benjamin, That is a superb description of the nature of the contest and says it all really.

'Brown will now go on a hustings in the manner of the Chinese Communist Party or the Soviet Union: as the single, only approved candidate, no meaningful opposition or debate, and if a vote is allowed there will only be one name on the ballot paper. Gordon Brown.

After ten years in power, the Labour Party should really ask itself how it wound up with a Communist style hustings process for the next leader and PM, with the party and public completely and deliberately excluded, and the whole thing now completely stage managed.'

Comrades,

I am a member of the Socialist Party and a supporter of the CNWP and I take no pleasure in seeing McDonnell (probably) not getting on the ballot paper. The approach of Snowball is of a childish lunatic; please do not lump us in with him / her.

I am disappointed because it would have been a chance for someone to draw a line against New Labour, popularised socialist ideas (even if media coverage had been limited), and most of all it would have exposed the 'leaders' of the unions further, particularly in my union, Unison.

It is a sad day for those comrades both in the Labour Party, and those of us currently outside.

All socialists need to prepare for a battle against Brown, lets take it to him, and we all need to engage in a comradely debate about the way forward in terms of political representation of the working class.

Just some thoughts
Paul H
Coventry

Bad luck comrades : (

Nope, Phil. At the point that wrote my post, there were only 15 undecided MPs left. John is thus, very unfortunately, not going to make the ballot!

You should get your facts before you try to be funny!

P.S. The likes of you are already in the dust-bin of history - and pretty deep down into it, at that!

Paul H,

So, if Labour really is "withering on the vine" - which is what you said nearly 20 years back - how come it managed to snatch a council seat from you in Coventry. If you had stayed in the Party, then who knows...??? You may have been very useful, but look at you now!

That was a very gracious and dignified post Paul H, thanks. Let's have a few more like that and less internecine bitching in the coming period eh?

And remember the people to turn on are the spineless cowards of the PLP.

Hi Mikael,

Thanks for your comment, perhaps we could have a serious debate - although as you are a member of Socialist Appeal, I should be grateful you are even talking to a sectarian on the fringes of the labour movement, like my good self.

Dave Cotterill was clearly wrong when he said that - however by the own admission of comrades like Rob Sewell and and others, hardly any of your members are active in the LP or attend Labour meetings. So a touch of honesty and a sense of proportion would be nice.

By the way, in the Coventry organsisation we always explained that when the Tories took control of the council Labour would be able to play on that and talk in a more populist, 'old' Labour style. Also pecularities of the ward had an effect, which I won't be going in to.

Elections are a small part of what we do in Coventry. Our main activity is building within the labour movement and amongst the youth.

cheers
Paul

Just seen the evening news (21.00hrs), McDonell has conceded defeat. It just shows what a bunch of supine placeseekers and self-servers the PLP is constituted from. Still, in the words of that old saying, 'Don't let the bastards grind you down.'.

Mikael, I realise that your remarks are coloured by an undersndable disappointment and bitterness but really, can you not do better than that?

Whether you like the Socialist Party or not, it does represent one of the few significant groupings of socialist activists left in Britain. It can for instance get more people to its open events than the LRC or Campaign Group can manage and it could, I would guess get more activists to work on a national campaign than John 4 leader managed. That is not a sign of the Socialist Party's strength, far from it. It's a sign of the general weakness of the left.

Personally, I agree with Paul. It would have been great news if McDonnell had made it onto the ballot. Even from the perspective of a socialist outside the Labour Party it would have meant a chance to get socialist ideas discussed in the mainstream press. It would also have given all of us a chance to put it up to the major union leaders, who make noises about "reclaiming labour" not because they have any interest in doing so but to avoid doing anything at all. You want to reclaim labour? Here's your chance to show us you are serious about it!

McDonnell not getting on the ballot paper robs us of all that. Still, if he is kept off the ballot and if he doesn't even get close to the ballot, then that in and of itself tells us some important things about the state of the Labour Party.

I don't expect a serious discussion about the future for working class representation with the Labour left at the moment because people will still, quite understandably, be shocked, angry and bitter. I thoroughly expect to see a fair few embittered posts ranting about the left outside the Labour Party and how it is gloating or whatever. And posts like that from our Respect friend above will only encourage that. But we do need to have a serious, comradely discussion about the way ahead.

Tom,

You are right about the PLP. In my union I will be making hell that all 3 Coventry MPs supported Brown.

