The Harman impact bounce

I've long thought that "Harriet" is one of the loveliest female names going. So it's a pity that the most prominent person in politics with that name - in fact the only politician I can think of - is so awful.

And it seems I'm not alone in thinking this. Two of my favourite Labour blogs are also deeply sceptical that Harman's election has been wise - see Kerron Cross: You Are Joking, Right? and Mars Hill: Harriet the Deputy.

Of course one can ask if the post means anything - see my past post Is the Labour Deputy Leadership worth a pitcher of warm piss? Certainly Harman is qualified in some respects to succeed John Prescott - as I wrote over a year ago in Yet another (deputy) leadership election:

...I initially laughed.

But on reflection Harman is being stripped of key ministerial responsibilities, prone to making silly gaffes, has hit the headlines for her driving activities, can generate fierce political storms and is considered by some to be ignorant.

Would she really be such an unthinkable choice to step into John Prescott's shoes?

She's also been made Labour Party Chairman, or whatever the position is titled, and Gordon Brown will no doubt expect her to buck up her act - no more writing to Conservative councillors to ask them to support Labour politicians! (Where does New Labour find these ministers?!?!)

The big losers are the Old Labour Left. I don't mean the John McDonnells but rather those who John Prescott has spent the last thirteen years keeping happy with the New Labour Project. Now Old Labour has no voice at the top. This could be the beginning of the long expected fracture.

And Labour call this a dream ticket?!?!

Labour have elected as their Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. No I am not joking. (BBC News: Harman wins deputy leader contest)

Clearly the party has forgiven her for grammar schools, for being a weak Cabinet minister, for being a craven Brownite, for not even being able to remember who the Prime Minister is. And her speech was typical of the woman. Alongside Big Clunking Fists we have Little Rubber Fingers, unable to lay a blow.

This Brown/Harman ticket is less balanced than an anchor. Clearly Labour aren't serious about winning the next election.

Commiserations to Alan Johnson who cam so close to winning - he would have been my second choice. On my one meeting with the man when he was Higher Education Minister I found him refreshingly frank and reasonable. He is one of the best parts of this Cabinet and I hope he keeps a good post in Brown's government.

Peter Hain proves he should never be Chancellor

Peter Hain has made a surprising gaffe when announcing that he has received sufficient support to be nominated for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party:

Mr Hain said he was pleased to get such support as it was not possible - mathematically speaking - for all six declared contenders to get on the ballot paper. (BBC News: Deputy contenders claim support)

Clearly he's not very good at maths. So here's a simple maths lesson for him.

There are 352 Labour MPs.

Each candidate for the Deputy Leadership requires the support of 45 MPs (including themselves).

352 divided by 45 is 7.8222222222222222222222222222222

So it is possible for seven candidates to be nominated.

And Peter Hain has got his sums wrong. Let's hope he's never made Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Labour Deputy Leadership election

Whilst the Labour leadership election alternates between minor farce (Michael Meacher's candidature) and outright enigma (just why are so many people who've worked with Borwn convinced that he would be a disaster as Prime Minister but none of them, Meacher aside, are prepared to try to stop him?), the deputy leadership election has for the most part been a vanity parade as a series of (mainly) Cabinet Ministers seek little more than the opportunity to be an unsackable Deputy Prime Minister, possibly with a grace & favour residence thrown in.

But there's one candidate who's been the exception to this. And whilst I am reluctant to endorse any candidate in another party's elections, I have to say I am seriously impressed with some of what Jon Cruddas is saying.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with many of his policies. But what he's saying about party organisation and the need to reconnect with voters is something that applies far beyond the confines of any one party. As noted by Tom Watson, "he is striving to energise [his] party's grass roots. You can't do that from a TV studio." (Tom Watson MP: Deputy Leader of the Labour Party) Here are some of his comments from the Changing our Party section of his campaign website:

But grassroots campaigning has to go hand in hand with giving members a real voice. The policy making process in the Party must be overhauled- at present it is simply an exercise in top down political control.

As I've said before (For Conservative Democracy), Conservative members also need a real voice. Grassroots campaigning by members with a real say is one of the best ways to reconnect with voters, with human faces not mass media machines.

The Deputy Leader should be the voice of the party with a direct link into Government; if elected I would refuse a departmental portfolio. This is not an election to be Deputy Prime Minister, it is an election for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and that job should be honour enough.

One of the best pledges of all. How many other candidates are really and merely seeking to be Deputy Leader?

The party should not be seen as an inconvenience, best held in check and occasionally cajoled into knocking on doors and stuffing envelopes, but a real asset by which policy making is anchored in the day to day life experiences of millions of people.
...
We are constantly told there is widespread disillusionment and distrust with party politics. Turnout is plummeting, particularly in traditional Labour areas. But it does not have to be this way.

I aim to turn this decline around by getting real funding into local party organisation. I support the idea of constituency parties getting £3 per voter that will fund local organisers, boosting local activity.

I support capping party spending.

