Is this the worst possible result for the BNP?

You may not have noticed, but there was a party leadership contest yesterday for the BNP.

I blogged about some of the BNP’s travails back in November. My blogpost was met by some sharp denials by what I can only assume were BNP activists, but nonetheless the situation appeared to go from bad to worse for the BNP after that. Relations between Nick Griffin and the party’s second MEP, Andrew Brons, appeared to deteriorate in pretty dramatic terms culminating with this youtube video:

(This is an edited down version of a much longer recording that I have borrowed from the gentlemen at political scrapbook.)

Brons himself is a former National Front leader during the period which it was already dying. He is older than Griffin (64) and less rabble rousing and seems more cerebral. He used to teach A-level politics.

In June 2011 the BNP adopted a new constitution, said constitution stated that party leaders have to be re-elected every four years. Brons challenged Griffin for the leadership and this is the result:

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Nick Griffin	1156	50.19%
Andrew Brons	1148	49.80%

There were 11 spoilt ballots and 39 votes not counted as they lacked a signature. All in all Nick Griffin beat Andrew Brons by 9 votes. Griffin immediately called for unity, but I can’t help but feel that the opposite will happen. Close elections in split parties are rarely a good thing and the BNP is clearly highly divided at this time. The close result will give those within the party who oppose Griffin a feeling of a missed opportunity and fresh anger. It is hard to believe this is over.

In any case, it is difficult to see the BNP as anything but a party in terminal decline, a dead project. That is not to say that the far-right is dead, just that it will be forced to change. Indeed it may have already done, the EDL may now be the public face of the anti-immigration movement.

*New* Page: Labour Leadership Result

We've got a new page on the top bar with the Labour Leadership result. Our Labour Leadership Correspondent (Chris!) has been quite busy recently but he'll be providing some analysis on Ed Miliband's victory during this week. This is quite useful as Tom is on holiday for the next few days, and so he'll be looking after the site. Looking further forward we'll be having a look at the UKIP Leadership election, which finishes on 5^th November (I don't envisage fireworks!), and we've begun our work for next year's devolved assembly elections. Of course, the by-election coverage will continue as usual, although Tom's break means that this week's are already scheduled.

The Labour Leader Race Poll

So the Labour Leadership race rolls on, five candidates are duking it out for the prized position of Leader of the Opposition. Today YouGov released a poll of 1,184 Labour Party members, and 1,102 Labour supporting trade unionists to see what their views were. The results were fascinating:

The results are quite surprising. The fact that David Miliband is ahead amongst party members is no no surprise, though his lead amongst trade unionists is. The media narrative of the two Miliband race appears to be true and so does the perception that David is the frontrunner, though his lead in the run-off is not insurmountable. However I have several qualms about this poll.

Firstly, there is the MPs and MEPs. YouGov had no way of telling how the MPs and MEPs would break in the final round so they simply assumed that supporters of Abbott, Burnham and Balls would break 50/50. Now this is probably the fairest way of doing it if you want an overall winner, but I can guarantee that supporters will not split so neatly. I would expect almost all of Diane Abbott's left-wing support to move to Ed, and I would expect most of Ed Balls Brownite support to drift to the less tribal, but more Brownite than Blairite EM. I would also expect Burnham's support to drift to EM more or less. Indeed this has happened with the other colleges in this poll, as we can see from the smaller lead attributed to David at the end.

Secondly, it is not clear to me that YouGov has a representative sample. Whenever one polls one attempts to get a representative sample. If the population is 40% working class we try to get a sample that is 40% working class because we know that class affects voting behaviour. So where are YouGov getting figures for the demographic make-up of the Labour Party and Trade Unions from? Did Labour and the TUs give YouGov the figures? I doubt it. Another related issue is the nature of YouGov's polling itself. YouGov uses a panel of registered people on its website, rather than a random sample. For normal polling this works pretty well, but for something like this YouGov's internet savvy, youthful membership is going to make a difference, as it is likely that they will be using social networking sites, and blogging. Nonetheless, this is not to say that the poll is not interesting – it is, but its predictive value is probably a bit thin.

A Man’s World?

Politics has, to one extent or another, always been a primarily male pastime. Harriet Harman's suggestion that fifty percent of Labours shadow cabinet should be women, and that the party rules should be changed to accommodate this, comes at a time when women are more represented in British politics than at any previous time. Obviously Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, but she was just one woman and her approach to the job could hardly be considered overtly feminine.

Presently a third of Labour MP's are female, more than in any other party. This clearly falls short of representing the actual population of the country. Therefore the concept of the shadow cabinet reflecting society on these current figures would require a disproportionate number of cabinet positions being allocated to female MP's.

This issue of women in politics was debated on Question Time. Diane Abbott, who has since been nominated as the only female Labour leadership candidate, featured on the panel and had a few things to say on the matter. The suggestion of cabinets members being selected on merit was, unsurprisingly, met with enthusiasm. This is widely, and rightly, accepted as the way things should be done. Abbott did, however, suggest that there are mediocre men in cabinet so why not mediocre women. To be quite honest a fair point, though ideally not a model for future cabinet selections...

