As expected Gordon Brown has become leader of the Labour Party – and
therefore Prime Minister – following one of the most hotly uncontested
elections of recent times. With only one person being allowed to stand,
naturally Brown won to become the first Labour leader to be elected by
absolutely no one.
Valiant attempts have been made by Labour officials to present the
result as ‘election by acclaim’ but this will not wash – not least because of
the strenuous efforts made to keep the only other serious and declared
challenger, John McDonnell, off the ballot paper. At one point it was suggested
that if Brown was the only candidate on the ballot, a vote of ‘affirmation’
should go ahead with members being invited to vote their support for Brown.
This was quietly dropped when it was realised that this support might not be as
over-whelming as some in the Brown camp might have hoped for.
So why did the Brown camp work so hard to keep McDonnell off the ballot
even though that meant that there could not be a proper election with a real
choice and opportunity for debate? Well
after the Fabian debate, held on the Sunday after Blair had announced that he
was off, at which Brown, McDonnell and the wrecking candidate Meacher, all
debated, it was realised that Brown would not stand up to a month of vigorous
challenge and questioning.
McDonnell’s support was rising and it was clear that left to having to
defend New Labour’s dismal record and policies, Brown would soon be in big
trouble. Since New Labour was built on the lie that the Left in the party had
been politically and organisationally defeated, the last thing they wanted was
people to see that there was an alternative and that they could vote for it. So
in the few days following the Fabian debate, maximum effort by the Brown camp
was put on keeping McDonnell off the ballot, using any means necessary – both
threats and promises. Sadly in this, many of the trade union leaders colluded
in the mistaken belief that Brown would somehow give them something in return.
Well they have been well rewarded indeed. Brown has made clear that he
will be the continuation of Blairism by other means. The announcement that he
wishes to ‘reform’ i.e. attack union involvement in party decision making,
reducing their influence, is very much in the style of the largely abandoned
Blair project. This is a huge slap in the face to the union leadership. They
need to wake up and stop dreaming about a Warwick Mark Two and, instead,
organise a campaign to defend trade union involvement in the Party and link
this to the fight for socialist policies which will defend their members’
interests.
Could the unions have organised a serious campaign around a McDonnell
candidature? Well the leaders said no but let’s look at the facts, starting
with the largely irrelevant election for deputy leader.
All the candidates were broadly similar in their political outlook. The
only differences were in nuances, emphasised out of all proportion to give an
impression that there was a real choice – which most people quickly saw
through. In the end only 8% of trade unionists able to vote did so and nearly
half of all individual party members did not vote either. However in the first
round – where no candidate got less than 10% or more than 20% of the vote – Jon
Cruddas, who was presented as being a bit Left (a very small bit we might add)
and who was the favoured candidate of the trade union leaders, got 19.4% of the
first choice votes, mainly based in the union and party member sections. He
came top in the first round and survived until the fourth round whereas more
favoured names (including arch-Blairite and media darling Blears who was the
first to go) did not do as well.
The point is that if a deservedly unknown candidate like Cruddas could
do this well as a result of a very nominal campaign by some unions, what could
have been achieved with a McDonnell challenge for leader had the unions put
their whole weight behind such a drive? In passing we should note that Harman
won the deputy job by the narrowest of margins primarily because Cruddas called
on people who had voted for him to give her their second preference vote
enabling her to push past the other Blairite fanatic left on the ballot,
Johnson. Naturally having been a bit daring in attacking the government during
the election, she has quickly reasserted her loyalist credentials with Brown
now that the job, such as it is, is hers. Despite all the rhetoric coming from
the candidates during the election, no one should expect anything to come from
the winner anytime soon.
As we have seen over the early announcements on the plan to replace the
block vote with decision making by One Member One Vote (this from a man who has
achieved his position through One Member No Vote) and the idea of bringing in
so-called outside "talents" into the government, Brown will continue
Blair’s pro-big business direction, even if it costs the next election. No
doubt some of the Blairites are secretly hoping that this will happen, so that
Brown can then take the blame, be removed with one of the exalted ones taking
his place ready to fight the election after. But we cannot afford the prospect
of a Tory victory and the coming to power of a Cameron government – presuming
the Tory old guard do not get rid of him as well – which will herald a vicious
attack on the working class. The fight must be joined for Socialist policies
which can defeat the Tories and ensure a better future for all.