This will refocus political activity around the needs and aspirations of local communities, not politicians in Westminster.

Much of this is sounding encouraging. It's true that turnout is stronger in Conservative areas, but the decline all round is something that should worry all involved in politics. I would not be happy if the Conservatives win power merely because the party managed to benefit from plummeting turnout. Government needs to be for the all.

In my own borough [Barking & Dagenham] voters have turned to the racist BNP not because they are racist but out of fear and a sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Many are simply protesting against mainstream politics.

On an aside, I hope many anti-BNP campaigners pay serious attention to this. All too often they become seen as part of a "mainstream politics" conspiracy that wants to ignore the needs of voters and deny a voice to parties that are perceived as offering answers. Addressing the vulnerability, insecurity and disillusionment with mainstream politics is the way to fight them. Banning their voice and trying to encourage tactical votes against them does nothing to resolve these problems. It merely plays into the BNP's hands.

There is also little doubt that the centralisation of decision making and the outsourcing of services from democratically elected councils has taken power away from local people. Local communities and voters are feeling increasingly powerless.

Through this campaign I hope to bring people together to find radical new ways of engaging local communities and enhancing participatory democracy.

Of course one election for one position in one party isn't going to solve all this, but a start needs to be made. Each of the main parties has a crucial role to play in the political system (although I'd prefer it if Labour would play that role on the Opposition Benches!) and it cannot be good if any party sees its organisation collapse. I shall not comment on Cruddas's policies for the country (not least because he's not seeking a ministerial portfolio at all) but much of what he is saying about party organisation is highly encouraging and Conservatives would do well to study it.

The chances of my being a Labour member are about as likely as the chances of pigs flying, but I note that most of the Labour blogs I regularly read are backing Cruddas. And I wish him all the best of success!

Where does New Labour find these ministers?!?!

From Iain Dale's Diary: Now it's Harriet Harman's Turn for a Gaffe. She's written to the leader of Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Cllr. Brian Silvester, asking him for his support in her quest to become Labour's Deputy Leader. But Silvester is a Conservative!

Just why does she think she is well qualified for this non-position?

No more Labour Deputy Leaders?

It seems others share my scepticism expressed in my previous post "Is the Labour Deputy Leadership worth a pitcher of warm piss?" Several MPs are calling for the abolition of the post (BBC News: End Labour deputy post, MPs urge) arguing that the party can ill afford the election. Presumably they're also wondering just what the post does.

Oh and in case anyone's wondering why I've shifted the style of the links, it's because of a post about hyperlinks that I recently read on Mustafa Arif's blog which specifically mentioned this one. For his comments click here. ;)

Is the Labour Deputy Leadership worth a pitcher of warm piss?

Antonia has declared her support for Jon Cruddas as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. But why is this the contested post?

A good Daily Telegraph editorial on Saturday noticed that the last time a Labour Prime Minister announced he was retiring in government, no less than five candidates had declared to succeed him within a few hours. And these were not lightweights - they included the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Employment Secretary, the Energy Secretary and the Environment Secretary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer soon threw his hat into the ring.

By contrast it is now two months since Tony Blair was forced to concede a timetable and there is only one candidate for the leadership. Meanwhile the Deputy Leadership race is getting crowded. But just what does a Deputy Leader actually do?

I'm reminded of the way that the Vice President of the United States is traditionally one of the most maligned positions in any democracy. Just think for a moment as to how many Vice Presidents you can name. I bet very few of them did not go on to become President.

Who can remember the Vice President who remarked that the post was "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived"? Well he was quite famous but for other things - he was John Adams. Or the one who said "Once there were two brothers. One went away to sea; the other was elected Vice President of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again." He was not so famous at all - Thomas R. Marshall. (He also said "Indiana is the mother of Vice Presidents, home of more second-class men than any other state." He was probably wrong - New York has produced no less than ten - though Indiana, which ties with Massachusetts for second place with four apiece, did go on to produce Dan Quayle.)

And then there's the one who called the job "not worth a bucket of warm piss". Otherwise the only thing John Nance Garner is notable for is living to just 15 days short of his 99th birthday - the record for any President or Vice President.

The office only really gained some significance under Richard Nixon, who had the benefit of both media attention and a President who wished to stand above partisan debate. Even then the post has risen and fallen - George H. W. Bush seemed to spend most of his time going to funerals and other dull diplomatic tasks.

What precise role does the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party serve? Gordon Brown does not hold the position, nor did Tony Blair. Indeed I can think of only two Deputies who became leader - Clement Attlee (and this was only because when George Lansbury insisted on resigning despite unanimous please by MPs for him to stay, most sitting Labour MPs believed Arthur Greenwood was unsuitable and Attlee was about the only viable person about) and Michael Foot (hardly a leadership career to aspire to repeat).

And so we're left with a situation where Gordon Brown looks set to take the real position all but uncontested (maybe a token challenge to force a ballot but that's about it) whilst numerous Labour politicians fall over the Deputy Leadership. Is it worth it?