Its an absolute disgrace

Paul

Mark P,

First of all, don't patronise me... I'll be just fine thank you!

So you suggest that I should split away from Labour in order to reclaim it???? Nonsense. I am not supporter of the old Militant Tendency - I have no time for the SPEW. Its failures so far illustrate that nothing of substance can be built outside Labour. Look at the SA, for instance.

While I admit that, along this particular thread, your comments have been more comradely than those of the SWPers, I still think that,in either case, you both remain incurably sectarian and "Ultra-Left".

Mikael, I was trying to be understanding rather than adding fuel to the fire that yourself and our Respect friend were busy setting. If that comes across as patronising, I'm sorry. I honestly don't expect most people, myself included, to be in the best shape to discuss what next in a comradely way just a few minutes after a major defeat like this.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you suggest that I am saying anything along the lines of "split away from the labour party in order to reclaim it". That is certainly not something I would suggest in current circumstances. To be blunt, I think the Labour Party cannot be reclaimed. Equally the obvious riposte to your dismissal of the possibility of building outside Labour is a simple one: What of substance has the left inside the Labour Party built in the same period?

I'm not interested in trading dogmatic statements with you or with anyone else in the Labour left (although perhaps getting into a discussion with a comrade from Socialist Appeal is a poor way to avoid dogmatic statements!). I am however interested in a serious, comradely discussion about what the left does now. What can we learn from this setback?

Mark,

This doesn't need to be a set-back, it can be the beginning of a united Labour Left campaign to reclaim Labour; try to understand before you make "blunt" statements.

"Mikael, I realise that your remarks are coloured by an undersndable disappointment and bitterness but really, can you not do better than that?"

Sounds pretty patronising...

"What can we learn from this setback?"

That comes off as quite patronising too...

"You want to reclaim labour? Here's your chance to show us you are serious about it!"

Coming from a CNWP, I interpreted that as an encouragement to leave the Party in order to reclaim it! That's your dogma all wrapped up, right there!

By the way... what about your election result in Coventry. Hardly proves that the CNWP can replace Labour.

The Labour Party isn't "beyond reclaiming", it still rests (more or less firmly) on the T.Us. You lot used to realise and appreciate that fact, you clearly do not at this point though. Whatever went wrong, Mark?

Mikael: ,i> This doesn't need to be a set-back, it can be the beginning of a united Labour Left campaign to reclaim Labour

This reminds me of the quote from Mark Steel's book about the 1980s, when he was discussing from a comrade from another left group whether socialism is inevitable.

Mark pointed out that it was not inevitavble becasue there might be an all out neuclear armaggedon.

To which the comrade replied, "that wuold be a set back"

Let us be clear what happened here. An electiona campaign could have pulled the party centre away from the party right. Instead the right pulled the centre towards it and the left have been shown as utterly isolated.

There is no point us arguing whether or not people should be in the LP, as we aren't vhanging each others minds, and people need to draw their own conclusions.

Ans part of the reason that socialists like me are not in the party is that we beleive the right's victry is total and irreversible, partly because the mechanisms by which the left could infleunce the debate have been put beyond reach - constititional changes, impossibility of selecting lefts for winnabe seats, conference is a rally, local government stripped of powers that allow the left to build a base, etc etc.

The reason this is a total rout, is because that is after Iraq, PFI, a housing crisis, no implementation of Warwick, etc. Yet despite that the centre still stick with the right not the left !!!

Ideologically the mainstream of the party has bought into a neo-liberal agenda.

The element of hope in the situation, is that labour's electoral base have actually not been won over to New labour's political agenda, and neither have the unions.

How we orient in that difficult situation is not easy, especially as the left outsidie the KLP have fucked up our opportunities to build a left electoral alternative. (and neither Respect nor the CNWP are on the road to that)

I think it is hard slog - but the only way forward now is to encourage the unions to develop their own political agenda., networking the activists, and developing an ideological alternative to the market.

getting organised labour to develop such an ideological alternative is possible, already the unions are the main source of ideological opposition to PFI. private equity, etc.

The importnace now of Join Cruddas's campaign is even greater. As an opportunity for the big 4(3)unions - to both back Brown (which they were always going to) and try to shape a debate about privatisation, PFI, pensions, public sector pay, trade union freedom bill.

You should get your facts before you try to be funny!

