When did Labour last depose a leader?

Today the Labour leadership result will be announced. And it's already clear a lot of people won't be happy with the outcome, whichever way it goes. But what can they do about it?

I'm not overly familiar with the current Labour Party Rule Book so I don't know the formal procedure for challenging a sitting leader. But I suspect many in the Labour Party don't know it off by heart either and some may be rapidly researching it.

But the problem is not how easy it is constitutionally to depose a leader but rather whether Labour has the culture and the will to do it. And past form suggests not.

When I've asked fellow politicos the question "Who was the last Labour leader to be formally deposed?" there have been three answers:

• Ramsay MacDonald
• George Lansbury
• Pass

Neither of these men is the correct answer. Ramsay MacDonald abdicated rather than was deposed. When in August 1931 his second government was facing collapse over budget cuts he concluded that he could not credibly oppose the expected Conservative or Conservative-Liberal replacement government in implementing a policy he had pursued and so decided to relinquish the leadership. As it happened, he wound up as the head of a National Government that drew members from all three parties and implemented the policy himself but broke with Labour in the process. But that was walking away, not a deposal.

George Lansbury is the other popular answer but he also wasn't deposed. In 1935 Labour was torn over the issue of how to respond to European militarism in the wake of Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) with Lansbury opposing even sanctions. Other frontbenchers who held this position resigned, including both Sir Stafford Cripps, widely seen as Lansbury's political heir, and Lord Ponsonby, Labour's leader in the Lords, leaving Lansbury increasingly isolated. The party conference of that year was a turbulent affair with Lansbury opposing a pro sanctions resolution on pacifist grounds and then being shredded in a speech by the Transport & General Workers' Union leader Ernest Bevin.

But neither Bevin nor the conference toppled Lansbury. At the time, the power to elect and remove the Labour leader lay in the hands of the Parliamentary Labour Party alone. Lansbury tended his resignation but it refused by 38 votes to 7. This was no Nigel Farage style evasion of a promise but a genuine offer rejected, partially out of continued affection for Lansbury but also a fear that the next leader would be Arthur Greenwood, widely seen as Bevin's puppet. (Nowadays a trade union leader's mouthpiece is the heavy favourite for the deputy leadership.) However, Lansbury felt his position was untenable and insisted on stepping down. The MPs turned to the deputy leader Clement Attlee, expecting him to be a stop gap until the looming general election returned a wider choice but instead he proved to be the party's longest serving leader.

So just who is the last leader to have been deposed? It was the now little remember John Robert Clynes in 1922.

It may surprise people today but the concept of a "leader of a political party" didn't really emerge until many years after parties were established. There had long been leaders of parties in one of the Houses of Parliament but even then their authority didn't stretch over members in the other House unless they happened to be the current or ex Prime Minister. They had no position over the party in the country. Only slowly did parties come to create formal posts of a leader. (In other countries the "leader" is often still divided - e.g. in Germany three different people may be the chair of a party, the leader in the Bundestag and the candidate for Chancellor. And don't even try working out who is the "leader" of the US Republicans.) In the early years what we would now identify as the Labour leader was split across the chair of the parliamentary party, the chair of the party on the National Executive Committee and the party Secretary. The post of leader was created in 1922.

Clynes had been Minister of Food Control in the Lloyd George Coalition before Labour pulled out and then served as chair of the parliamentary party since 1921 in a Parliament where Labour was lacking many of its biggest names after the 1918 election. He led the party through the 1922 election at which it became undisputedly the leading Opposition party for the first time but then faced a challenge for the leadership from former parliamentary leader Ramsay MacDonald, who had returned to the Commons after a four year absence. In a close vote MacDonald defeated Clynes by 61 to 56. Clynes became MacDonald's deputy and served as Lord Privy Seal and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons in the first Labour government (as was then standard the Prime Minister was the Leader of the House but in practice MacDonald was busy, serving as his own Foreign Secretary) and then as Home Secretary in the second Labour government.

