This post is in reponse to the person on the previous thread who was baffled as to why Number Ten would think it was in Gordon Brown's interest to leak the names of the MPs who had written to the new Labour Party General Secretary asking for a nomination form.
I have been mulling this over and have come to a conclusion. I think they did it for the same reason as Charles Kennedy in early 2005. He thought it would rally support in the party for his position - he knew he was far more popular among party activists than he was among his colleagues. He also thought opposition was limited to a few junior MPs and it would do no harm to bring them down a peg or two.
In Kennedy's case the tactic badly backfired as it had the effect of a dam being opened.
One other point. I think it is quite scandalous that the Labour Party's General Secretary - who also acts as returning officer - passed the details of these MPs to Number Ten. During all the various Tory leadership machinations it was inconceivable that Sir Michael Spicer would have given any details to anyone about Tory MPs who had written to him on the issue of the leadership.
If yiu can't trust a returning officer in an election, who can you trust?
19 comments:
If you can't trust a returning officer in an election, who can you trust?
Trust Mickey Mouse
Charlie's tactic may have backfired but the major difference with Brown is that Charlie was and still is popular with the membership.
If it backfires when you're popular God knows what the effect will be when you're not.
Just shows what an untrustworthy, venal bunch of incompetents they are.I also think it shows the lack of what used to be called "bottom" they have - if one dare use that expression in Brown's case.
At one stage during the Conservative leadership turmoil, I think it was your friend Miss Widdecombe who described Sir Michael Spicer as "a class act".
The trouble now is all we've got is bloody vaudeville.
Anything can happen in the next half hour!
I wonder if we are about to witness the defining weeks for the next deacade of British politics.Its only lucky that other Party are having a conference otherwise I `d never get to sleep. They always cure insomnia for me .
Is there any correlation with privacy, trust and a Labour Government?
Charles K was at least popular with the public
Shows how low ZaNuLabour have now stooped, that even the supposedly neutrality of the internal election sanctum cannot escape the commands of the No 10 spin machinery. You're right Iain, quite disgraceful.
If it was No 10 then Iain think you are right. However it could have been the Chief Whip. The latter could have done it on No 10's instructions or if Hoon acted unilaterally then the game to unseat Brown is really on.
Whatever Nick Robinson has made a complete fool of himself over the past couple of days. It is time the BBC found itself a better Political Editor.
Hmm.. This nest of vipers may now have trouble in controlling what happens next in the process...
They may be about to 'reap the whirlwind'...
So you actually know it was the General Secretary that leaked it do you?
Or is that just speculation?
Looks as though there are quite a few more names to leak now as the Telegraph is claiming that there are up to 45 rebels attempting to prompt 10 members of the cabinet to have some guts for once.
Hmmmm. Few questions for you Iain.
Here is an exclusive for Mr Dale and all the members of the Press who are too lazy to read the Labour Party rule book.
There will be no Labour Leadership contest until at least Annual Conference 2009 unless GB resigns and creates a vacancy. Nominations (and there are none at present) need to be given to the General Secretary at least two clear weeks before a session of annual conference in cases where there is no vacancy. Don't believe me then check the Rule Book.
And do you actually think Gordon Brown would be able to stay in office with such a clear expression of dissent without a contest?
Do you think his MPs, the media and the man in the street are going to accept that the leader has lost the support of a significant sector of the parliamentary party, but this public show of dissent somehow doesn't count because the protestors didn't protest in quite the right way?
Do you think they'll issue postal votes to the MPs - all registered at the chief whips office like they do in local and national elections ? ( Ok its to the head of the household in the corrupt voting system Labour brought in to save itself a few grubby votes ).
"There will be no Labour Leadership contest until at least Annual Conference 2009 unless GB resigns and creates a vacancy."
I believe that is the scenario which is unfolding. Get someone else in place before a 2010 election - the ABG candidate: Anyone But Gordon. There's no chance of a leadership challenge at this conference, but it is time to start the challenge in time for the next conference.
I mentioned earlier this may be a West Coast Scotland Catholic Mafia plot. This is half right. Most of McDonagh's allies (and the lady herself) are linked to John Reid, Brown's surprisingly silent enemy. However, other names are being touted about as part of a Straw-linked Lancashire mafia, as well as a coven of former Blair Babes.
Most likely scenario - Brown eventually realises the game is up and stands down, Straw steps in as interim PM (perhaps not as party leader) and there is a beauty parade in early 2009, with the new leader calling a surprise snap election off the back of a relaunch.
Seems a high risk strategy.
Remember, for last years leadership election McDonnell had 29 nominations. They should make 40+ quite easily.
What a brilliant backdrop to the labour conference. And so well timed to over shadow the libdems.
To show that GB is opposed by the ugliest and most stupid nulab MPs (and Kate Hoey).
Post a Comment