I got my figures from labour.org.uk. Obviously out of date by the time I got them. Doesn't matter now.

P.S. The likes of you are already in the dust-bin of history - and pretty deep down into it, at that!

I think you're mistaking me for a Trot, or something. And you're definitely mistaking comradely commiseration for a sectarian attack. (FWIW, I was seriously considering joining the party if McDonnell had been on the ballot.)

Cowards, spineless cowards, myopic anti-democratic anti-Labour-movement turkeys-voting-for-Christmas cowards. Sod 'em.

MIkael: it still rests (more or less firmly) on the T.Us

It is a mistake to confuse form with content.

New labour rests not on the trade unions but on the state, and has become a mcahine for winning electiosn based upon triangualting over the concerns of swing voters in marginal seats, and expressing a political agenda that is part economic neo-liberalism, and part right wing populaist around the prejudices of the middle classes.

That is moderated partly by the residual and historical links with the unions, which makes thhe transformation appear less complete than it really is.

(but anyone who has any dealings with the real political relationship knows that the uniosn have almost no influence, and there is huge disillusionment with Labour, I meet very very few trade unions activists who are LP members.

We have a shop stewards two day course coming up for the whole of GMB Wiltshire, and I would be surprised if there is a single LP member there.

At the risk of being accused of patronising you again, Mikael, I think I'll wait a little, until feelings aren't running so high, before responding to the core of your post.

I will though clear up one misconception you seem to have about my attitude towards the main unions and the McDonnell campaign. I am not saying to anyone "leave the labour party so you can reclaim it".

My attitude towards Simpson, Prentis and company was very different to that. I don't think that Labour can be reclaimed and I think that the unions should begin the process of building a new vehicle for working class representation. I make no secret of that - it's best that we all know where we are coming from.

The leadership of the main unions argue that they are in favour of reclaiming the labour party. In my view they are not serious about that position, are not in any way interested in trying to achieve their stated goal. Instead they mouth ritual statements about reclaiming labour, while doing nothing. The McDonnell campaign, particularly if he had made the ballot, provided a useful and important way of putting it up to those leaders. They say they want to reclaim labour. Here's a serious attempt to start doing just that. So why aren't they willing to support it? Had McDonnell got on the ballot paper, the continued refusal of the union leaders to back the candidate trying to achieve their supposed aim would have exposed them on that issue at least.

That's one of the main reasons why the failure of McDonnell to get on the ballot is a setback for all serious socialists, including those of us who are outside the Labour Party.

So some of Meachers supporters were really just trying to block McDonnell, and all that speculation about the PLP not wanting a coronation was simply not true.

When you used to ask the Militant how they would take on the top down entrenched bureaucracy and conservativism of the LP machine they would say, with a straight face and clenched fist 'The Iron Will of the Militant'. Blind optimism is not much of a strategy but it is at least a strategy. It seems to me that John McDonnell's campaign was based on a kind of Waynes World 'Stand and they will come' type approach. So perhaps a gentler version of Militants thinking, but lets face it after 20 years there has been plenty of time for something a little more concrete. In reality this was a desperate last gasp and you all know it (I hope your not feeling patronised Mikael).

To some degree the strategy was successful as I know independent activists drawn back into Labours orbit by the McDonnell Campaign. It gave old leftists and a layer of new young activists a chance to feel a bit of that old 80's fire again. McDonnel deserves credit for organising his campaign in a fraternal and positive way. To be honest despite being active on the non Labour left for 20 years I had never heard of him before he stood. For me that says a lot about the self referencing world of Labour Party politics and the narrow focus of Labour activists on internal party politics and electoralism. There you go.

So what know? If many of the surviving Campaign Group are to stand down at the next election. If no new left blood can get past the selection mafia. I suspect Blairite John Crudas is going to start looking increasingly attractive, lets not expect any rational or politically thought out responces. After all didnt the half of the LP that had any independent faculties already leave? Are we not dealing with people in love with the idea of the LP, who would happily wipe the blood off its jaws and wait for it to transform back into Dr Hyde, because its their family. Or am I wrong? Give me a reason, give me a strategy? Dont just hide behind petty sectarian excuses. There are good people on all sections of the left. Decisions should be made should be about the way forward on the basis of whats good for the movement, how do we get anti-war anti-neoliberal pro-union politics into the political debate in this country, is going to local labour party ward meetings and campaigning for Brownite MP's realy the way forward comrades?