This was not the last time a big name was absent from Parliament when a leader was initially chosen. After the 1935 general election Herbert Morrison was one of the challengers to Clement Attlee but unsuccessful. (Attlee's 20 year long leadership was in part prolonged by a desire to age Morrison out of hope.) Tony Benn lost his seat in the 1983 general election and so missed the chance to stand to succeed Michael Foot; he returned in a 1984 by-election and eventually challenged Neil Kinnock in 1988 but was unsuccessful. David Miliband is currently out of Parliament but that hasn't stopped speculation about his returning to replace Jeremy Corbyn if the latter is elected. We can expect some similar speculation about an Ed Balls return at some stage in the next five years, no matter how silly it may seem or how much he denies it.

But for now Clynes remains the last Labour leader to have been deposed and that was 97 years ago. Labour do not have a culture of toppling leaders and that will make it hard to muster the effort to topple this one.

Ten reasons why Jeremy Corbyn should be the next Labour leader

It may shock some but I think there are some good reasons why I think Jeremy Corbyn should be elected Labour leader:

1. Age. If elected Corbyn will become leader at the age of 66, the oldest person to become a leader of a major UK wide party since Michael Foot at 67 for Labour and Neville Chamberlain at 68 for the Conservatives & Unionists (and he was almost the last senior figure for whom the full name was critical). A Corbyn leadership would be a marvellous antidote to the obsession with youth in certain quarters of politics and broaden the field for consideration in other parties.
2. The beard. Beards have been out of fashion in politics in recent decades with New Labour especially practising a virulent degree of pogonophobia. To find a significant leader with a beard (well on their face) you have to go back to the Edwardian era when Lord Salisbury and Keir Hardie were the last leaders of their respective parties to sport them. By making Corbyn their leader, Labour would help bring beards back into the mainstream.
3. The cap. Headgear is often absent in politics with only George Galloway's distinctive fedora (which now seems to have been surgically attached) and Paddy Ashdown's meals getting much comment lately. But Corbyn has a wonderfully distinct cap - I believe it's called a Breton Cap - that's a gift for the cartoonists. It's time to expand the range of caps and hats in politics.
4. Clothes. Corbyn is a functional practical dresser. A tale is told of how burglars broke into his house and actually turned down his red blazer. Not for him the ridiculously expensive tailored suits worn by some Labour politicians. If he were leader the image consultants would have a nightmare - and that's no bad thing.
5. Cycling. Boris Johnson's term as Mayor is coming to an end in less than a year and he'll either drop into a lower profile or end up in a more security conscious ministerial post of the kind that discourages such open access. There'll be an opening for the position of most prominent cyclist in politics. As Leader of the Opposition Corbyn would be perfectly placed to fill it.
6. The polls. It can't be much fun being an opinion pollster at the moment. Everyone keeps bringing up the general election and won't listen to explanations about the difference between opinion polls and exit polls. Even away from politics "What would you know?" is a constant response and there's not much opportunity to rebuild reputations before the elections next year. A Corbyn victory would allow opinion polls a chance to get something right this year.
7. Bookies. It's a sign of just how much the Corbyn bid has surged that initially he odds as low as 100 to 1 or even 200 to 1. If he becomes leader a lot of bookmakers are going to have to pay out rather more on this contest than they were expecting.
8. Parliament. There is a long history of hardline socialist MPs having a greater impact outside Parliament rather than within it. They tend to go round the country making the most memorable speeches at rallies and protests instead of within the Commons. It's high time to change that and have the case for socialism made in the Commons, and from the despatch box to boot, where the immediate audience will be more diverse and where the arguments can be responded to directly.
9. Islington. This borough has a reputation for metropolitan liberal chattering class politics practised by those sitting around at trendy dinner parties and looking down with undisguised contempt on the hard working classes. This reputation has not been helped by a number of political developments, including the borough's other MP being Emily Thornberry, and has even led to Newsnight investigations as to why the country is so out of touch with Islington (erm shouldn't that be the other way round?). But whatever else you can say about Corbyn his brand of socialism is not the chattering class dinner party champagne socialist style and his leadership would allow the borough to show it's more diverse than that.
10. Taking leadership elections seriously. Corbyn was nominated because a bunch of Labour MPs felt it was important to have a debate with the hard left of the party and give it a ritualistic slaughter. They expect Corbyn to do about as well as Diane Abbott in 2010. (They also forgot that Abbott's candidacy attracted members to vote who would otherwise have not bothered and it was their transfers that ultimately gave Ed Miliband the edge.) They never expected a great surge to the point there are now groups organising around a simple Anyone-But-Corbyn line. Nobody expected the supporter option to attract all those #ToriesForCorbyn or #TrotsForCorbyn (and there are even Conservatives trying to sign up Trots for Corbyn). To a Conservative this looks bizarre - when we have our next leadership election nobody is going to think the process is somehow incomplete without the presence of an Edward Leigh, Philip Davies or Nadine Dories on the ballot paper. A Corbyn victory will be a wake-up call to take things seriously and only nominate candidates you actually want to see as leader.

