Just before Gordon Brown became Leader , there were reports that Tony Blair had chaired a "war council" of his supporters in a bid to stop Brown taking over. Reluctantly, they came to the conclusion that a challenge wasn't possible. The word was they would give Brown a year and then they would go for the jugular. It's now clear that is precisely what is happening. And we now face the very serious danger of a leadership contest utterly unrepresentative of grassroots' opinion.
Several Blairites are among a cabal which has apparently requested nomination papers ahead of next week's Conference in Manchester. An article in Progress is calling for Brown's head. It's absolutely clear what they are up to. 70 names are needed for a leadership contest - there is no way that the left or the soft left could muster those kinds of numbers. The Blairites possibly could. What then? Miliband v Brown ? Choice between a rock and a hard place. In fact, no choice at all. I think the right are desperate to oust Brown before events force him out and force a contest which might take the party in a left direction. The trouble is, as we are hamstrung by the rules , we can do very little to stop them. Any suggestions?
Saturday, 13 September 2008
WE MUST STOP THE BLAIRITE COUP!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
We need some clarification on the rules. If a contest is forced by 70 nominations for a challenger, does it then become an open contest where candidates require 12.5% (or maybe after conference 7%?) or does it remain a 'challenge' and a 'double-header'?
Do you think the intention is to challenge Brown or to persuade him to stand down or invite a contest? If it's either of the latter then we can't really complain - we wanted a leadership election and that would bring us one. If only people with the nominations of 20% of the PLP can stand then we are caught between a rock and a hard place; not that I think there's necessarily a lot to choose between Brown's politics and these 'ultra-Blairites'.
Where to the electorate figure in your calculation?
They don't.
But it doesn't mattter at all, not one jot.
When it comes to that election the Labour Party faces annhialation, not so much a party as a rabble having to hang together to keep warm.
This is the uber Blairites on the march along with odious people like Kate Countryside Alliance Hoey.
They should be told where to get off in no uncertain terms.
Under the rules, an incumbent Leader needs 70 names opposing.That's what the right are aiming for. We are stuck , as I said, between rock and hard place. It truly is worst case scenario.
But it isn't just 'uber-Blairites' - the opposition to Brown appears to come from a remarkably diverse range of viewpoints
Under the rules an election can only be enforced against an incumbent leader, who doesn't create a vacancy, by submitting a nomination two clear weeks prior to Conference - all this talk about nominations started just after the two week deadline. The push must be to get GB to resign - not to force a contest against him which would have to wait until the 2009 Conference under the Rules
Dont think they really want to win
just distance themselves from Brown
on the basis that if we lose the election they cannot be blamed
This is Mandelson/Blairites trying to rewrite history
Trying to make it look like 1979
we only lost because of the Left/Unions
what new policies do the Blairites want ????
anyway if we wanted a new leader it would not be now in the middle of a global crisis....next year maybe
I dont think John McD should have announced he was calling for an election
as it gives the Blairites an excuse
he should have waited until after conference
wrong call
The Blairites don't need an excuse to do their damndest....and the Left can't just leave the field clear for New labour. Given the circumstances, we have to get out there.
Let Browon stay and if we lose the election pin it on New Labour
Post a Comment