When is the serious debate going to begin about using whats left of the left to create a new pole of attraction. Look at the Links Party vote in Germany, Oscar Lafontaine anybody? Just one Campaign Group MP would be enough. Get on the phone with Rees and Nellist and lets get on with it.

So what did Snowball say to invite all this sectarian vitriol?
Just that he offered sympathy for the defeat but suggested that this showed that this justified his political strategy of trying to build a political alternative to the Labour Party. For this opinion he was greeted with comments such as "Scum" "Childish Lunatic" "Spineless coward" and "bastard" to name a few. \
Compare all that to his comment (which in my opinion is overstated) that Brown is killing off socialism in the Labour Party.
In my opinion this is overstating the case but for crying out loud it hardly deserves the viscious, uncomradely response.
Obviously you think that people are either with you or are "scum" etc
So much for fraternal debate

So what now...a creative spoil in the deputy leadership contest?
I've started the debate on my blog.

Yep spoilt ballot for me!
And there is no way Cruddas will be getting my vote.

I've come out for Benn.

Yep spoilt ballot for me!
And there is no way Cruddas will be getting my vote.

I've come out for Benn.

There is no polite way of putting this. Fuck off, Cruddas!
His entire "left" campaign was built on a sham, he doesn't vote for the candidate who supports his so-called policy platform. He could have turned it round and he didn't.I will also be voting for Hilary Benn. At least he is consistent and has integrity. And no, I'm not drunk.I did that last night .......

Assuming the others don't all pull out to allow a Blears coronation I'll be exercising the John4Leader write in option.

Ooops, Sorry, Phil!

I was pretty pissed off when I wrote that, as can - and surely will - understand.

Mark,

You are patronising aren't you. What's more your argument lacks substance. You keep "dodging" my questions. What about Coventry??? The trade-Unions will not dis-affiliate and what's more - even if they do - they won't get behind the CNWP. You're good at splitting,but, face it, you don't know how to Unite.

You tried the SA - it failed. You tried whatever it was that you tried with the sacked Liverpool dockers - it failed. The only time you didn't miserably fail was when you operated inside the Labour Party - but like cowards you left. You claimed Labour was "withering on the vine" back in '92 - in '97 Labour won a great victory (before you accuse of anything, this doesn't imply that I back NuLab in any way). You need to get your perspectives straight, Mark. The only ones who've "withered on the vine" is you - and not just once but several times!

You were right first time round Dave, McDonnell's conceded. That story you link to in your update about "fighting to the final whistle" actually says he's conceded.

Re Cruddas nominating Brown. I am disappointed he has done this although I did not think he should have endorsed McDonnell either. However, this is big politics and I do not think Cruddas would have nominated Brown by choice. He would have known that he would incur the wrath of the hard left. Sounds to me like his team realise there are bigger votes to play for out in the wider party membership, which is not particularly hard left. he will still get the vote of ordinary (non-political) trade union members. I am more disappointed in Brown not wanting a contest for leader. He has no mandate at all now.

It'll help Brown get on with George Bush anyhow. They can both josh about how they came to power without winning an election.

For clarification, my own "spineless coward" remark was aimed squarely at the PLP.

Oh, well, back to the "Harry Perkins For Leader" plan. Looks like I'll be making me own ballot paper then...

SUSAN PRESS:"His entire "left" campaign was built on a sham, he doesn't vote for the candidate who supports his so-called policy platform. He could have turned it round and he didn't.I will also be voting for Hilary Benn. At least he is consistent and has integrity. And no, I'm not drunk.I did that last night ......."

You sound pissed. That would be a good excuse for the barmy nonsense you come out with. Wasn't it you who couldn't understand why MPs would vote against Trident but still support Brown? Your political analysis is not very nuanced. Cruddas never claimed his campaign was a left one. It was only the ultra-Blairites and the halfwit media trying to claim that. Cruddas owed nothing to McDonnell and to be honest the priority for him should be getting into a position where he is able to implement his reforms (reforms that, I am still convinced would help the left in the party). That is pragmatism. Cruddas nominated McDonnell wouldn't have helped him and it wouldn't have made any difference. Next time come up with a better candidate who has a broader appeal.

