Apparently it is all over. The leadership contest that never was, never will be. Leaving aside Gordon Brown’s qualities as leader (which will be the source of endless speculation until the handover and beyond) I thought I’d better write something about the accusations that all of this is somehow undemocratic, stemming from Sir Ming and David Cameron.

Let’s be specific about what is occurring here: the Labour Party are choosing a leader. The Labour Party may do this in any way the Labour Party see fit. As it stands, the Parliamentary Labour Party have decided by an astounding majority to choose Gordon. 313 out of 356 MPs nominated him. There is no doubt whatsoever that in a leadership contest with either McDonnell or Meacher or both Brown would wiped the floor with the opposition. The complaint that the lack of election denies a platform to the left of the party is a spurious one- if anyone particularly cared what the left had to say, there is no secret about it. McDonnell’s proposals can be found here.
If he was interesting enough for TV, he would be covered. What this really means is that Mr McDonnell has been denied 6 weeks of media coverage in which to cultivate his political image out of all proportion to the support he enjoys in the country or in the Labour Party.

Now a word about democracy itself, rather than the fitful whining of the old left. NOBODY votes for the Prime Minister. No one in the whole damn country. Not even the constituents of Sedgefield were voting for the Prime Minister, they were simply returning Anthony Blair, the Labour Party candidate, to Parliament as their MP. That is why the coronation of Gordon isn’t democratic, but neither are the constitutional arrangements of the UK. If we had an elected President who appointed a Prime Minister, maybe we would be part way there, but with a monarchy, we aren’t even close. This isn’t a diatribe about republicanism by the way- the present arrangements do fine, but we shouldn’t really make out that they are democratic.

Some fascinating facts…

1) Prime Ministers do not have to leave office if they lose a general election. It is merely a convention. Stanley Baldwin chose to meet the House of Commons after the 1923 Election, though he could not command a majority. He was voted down immediately, but the convention of resignation does not have binding force.
2) Neither does a vote of no confidence, it is simply a more strenuous indication that the Prime Minister should get out.
3) Neither does the loss of a party election, such as eased Thatcher on her way in 1990. It is simply another way of indicating that the Prime Minister can no longer command sufficient support to govern.
4) Prime Ministers do not have to be party leaders- I believe Churchill’s wartime government was the last one to operate this, but I could be wrong.

The Labour Party won the 2005 general election. The people of the UK put their trust in MPs to influence through any means available (see above) Her Majesty’s choice of government. Enough of those MPs chose Gordon.

If we can get over our collective hang-up about ‘democracy”, then perhaps it will become clear that a contest between a ‘government of the living dead’ and a fresh opposition is detrimental to our ability to chose the next government (via our MPs of course!) wisely. A couple of years to let Gordon’s government refresh itself, and we might have a fair contest, the true nightmare of the Cameron camp.

Filed under: constitution, democracy, gordonbrown, labour, ukpolitics on May 17th, 2007