As expected Gordon Brown has become leader of the Labour Party - and therefore Prime Minister - following one of the most hotly uncontested elections of recent times. With only one person being allowed to stand, naturally Brown won to become the first Labour leader to be elected by absolutely no one.
Valiant attempts have been made by Labour officials to present the result as 'election by acclaim' but this will not wash - not least because of the strenuous efforts made to keep the only other serious and declared challenger, John McDonnell, off the ballot paper. At one point it was suggested that if Brown was the only candidate on the ballot, a vote of 'affirmation' should go ahead with members being invited to vote their support for Brown. This was quietly dropped when it was realised that this support might not be as over-whelming as some in the Brown camp might have hoped for.
So why did the Brown camp work so hard to keep McDonnell off the ballot even though that meant that there could not be a proper election with a real choice and opportunity for debate? Well after the Fabian debate, held on the Sunday after Blair had announced that he was off, at which Brown, McDonnell and the wrecking candidate Meacher, all debated, it was realised that Brown would not stand up to a month of vigorous challenge and questioning.
McDonnell's support was rising and it was clear that left to having to defend New Labour's dismal record and policies, Brown would soon be in big trouble. Since New Labour was built on the lie that the Left in the party had been politically and organisationally defeated, the last thing they wanted was people to see that there was an alternative and that they could vote for it. So in the few days following the Fabian debate, maximum effort by the Brown camp was put on keeping McDonnell off the ballot, using any means necessary - both threats and promises. Sadly in this, many of the trade union leaders colluded in the mistaken belief that Brown would somehow give them something in return.
Well they have been well rewarded indeed. Brown has made clear that he will be the continuation of Blairism by other means. The announcement that he wishes to 'reform' i.e. attack union involvement in party decision making, reducing their influence, is very much in the style of the largely abandoned Blair project. This is a huge slap in the face to the union leadership. They need to wake up and stop dreaming about a Warwick Mark Two and, instead, organise a campaign to defend trade union involvement in the Party and link this to the fight for socialist policies which will defend their members' interests.
Could the unions have organised a serious campaign around a McDonnell candidature? Well the leaders said no but let's look at the facts, starting with the largely irrelevant election for deputy leader.
All the candidates were broadly similar in their political outlook. The only differences were in nuances, emphasised out of all proportion to give an impression that there was a real choice - which most people quickly saw through. In the end only 8% of trade unionists able to vote did so and nearly half of all individual party members did not vote either. However in the first round - where no candidate got less than 10% or more than 20% of the vote - Jon Cruddas, who was presented as being a bit Left (a very small bit we might add) and who was the favoured candidate of the trade union leaders, got 19.4% of the first choice votes, mainly based in the union and party member sections. He came top in the first round and survived until the fourth round whereas more favoured names (including arch-Blairite and media darling Blears who was the first to go) did not do as well.
The point is that if a deservedly unknown candidate like Cruddas could do this well as a result of a very nominal campaign by some unions, what could have been achieved with a McDonnell challenge for leader had the unions put their whole weight behind such a drive? In passing we should note that Harman won the deputy job by the narrowest of margins primarily because Cruddas called on people who had voted for him to give her their second preference vote enabling her to push past the other Blairite fanatic left on the ballot, Johnson. Naturally having been a bit daring in attacking the government during the election, she has quickly reasserted her loyalist credentials with Brown now that the job, such as it is, is hers. Despite all the rhetoric coming from the candidates during the election, no one should expect anything to come from the winner anytime soon.
As we have seen over the early announcements on the plan to replace the block vote with decision making by One Member One Vote (this from a man who has achieved his position through One Member No Vote) and the idea of bringing in so-called outside "talents" into the government, Brown will continue Blair's pro-big business direction, even if it costs the next election. No doubt some of the Blairites are secretly hoping that this will happen, so that Brown can then take the blame, be removed with one of the exalted ones taking his place ready to fight the election after. But we cannot afford the prospect of a Tory victory and the coming to power of a Cameron government - presuming the Tory old guard do not get rid of him as well - which will herald a vicious attack on the working class. The fight must be joined for Socialist policies which can defeat the Tories and ensure a better future for all.