So you prefer to vote for Hilary Benn who hasn't got any ideas for party reform, hasn't expressed any regrets about supporting the war, and is clearly more right-wing than Cruddas? Just out of vindictive spite because you IMAGINED that Jon Cruddas and John McDonnell were bosom buddies?

Perhaps have a rethink when you've calmed down!

Re Cruddas nominating Brown. I am disappointed he has done this although I did not think he should have endorsed McDonnell either. However, this is big politics and I do not think Cruddas would have nominated Brown by choice. He would have known that he would incur the wrath of the hard left.

For me its not about the "hard left" etc. McDonnell is not even hard left. He's a reformist social democrat, in my view. Which is no insult.

For me this is about democracy.

Cruddas nominated Brown but also against democracy.

Cruddas' nomination for Brown is irrelevant, he knows it, it's meaningless in the pile of Brown nominations.

To nominate McDonnell is not necessarily to endorse him, nor vote for him, its simply to help promote party democracy, a proper debate.

That should be absolutely first principle, bread and butter, basic stuff for any party member, MP or trade unionist.

But it's not the first principle for Jon Cruddas, nor the other 307 MPs who have nominated Brown.

And the irony? Cruddas is backed by trade unions. In nominating Brown, he helped guarantee that trade union members were excluded from voting for Labour leader in democratic contest and taking part in a proper debate.

There you have it: Jon Cruddas' true commitment to trade unionism.

The Labour left involved behind the McDonnell campaign are amongst the best and most genuine socialists I have ever met (and I'm sure anyone with an ounce of serious political background here will agree). To compare with a wee twisted creature like Respect is simply ridiculous.

That many were aware that McDonnell had only the slimest chance of being on the ballot paper was apparent for some time - and I posted here a remark from a conversation I had with some from a well-known left Labour monthly here a few days ago. It was equally obvious that the trade union eladership would not back him. Benjamin ommits that supporting Crudus gives them a modicum of credibility with their activists.

Since Brown is a sociopath - which we all knew but was revealed at length on Channel Four this week - is a major problem for his supporters. And his initiating the privatising of public services to inefficient costly companies living the hog off state money creates difficulties as well. Unfortunately it fragments union opposition at the same time, at least as far as presenting a united front of the public sector - I'm sure union leaders are conscious of this. Still it's a major contradiction from which to begin a fight-back and the CNWP is I judge right to concentrate on it.

Finally it was said last night that Andrew McKinley was the one who gave the coup de grace to McDonnell. He tried to get selected as an Ipswich MP in the late-eighties, early-nineties (I was only just around here) and according to comrades presented himself as the left and union - T & G candidate. Interesting to know what this hopeless cretin - bound to be marginal in Thurrock isn;t it - hopes to get out of this act. Still he made an idiot of himself on Iraq, wasn;t it the Scott report, so the man has little judgement.

I agree with Benjamin.

Jon Cruddas talked about re-engaging with members, promoting party democracy etc

People were willing to engage with Cruddas on that basis - and even forgive him for supporting many of the policies that had driven party members away (like voting for the destruction of Iraq, unlike 139 other Labour MPs).

However, his talk about promoting party democracy has been proven to be a sham. He didn't even nominate a candidate to ensure a contest so that party members could have a vote.

No-one thought Cruddas was bosom buddies with McDonnell or owed him anything. People thought that, because he believed in party democracy, he might actually do something about it.

Cruddasites can taunt McDonnell's supporters all they like. It won't help them, though. They've just lost thousands of votes. Cruddas' actions also seem to have ensured that Benn has got on the ballot paper (anyone noticed that Jeremy Corbyn and Bob Wareing have now nominated Benn?)

Cruddas will not become Brown's bag carrier, despite the hopes of his supporters. Benn will be elected leader. My prediction is that Cruddas will be lucky to get 10% of the vote.

I don't think they'll be quite so cocky then

Andrew

There were many good things about ther McDonnell campaign, but you are a bit overblown in your prasie here: The Labour left involved behind the McDonnell campaign are amongst the best and most genuine socialists I have ever met

Is it not also the case that many of John's supporters on blogs have been boorish and sectarian - abusing socialists not in the LP - and pouring vitriol on Michael Meacher and now Jon Cruddas.

Andrew Coates

Is Brown a sociopath? This is a genuine question. I don't know. What was on Channel 4 this week? I don't live in the UK.