So go on Labour, make him your next leader!

A quick round up

Over the past week I've been tied up with both work and a university alumni reunion event and so I've not had much time to comment on several big stories this week. So here are my quick thoughts on each of them, in chronological order:

* Tom Elliott has been elected leader of the Ulster Unionists in their first ever One Member One Vote election, albeit with votes cast at a meeting instead of by post. It speaks volumes about the Ulster Unionists' collapse over recent years that Elliott's election has gone unnoticed by many. I can't say that he strikes me as someone who is going to reverse the trend but then I've made several mispredictions in the past so who knows?

* Ken Livingstone has won the Labour nomination to be Mayor of London. So for 2012 Labour will be offering a candidate who doesn't give a toss about huge parts of London and who will instead spend much time patronising select groups who don't want to be patronised, filling up City Hall with corrupt cronies, and not giving a toss about huge parts of London. Is Labour even serious?

* Ed Miliband for Labour leader? I've never been able to take Miliband the Younger seriously at all. But now the trade unions have spoken and imposed "Red Ed" upon the Labour Party in an election where some people were hundreds of times more equal than others. I'm sure over the years to come Ed Miliband is going to give us a lot to laugh about as Labour continues to be a non-serious party that doesn't want to win elections.

Ironically when the Miliband election was being announced I was attending a lecture by David Starkey talking about another younger brother who unexpectedly came to power in place of the elder brother whom everyone had expected to be the one. It was a very enlightening talk about Henry VIII.

Labour and One Person One Vote

"One Person One Vote" is a slogan that has had multiple uses over the years. It has been used to call for universal suffrage, for the abolition of plural voting and for equal sized constituencies (also called "One Vote One Value" in places). But the basic principle is the same throughout.

So it's interesting to note that at the same time that the Labour Party is running around screaming fake moral outrage about steps to reduce malapportionment in this country, they are also conducting a leadership election where One Member One Vote is noticeably absent. Instead some members will be getting significantly more votes than others. In theory a member could get no less than 32 different ballot papers and cast every single one of them without breaking the rules.

So much for Labour's claims for equality and democracy!

Hattip to Cllr Iain Lindley's Diary: Unequal Votes and Tory Radio: Do Labour MPs advocate stuffing the ballot box?.

David Miliband's secret identity?

Maybe David Miliband is concealing something. Maybe that famous moment with the banana was telling the world more than we realised. Maybe he also answers to the name "Eric". (Does anyone have canvass returns for 29 Acacia Road?) As he seeks to become Labour leader, perhaps it's time we should be told.

In the meantime from the depths of YouTube I present one of the cartoons of my childhood, in which the hero takes on the nearest he has to a brother:
So if you're reading this David, the secret to defeating Ed is to scare him with a maggot!

Diane Abbott and polls

One of the first opinion polls on the Labour leadership election has been topped by Diane Abbott prompting Silver Surfer Today (amongst others) to ask Could Diane Abbott be next Labour leader?

