Tuesday, 18 May 2010

The One That Is Asking 'Oh, Didn't You Know?'. . .

Labour MP John McDonnell has accused the party of organising a "discredited" leadership contest.

The left-winger said he wanted to stand but would struggle to get the nominations of 33 MPs - required under rules announced on Tuesday - in time.

Now that could suggest that poor old John isn’t very popular. But let’s hear him out.

The Hayes and Harlington MP said this would exclude many "rank and file" Labour members from choosing him and reduce the chances of a "fresh start".

Well I can’t see why. If I were a Labour MP and had the choice of someone from the bunch of bastards that put us on the oppo benches or someone completely different, I’d take someone completely different every time. However. . .

Mr McDonnell, who wanted to stand against Gordon Brown for the leadership in 2007 but failed to receive enough nominations from MPs, said it was wrong to reduce the period for nominations to four days, from 24 to 27 May.

He said this was not enough time for the many newly elected Labour MPs to weigh up the merits of different candidates and for potential contenders to canvass for support - although he said he was still determined to try.

"I think it undermines the democratic process from the outset," he told the BBC News Channel.

"I thought we had learnt those lessons."
They have, John. You can’t just have any old John, Dick or Harry standing for the leadership. What if they got elected? What would Alistair and Peter do then? Besides, it doesn’t undermine the democratic process at all, because there is no democratic process.

Labour have never unseated their leader through a leadership challenge, it’s all a bit messy and tawdry, isn’t it? And weren’t things much nicer when Gordon was given the job on the nod? Don’t want to scare the horses. Blimey, if they start giving the membership a proper say in the leader, they’ll be wanting a say in the formation of policy and everything. No, the membership are best left out of the whole decision making process, leave it to the professionals and the unaccountable. Speaking of which. . .

The new leader will be elected by a ballot of Labour MPs, MEPs, party members and members of affiliated organisations such as trade unions and socialist societies.

Hang on, you mean non-members get to decide on who the Labour is? Really? Wow, that’s an organisation that values its grassroots and trusts their judgement.

Ms Harman has defended the election rules, saying they will lead to a "dynamic" contest, with up to four million people eligible to vote.

Four million? Bloody hell, that’s almost as many people as voted for Labour in the whole of England.

The thing is John, Labour have shown complete disrespect for democracy in 13 years of governmental politics, European politics and internal politics. This is what you need. You need to be steered, informed, educated. What if you make the wrong decision? Hmmmm? What then?

Labour have fed their membership on a strict diet of soundbites and nanny knows best. Now, eat your dinner and be thankful that nanny doesn’t send you to bed without any pudding. Smile, nod, do as you are told. That is your sole reason for existing.

Four legs good, two legs bad.


David Miliband has said the era of New Labour is over and the party must look to
the future if it is to recover.

It never happened. It was all a bad dream. David was nothing to do with it. Here was never there, you can’t prove he was there, and anyone who says he was there is a damn liar.

1 comment:

paulo said...

I think the election of one of the current crop of light-weight mediocrities is just what we want - they are proven failures and with a track record to match.