No I wasn't pissed. I had one pint of beer after a council meeting but thought it best not to have any more.If it was "barmy nonsense" to think MPs who voted against Trident might not suport Brown then frankly why did they bother. They should have just let him get on with it. Labour CND, whonominated John, must be really bloody delighted.
Let's get rid of the PLP entirely and just rule the country with a Central Committee. Oh, looks like we have.
Cruddas gained credibility on several issues like Trident and party democracy. Then he proved he cared about neither by nominating Brown.At a stage when Brown already had an obscene amount of nominations.Likewise Jon Trickett, who spoke with John McDonnell at the anti-Trident rally in Trafalgar square. What in God's name was all that about, then? No it's not the left doing its usual rant about betrayal. It's worse than that. We had a real chance to bring socialiam back on the agenda, to put down a marker, and show the disillusioned and disaffected who left Labour years ago that there was a point in coming back. Lots of people did. Now we've lost that, I hope the Cruddasites are pleased.I watched the hustings last night.Looks like it's between Blears and Benn.I will vote for Benn because I had a long chat with him last week.He's an honest, decent right-winger who has done good stuff with the DFID. I campaigned for him in 1983 when he stood as an MP in Ealing North.His policies may be differnet, but he has his father's integrity.
Cruddas owed the McDonnellites nothing, maybe. But in solidarity, and if he'd believed one smidge of what he said he did, he should have helped the Party have a contest by allowing the grassroots their say.At least Blair got there fair and square.This was ruthless Stalinism. And it sickens me to the stomach.Next time someone asks me why are you still in the Labour Party well I won't really have an answer. For now, it seems pretty damn pointless.

Sorry, that should read "Benn will be elected deputy leader"

Yes, absolutely right, Susan.

There is absolutely no point in the Crudsases and Tricketts of this world talking about the grassroots and democracy - then voting to freeze out democracy and debate after 13 years - 13 YEARS! - of the same leader.

It's mind boggling in the face of it. Why is the Labour Party like this? Whats wrong with democracy? And this would have been the mildest, safest democracy imaginable. A little internal debate for a few weeks, the result a foregone conclusion - and yet even that is not possible.

I wasn't exaggerrating when I compared this attitude to the mentality of the Chinese Communist Party earlier. This is the mentality of the vast majority of the parliamentary Labour Party. It's embarrassing.

Right, I've calmed down a bit now.

The thing is, the deputy election is still a chance for progressives within the Labour party to assert themselves. And, more importantly, to show to the outside world what the mood of the party membership is. In that context, we should still vote for the person with the most broadly progressive programme. In my assessment, that's still Cruddas, however justifiable our anger is with his craven behaviour this week.

I fear that if we just threw our toys out of the pram and started spoiling ballot papers and the like in a big hissy-fit, we'd become even more marginalised and easy to deride.

Regarding the Deputy Leadership, I will wait a bit before making my mind up, but if someone likes Corbyn prefers Benn to Cruddas then I think it shows that there is a case for the left supporting Benn.

"He's an honest, decent right-winger"

This is why you lot are doomed to failure.

Do what you like. I really don't think Cruddas supporters care!

"his craven behaviour"

Why don't the left get it? Do you actually WANT someone to be able to put in place their programme of pushing the government to build more social housing, to give more respect to CLPs instead of "supporters' clubs", to back a decent and long over due amnesty for illegal immigrants, to give the trade unions a voice in cabinet?

That means playing the game and understanding the realisites of politics.

Do you really think people would take Jon Cruddas seriously if he was just seen as a self indulgent leftist who preferred to moan (like too many) of the people on this website?

The Borwnites can now not paint him as some lefty loon as he would have been if he nominated McDonnell. I'm sure the Brownites are just as pissed off as you that he's made such a clever move.

Andy,

Cruddas has been going on and on about "Party Democracy" for months now. When he actually had a chance to promote it, he weaseled out and - like the good Blairite he is - put his career first. Nominating John was well within in his power. He didn't have to vote him, he could simply have helped him gain ballot access to ensure that members would be allow to have their say in the issue of leadership. He could, furthermore have tried to persuade a number of "Compassites", including Trickett, to back John. Any credibility he built up on the issue of Party membership, "Party Democracy", Trident and grassroot-Campaigns is gone at this point. He's hit rock-bottom. Wake up and smell the coffee! People like Cruddas are first and foremost careerists. This time - like many times before - Cruddas put his career before both the Party - which he professes to love - and the working-class - with he which he claim that he wants to(re-)engage.