It's an interesting idea but it overlooks two key factors. The first is that the opinion poll is of the electorate as a whole, whereas the Labour leader will be elected by a combination of Labour Party and trade union members. Of course they may be swayed by the findings of such opinion polls but I doubt by ones at this stage. For the second key factor is that this leadership election has barely begun and the candidates have got little exposure. So the opinion polls are finding nothing more than name recognition. (See for instance UK Polling Report: New ComRes and ICM polls and, for the equivalent for the Conservatives in 2005, 2005 Tory Leadership.) And it has to be said that Abbott has quite a high level of name recognition, especially compared to the likes of Andy Burnham, who seems to be the Chris Whone of the Labour Party.

The key question about Diane Abbott at the moment is not whether she can win the leadership election but whether or not she can even get successfully nominated. So far according to Labour Party: Candidates Abbott has yet to receive a single formal nomination. Meanwhile both Milibands have crossed the threshold and, like Gordon Brown, are in the process of getting more than they need, presumably so they can try and carve other candidates out of the race altogether. The presence of John McDonnell also seeking nominations from the far left of the party isn't helping Abbott either.

More Labour leader photos they'd rather forget

David Miliband and Ed Balls must be thanking their lucky stars that in this country we don't choose politicians on the basis of who manages to evade awkward photos. Otherwise the leading contenders for the Labour leadership would, on the basis of a quick Google search, be Ed Miliband and Diane Abbott.

In the interests of balance, I did some further searches to see how the other leadership contenders have fared. And some have done much better than others. Unfortunately for Ed Balls he's the worst by a long distance.

Andy Burnham clearly did something to provoke this look on David Dimbleby's face but what was it? Whatever it was, it doesn't help his tough guy image. (Thanks to Daily Mail: Who's a pretty boy then? Labour minister Andy Burnham glams up for Question Time)

Burnham may have been seeking a joint ticket with Ed Balls. Or he may have been just getting down with the kids. Either way this is one photo they won't want next to analysis of their policies on law & order. (Thanks to Daily Mail: 25% of 10-year-olds are never allowed to play on their own... so Ed Balls swings into action)

John McDonnell has fared a lot better, generally avoiding the worst of stage photocalls. But last year he tried to do a Michael Heseltine moment in a furious moment in the Commons. (Thanks to Daily Mail: MP John McDonnell is suspended to the cheers of an admiring kingdom)

My thanks to an anonymous commenter for tipping me off to this one. Ed Balls really is photo accident prone isn't he? (Thanks to The Canadian Sentinel: Moonbat Spotlight: British Politician Ed Balls)

David Miliband has had his photo moments and not just that time with the banana. But compared to some of his rivals he hasn't come off the worst. (Thanks to Reuters Global News Journal: Ice cream and football on the road to Damascus)

As I said, I haven't yet found any photos of Diane Abbott or Ed Miliband that are on the same level. Maybe there simply aren't any, or maybe they've been better at keeping them out of the public eye. Either way they're currently winning this particular part of the leadership election.

The Diane Abbott candidacy

Just over a decade ago my sister spent the placement year of her degree working in Diane Abbott's office. By all accounts they got on well, but whether this had any bearing on Abbott subsequently sending her son to my old school (City of London School) I don't know at all.

Abbott has now thrown her hat into the ring for the Labour leadership, and thus effectively the Labour nomination for the premiership, and it's fair to see very few people saw this coming. (Simon Woolley has been tipping her on the Operation Black Vote blog and in The Guardian but he's been very much the exception.) Now I've said before that I don't think Abbott is completely electable (Further thoughts on another "British Obama") and I still think that. It has nothing to do with her race or gender - I also think Jeremy Corbyn is completely unelectable; in fact he's even more so because he lacks Abbott's media profile.

(Abbott may have a cult following from This Week and her other media appearances, but it's not remotely enough to overcome her hard left disadvantage. And a cult media profile isn't something really necessary - this is the Labour leadership election 2010, not the Liberal Democrats leadership election 1999 after all.)

Nevertheless Abbott's candidacy will, assuming she gets enough nominations to stand (and I think she will - there are enough Labour MPs who would realise the disadvantage to the party if her candidacy is "blocked" to formally nominate her), allow her to take issues into the leadership debates and broaden the scope. I am particularly envious of the Labour leadership rules that allow all candidates to go before the full membership and rely on nominations rather than elimination rounds to demonstrate support amongst MPs. The Conservative Party would do well to adopt both of these.