No Short shock

Clare Short has left the Parliamentaty Labour Party. Given how she's been out of sync with Labour for so long now, including her call for a hung Parliament at the next election, the only surprising thing is that she stayed in the party for so long.

There was a time when Short was a serious force in the Labour Party one that could threaten to detrain the New Labour project. A decade ago as Shadow Transport Secretary she earned the wrath of Blair when during a tube strike she walked out of an interview on camera because she didn't want to say she supported the right to take the public hostage in industrial disputes. She was rapidly sidelined but could not be easily sacked.

Once she was seen as a probable future Deputy Leader - but her bizarre actions over the Iraq War put paid to that. One of the great ironies is that ten years ago it was Short who was one of the fiercest Shadow Cabinet critics of Harriet Harman's decision to send her son to a good school. Today it is Harman, not Short, who is the contender for the Deputy Leadership.

I doubt anyone in the Labour Party is losing sleep tonight over Short's departure. She has long alienated her support base and failed to replace it. She will join a long list of MPs who ended their days in Parliament whipless and forgotten.

John Prescott is not irreplaceable

Both nicola and Iain Dale have commented on the big story today that Alan Johnson is "interested" in becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. The none too subtle message is that "John Prescott can be completely replaced". Given that Prescott has demonstrated a complete inability to extract himself from newspaper frontpages over the last month it's not surprising that many are writing him off for good.

Assuming that whoever succeeds Prescott as Deputy Leader becomes Deputy Prime Minister as well, I have to say I'd prefer Johnson over Prescott continuing or for that matter Harriet "who actually is the Prime Minister?" Harman (though frankly it's clear even she doesn't see herself as a serious contender in a competitive field). A few years ago I met Johnson when he was Minister for Higher Education and he proved to be one of the best Labour ministers I've met. The country would be safer in his hands in Tony Blair's absence than it is in Prescott's.

So just what is John Prescott for?

Over on BBC News, Nick Assinder asks "What is John Prescott for?" Does anyone truly know? Assinder is far from the first to suggest that if Prescott resigns from the government it may cause a tidal wave in the Labour Party that would make it impossible for Tony Blair to stay.

Would that be such a bad thing? Cherie would find it harder to milk her non-position for money but for everyone else, Blair's loss would be the nation's gain.

Harman and the Brownites get desperate

Harriet Harman has declared that the next Labour Deputy leader must be a woman. She has made similar calls before so I don't think this is motivated by a desire to avoid a repeat of John Prescott's recent affairs. But in view of her past hints that she will run for the Deputy Leadership it's pretty clear which woman she has in mind. Since so many in Not So Very New Labour take Old Man Brown's succession to the leadership for granted one must wonder if she's concerned as much with gender balance (apparently not - according to Labour Watch she's calling for there to be two deputies but only with a minimum of one female, not one of each) as with political imbalance. There are few obvious non-Brownite women who would be strong candidates otherwise, but many men. Harman would be hopeless (some might say I could stop the sentence right there - remember when she didn't know who her own Prime Minister is?) against them. And in light of the famous row over candidate selection in Blaenau Gwent, will the ordinary party members stand for this either? Without a real leadership contest (since the Labour Party is so lacking in talent) a properly contested Deputy Leadership election is the nearest substitute. The members haven't had the chance to confirm Blair's leadership for years, it looks doubtful they'd get much say about a Brown leadership, they have no real way to express a formal verdict in Prescott and now Harman seeks to deny them this. Why can't Labour have a full contest and see if a woman will be elected? It worked for Margaret Beckett.

Forty Eight hours to save John Prescott's career?

Iain Dale has an interesting post suggesting that there's more to come on John Prescott and that he will be out of office by the end of the weekend. One has to wonder if there'll be anyone left for Blair to make the scapegoat for Labour's results on Thursday.

Also an anonymous poster has left the following interesting comment:

A rule change to the Labour Party Constitution in 94 also rendered the Deputy Leader redundant if something happened to the PM. The rule change that year stipulated that should the leader become unavailable while the party is in office, (I paraphrase), 'the Cabinet, meeting in consultation with the NEC, shall elect one of its number'. So Brown or Straw.

As for who stands in for Blair at PMQs while he's abroad, there's nothing to stop a reversion to the old system, where the Leader of the House stands in.

I can only recall one appearance of Geoff Hoon at PMQs before and he got into a mess so I can't see anyone rushing to make him the regular substitute for Tony Blair!

So John Prescott is not at all "a heartbeat from the premiership". This can only relieve the country!

Yet another (deputy) leadership election

Iain Dale comments on the story that Harriet Harman will run to be Deputy Leader under Old Man Brown. Like Iain I initially laughed.

But on reflection Harman is being stripped of key ministerial responsibilities, prone to making silly gaffes, has hit the headlines for her driving activities, can generate fierce political storms and is considered by some to be ignorant.

Would she really be such an unthinkable choice to step into John Prescott's shoes?