Any claims to the contrary would reveal great shortsightedness on your part, Andy.

Andy, well I suppose you're right, though but then anyone by the standards of the UKLN is hard put to be on the level of some of their contributors.

Bejamin, you must have read this stuff about Brown in, say Private Eye, it's been well-known for years and years. He acts with incredible boorishness, he can't work with anyone other than a small cotorie, he bears more grudges than an Enver Hoxa. Can't you just google it all?

Regarding the Deputy leadership. Come on, what's the point? Think of poor old Prescott. Think that it's a sop to pretend that there's some democracy in the Labour Party. I mean I've got respect for those continuing the good old fight, and have spent decades relying on sheer political will. I helped keep my union branch affiliated to have some impact. I do some leafleting for local elections where we might have an input. But here you really have an exercise in futility.

To Cruddas supporter
I sympathise with the points you make but I had similar feelings about John Prescott when he stood back in 1994 and look what a disappointment he turned out to be (perhaps you disagree). Cruddas has been excellent on fighting the BNP and I'd prefer him to Blears or Johnson by far but I don't have much faith. As you say, he plays the game. Get a seat at top table and you can make a mark. Trouble is, lots of people get the seat at the top table, find it difficult to influence things and slowly start to change their tune to fit in (particularly with the big boss who in this case will be Brown).

Cruddas supporter, read my post again. It mentions a candidate who I think is worth voting for in the deputy election, despite everything.

I hear what you say Matthew but I think Jon cruddas should be given an opportunity to prove himself or f&*k up accordingly. Let's just get him there first!

I hear what you say Matthew but I think Jon cruddas should be given an opportunity to prove himself or f&*k up accordingly. Let's just get him there first!

"I'm sure the Brownites are just as pissed off as you that he's made such a clever move"

Yeah he's a damn genius isn't he - putting his career before his supposed convictions. This wasn't a "smart move"; this was a move which assisted the assassination of "Party Democracy"...

I'm sure Brown will be grateful to Cruddas. He will most likely appoint him official court-jester and Royal Buffoon once he's been duly crowned.

Cruddas'lack of sincerity make him a "mini-Ramsay MacDonald" - another man who, by a "clever move" (hey, why don't you call it a "stroke of worthy of a genius"), put his career before his Party.

"put his career before his Party"

Don't make me laugh? Just why exactly are you interested in politics? Is it to sit on the sidelines moaning about everyone else instead of getting your own hands dirty? In that case, your argument against Cruddas has some merit. If, on the other hand, you believe that principles and power must go together - meaning that people need to firstly get themselves into a position of power then your argument against Cruddas is just plain silly.
It is people like you who prefer Labour to be in opposition so no one benefitted.

Principles and power must, at least eventually, go together. A man (in this case Cruddas) is is, however, unworthy of power if he sacrifices his principles in order to get power. Especially if his principles are a path - albeit a longer, more time-consuming one - to power in the first place. Having said that, I doubt Cruddas genuinely believes in his own programme.

"Just why exactly are you interested in politics?"

This question reflects your personal opportunism I fear.

My answer is this:

I am "interested in Politics due to the fact that I want to ensure "a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families". Not because of a prospective career. Trust me Cruddas is the on who's got it wrong on this one!

I fail to see how Jon Cruddas sacrified his principles. He never said he was going to support John McDonnell (a bloody good thing too if you ask me). He looked at both leadership candidates and made his own choice. You (and I) may not like the fact that he's nominated Gordon Brown but that's life. It does not take away from the fact that the programme he's running on is by far the best programme articulating the concerns of all wings of the left. A vote for Benn will merely demonstrate just how self indulgent and clueless the left are.

When/where did I say I backed Benn. Learn to read.

You can't defend you so, instead, you try to put words into my mouth, is that right???

Lies won't get you anywhere, CS - but, of course, the example of Cruddas doesn't really illustrate that fact!

Isn't that what the pre 1997 proto-blairites said about the 'project' to justify their shift to the right, trouble is you can end up doing these somersaults indefinitely, you end up with Iraq, neo-liberal policies, etc .

Cruddas supporter said;

'If, on the other hand, you believe that principles and power must go together - meaning that people need to firstly get themselves into a position of power then your argument against Cruddas is just plain silly.
It is people like you who prefer Labour to be in opposition so no one benefitted.