Is Abbott's candidacy necessary to pave the ground for a winnable BME candidate's chances in a future leadership election? To be honest I doubt it. This isn't the United States and potential leaders here gain credibility & exposure by rising through the ranks. It's the fact that so far only one BME MP has made it to the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet (Paul Boateng) and the timing of his rise and then decision to go to South Africa as High Commissioner has meant that there hasn't been a leadership election for him to be considered for. (I don't know if he would have run in any case, but it's hard not to envisage a what if scenario of him remaining in British politics in 2005 and emerging as a credible anti-Brown contender, even if only for the endless speculation of 2008 & 2009.)

Nevertheless Abbott's entry into the leadership election has made for an interesting contest and it remains to be seen how well she does or, perhaps more importantly, where her transfers go.

Ed Balls's banana moment?!

Ed Balls has now entered the Labour leadership election but it appears that like David Miliband he also has had some unfortunate past photo-calls that he really would rather were forgotten. Just what was he doing to Ken Livingstone?!

Was this Balls's banana moment?

As far as I am aware Ed Miliband has so far evaded this problem - round one to him I think.

And I thought the Meacher bid was the biggest joke...

Harriet Harman for Labour Prime Minister?

Yes I know. Can we all stop howling with laughter?

Luke's Blog: Collective Responsibility notes the current noises emerging from the Harman camp and worries that Harman could become the Labour leader should a vacancy arise.

I don't think he's got anything to worry about. Harman only scraped victory in the Labour Deputy Leadership election through an appeal to sexism, arguing that she should hold the post just because she's a woman. And after all she was running to fill John Prescott's shoes and was in many ways perfectly qualified - see Yet another (deputy) leadership election.

Are even Labour Party members blind to the hopelessness of Harman to elect her as their next leader? Labour MPs clearly aren't and she won't be able to bank on an unopposed shot. I think Luke is over worried about this one and we can relegate her dreams to the joke bin of British politics, where also was found the bid by Michael Meacher!

And another one goes

Now David Cairns has quit. (BBC News: Minister quits in Brown protest) And Gordon Brown just claims it's not the time for an "internal debate". At a time when the world economy is in severe trouble the last thing this country needs is political instability caused by uncertainty over the future of the Prime Minister.

So what are the Labour leadership rules?

It's often the case that the leadership rules for a party go unnoticed until people start speculating about the weakness of the incumbent. And then they discover all manner of obscure clauses in the rules that can prove fatal. For example how many people knew that the "15% lead on the first ballot" requirement in the old Conservative rules referred to 15% of the total electorate rather than those voting (a modification made in 1975), which proved critical in 1990?

And now whilst Gordon Brown is running around sacking all and sundry for daring to suggest a leadership election might be the solution to his problems (BBC News: Whip sacked over leader bid call, Ex-minister seeks Labour contest and PM sacks critic Gardiner as envoy) it has come to light that the rules may not have been followed. A clause apparently requires nominations to be sought each year, but the nomination papers have not been sent out to all MPs automatically for years. This could lead to an interesting showdown at the next Labour National Executive Committee meeting.

But regardless of the outcome it seems too late for anyone to challenge Gordon Brown now. The only way he can resolve the ongoing leadership saga before it causes further damage to this country is to take matters into his own hands and initiate a leadership election himself.

But Gordon is not bold but Brown.

No change there then!

So what is one of the first announcements by the All New, All Different Gordon Brown the New Leader?

He's going to seek to reduce the role of trade unions in the Labour Party. (BBC News: Brown aim 'to reduce union power')

Just what Tony Blair did in his early days.

Nice to see such new ideas!

Gordon Brown - cowardly bully

Deep down, most bullies are secretly cowards, trying to dominate others as a way for overcoming their own insecurities. They invariably seek their goals by the easiest route and always despise fair play and genuine competition.

