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!

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?

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!