And in many ways this sums up Gordon Brown's approach to the Labour Leadership "Contest", big clunking fists and all.

Today comes the worrying news that John McDonnell may not be successfully nominated after all. (BBC News: Brown rival needs more supporters) Now some of this can be attributed to bitterness by Michael Meacher fans (or Labour MPs who, like me, just wanted to see the laugh of Meacher going forward) but Brown has refused to encourage Labour MPs to help ensure there is a contest, unlike Nicolas Sarkozy who urged France's Mayors to help give the public as wide a choice as possible. And it can be no coincidence that so many others who have been talked of over the years have declined to put themselves forward.

Why is Brown so scared of a contest? The favourite invariably wins a Labour leadership election, but it is far, far better to win over some opposition.

Four years ago many Labour friends of mine were proclaiming how Michael Howard had been "selected" "undemocratically" as Conservative leader after being the only candidate in the 2003 election. Where are they now?

So it's Brown vs McDonnell

I've been out all day so only just seen the news that Michael Meacher and John McDonnell have reached agreement that the latter will be the left-wing flag bearer for the Labour leadership election. Sadly this removes the comedy of seeing Michael Meacher claiming he could be a good Prime Minister.

One minor thought - this means that whoever gets elected, we'll have to update the "number of PMs who went to a university but not to Oxbridge". And that is a very small number.

Michael Meacher's flawed history

One of the worst things about being a history researcher is that it can be very difficult to ignore statements in the media that you know to be incorrect. Take, for example, this one by Michael Meacher, reported in BBC News: Brown takes on rivals in debate :

Mr Meacher was keen to stress the importance of having a debate within the Labour Party.

"The Labour party, throughout the hundred years of its history, has elected its leader every single time, except in 1931, which was very exceptional circumstances," he said.

This is wrong on several levels.

Prior to 1922 the position was "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party", which was something of a different position. I forget exactly how many contests there were for the post (the first one in 1906 saw Keir Hardie elected with a one vote majority over David Shackleton), but a glance at David Marquand's Ramsay MacDonald suggests that the 1907 election was unopposed (Hardie stood down under pressure, Shackleton declined to run and Henderson was elected - page 102). Wikipedia so far doesn't list any contests before 1922 - see Wikipedia: Category:Labour Party (UK) leadership elections.

1922 saw the position redefined as "Leader of the Labour Party" and "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party", although the latter post eventually became separate. Even then there were unopposed elections - 1931 was not as dramatic as Meacher makes out, for Ramsay MacDonald was still a member of the Labour Party at the point when Arthur Henderson became leader. As the leader was elected by Labour MPs only, it would have been entirely possible to hold a ballot. Instead for some time as the Second Labour Government limped to its resignation it had been clear that MacDonald's leadership was coming to an end and Henderson was the only likely successor - shades of this year.

Then in 1931/32 the leadership was again elected without a contest. Henderson lost his seat, together without about 80% of Labour MPs, in the 1931 election but remained leader for another year. In the interim George Lansbury, the one former Cabinet Minister to survive, was elected to head the Parliamentary Party - without a contest. When Henderson stepped down in 1932 (to focus on the Disarmament Conference), Lansbury was elected full leader without a contest.

Then in 1935 when Lansbury insisted on resigning, even in spite of a unanimous resolution urging him to stay passed by a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Clement Attlee was elected as leader unopposed. True he was regarded as a stop-gap until after the forthcoming general election (and he did indeed face a contest later that year), but he was still elected unopposed.

Plus at various times throughout Labour's history the leadership has been elected automatically at the start of each Parliament or even every year (when in Opposition). Numerous leaders have been re-elected unopposed - did Michael Meacher not notice these?

So ignore sweeping statements that unopposed leadership elections are alien to Labour - after all one produced their longest serving leader ever.

The Meacher-McDonnell indecision

The previous news that Michael Meacher and John McDonnell had come to an agreement to ensure that Gordon Brown faces some opposition had cheered many, and both men are to be credited for having something that so many others on the Labour benches lack - balls. (So *someone* will take on Brown ) But now comes the news that the two have failed to reach agreement on who has more support, delaying confirmation as to whom will go forward to challenge Brown. (BBC News: Brown rivals delay bid decision) Kerron Cross has more information (Kerron Cross: McDonnell to Stand Down?), suggesting that McDonnell appears to have fewer nominations but is doubting the veracity of some of Meacher's. Will they honour the agreement come Monday?

What is more worrying are reports that even combined the two lack enough support to get one nominated. It cannot be in the country's interest for Gordon Brown to be made Prime Minister unopposed. Are there no Brownite MPs who would be willing to help their own man by ensuring that he can face some opposition? Or are the Brownites scared that Brown can't win?

The best thing Tony Blair has ever done

Sadly we've got another few weeks of him but the end is finally in sight. (BBC News: Blair will stand down on 27 June)

Everyone is scrambling to write the political obituaries and finding the same question - just what are Blair's achievements as Prime Minister?

Now a lot will rush and say "independence for the Bank of England" and "years of a strong economy", but I question whether these are Blair's achievements rather than Gordon Brown's. Scottish devolution? I would credit that to Donald Dewar. Indeed many of these supposed achievements seem to originated elsewhere from Downing Street.

The obvious exception is peace in Northern Ireland. Whilst others played their part (and have been rightly rewarded), it cannot be denied that the time Blair invested in the peace process (the area of government policy he gave more attention to than any other) has been essential for pushing the process forward.

And the other achievement is political. Blair transformed the Labour Party into a strong fighting force. He also destroyed the complacency that had built up in the Conservative Party. Indeed many of the changes made to the party in the last few years have been in direct response to the impact of New Labour. Ironically in the long run Blair's true political legacy may scarily be closer to the Conservative Party than the Labour Party.

And of course there have been failures. But rather than list them all, let's stick to just one - his own definition:

"My project will be complete when my party learns to love Peter Mandelson."

So he leaves with the project unfulfilled...

So *someone* will take on Brown

Labour left-wingers John McDonnell and Michael Meacher have announced that they will pool resources in the Labour leadership election to ensure one of them can be successfully nominated. (BBC News: Left rivals unite to target Brown) On the day Tony Blair does the most popular thing he can ever do, the two will meet and compare their levels of support amongst MPs with the less popular dropping out. From the tone of their recent statements about each other's levels of support (reaching a level of bitchiness normally associated with Judean People's Fronts and People's Fronts of Judea) it's more of a tactical admittance that individually neither can get the support needed for nomination rather than a great principled pooling of resources. It also opens up possibilities for the more Machiavellian Labour members to tactically support whichever they think it would be better to have in the contest, either to clip Gordon Brown's wings or to expose the left as hopeless. Given how effective Michael Meacher was as Environment Minister I do hope he's the one to stand, if only for the comedy value. (So there *is* an alternative to Gordon Brown)

Meanwhile the search for a serious challenger to take on Brown has still failed to yield results. As David Cameron asked at Prime Minister's Questions the other week:

Why is it that so many people who have worked so closely with the Chancellor think he would make a terrible Prime Minister, but they do not seem prepared to stop him?

(Hansard: 28 Feb 2007 28 Feb 2007 : Column 920)

Indeed anyone who wants to stop Brown has only one serious choice. And that choice is David Cameron.

So there *is* an alternative to Gordon Brown

The forthcoming Labour leadership contest today got to the nearest thing to excitement it has yet come to (and that's really saying something) with the announcement that Michael Meacher is going to stand. (BBC News:
Meacher enters Labour leader race) Whilst umpteen leading Labour figures are fighting it out for one of the most pointless jobs in politics the Labour leadership election has so far been notable only for the sheer dearth of talent it has revealed and the despair of many in Labour at the prospect of Gordon Brown and his poor poll ratings. One would hope that a serious alternative candidate could bring some excitement to the contest but currently the election looks about as inspiring and effective as Ming Campbell.

Additional: I've been reminded that Meacher was so effective and respected as Environment Minister that he had to get Greenpeace or somesuch to pay for his attendance at an intergovernmental summit on climate change!