The problem, which was touched upon on Question Time, is a lack of females in politics generally. It would seem that people are reluctant to bring up the actual reason. Abbott suggested that politics is still a 'boys club', which may be true to a point. The real difficulty though is that most women just aren't attracted to politics. Some women may enjoy the idea of power and competition but far more men are drawn to it. Generally women find the confrontational nature of politics unappealing, again there are exceptions but I would say that this is true for the best part. I can't imagine that the House of Commons would be the work place of choice for many women.

Above these reasons, however, is the fact that women often put their family before themselves. Political success often leads to family being thrust into the limelight, or at least subjected to increased and unwanted scrutiny. This occurs regardless of whether the Mother or the Father is the politician but it seems to sit better with males who perhaps feel they are able to protect their family. Like males do. Sadly with the British media and British politics currently it seems rather unlikely. The idea of having your family suffer as a result of your career seems rather un-maternal, and selfish, to many women. Often wives put their careers second, or even quit their jobs in order to support their husband's political aspirations. Samantha Cameron is a perfect example, especially since she has give up a perfectly successful career be Mrs Prime Minister. The likelihood of a female MP's husband putting his career second to further hers is neither likely, nor would it be expected. As, of course, is the likelihood of the public electing a single 35 year old career-minded woman to represent their constituency over a 'more rounded' candidate, sympathetic to their needs, probably a parent and spouse.

If there were to be a rule change there would be more definite female places at the top which may inspire more females to enter politics to a point, or at least enthuse current female MP's to aspire to be more. This isn't the answer to the problem though is it? The cabinet might better reflect the gender division of the population but it probably wouldn't be made up of the best people for the job. Though it might well result in Abbott's suggestion of a cabinet of mediocre men and women.

In order to truly change the gender division of positions at the top of not just the Labour party, but of any of the political parties, there must be an increase in female politicians from the grass roots up. For this change to happen the face of politics needs to soften a little. Women need to feel that they are welcome and able to succeed in the world of politics whilst retaining their femininity. The shape of politics will inevitably change as more women enter it, thus becoming more accessible for all people, not just women, who don't fit the mould of white, Oxford educated, male. As for how the media, and society in general, would react to women in the more traditionally 'masculine' cabinet positions, for example defence secretary, remains to be seen. What is clear is that meritocracy is essential if people are going to have confidence in the party. If women aren't in the cabinet it should be because they simply aren't as good as their male counterparts, not because they are women.

Labour leadership: The contenders

Last Thursday I covered the Labour leadership electoral system in all its glory. Nominations close tomorrow, so I just thought I'd look over the contenders and their chances.

David Miliband is the usual favourite. The son of a Marxist economist Miliband was Tony Blair's head of policy before entering parliament in 2001. During Euro 2004 I recall watching Tony Blair answer a parliamentary question comparing him to Sven Goran Eriksson, the upshot of Blair's response was to suggest that Miliband was his Wayne Rooney. Miliband was Britain's youngest ever foreign minister. Extraordinarily intelligent, Miliband is not as well known for his charisma. That said, he is not a bad media performer, he is just not as polished as Cameron or Clegg. It may be that this allows him to present himself as more substance than style, especially as people inevitably tire of the current government. It is said that he performed well at the first leadership hustings. Miliband enjoys massive support amongst the parliamentary party, as of this moment the Labour website lists 74 nominations for him, and it is likely that people like Frank Field, who have nominated other candidates in order to widen the field of contenders will get behind him on the actual ballot. Miliband's potential problems lie amongst the wider membership and the affliated societies. Being the frontrunner is not always a good thing, and Miliband may well be seen as too attached to the previous Labour leadership, and as he is widely seen as a Blairite, too attached to Blair specifically and a cleaner break with the past may be desired.

Ed Miliband is nipping on his brother's heels. In much of the press the leadership is seen as the 'battle of the Miliband's'. With 59 nominations behind him Ed has done well for himself. The former Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed is seen as a good performer, and thoroughly progressive. The fact that he was named by the Daily Telegraph as an expenses 'saint', also works in his advantage. While he was certainly a supporter of New Labour, he enjoys the support of the UNITE trade union and Tony Benn, likely to reassure the left of the party. My personal fear is that he may have peaked too early. Once tipped as the dark horse of the contest, he now risks being seen as just as establishment as his brother. While Ed is usually seen as a Brownite, he is not seen as overly factional, and is the closest thing to a 'unity' candidate running in the contest. Ed appears popular among the grassroots, and with UNITE's support is likely to do well amongst the trade unionists as well. He also enjoys the support of my sister, who deems him 'hot'. While David is supposed to be the frontrunner I think Ed is the most likely winner, assuming he can maintain momentum, which is a big if.

Ed Balls was Schools Secretary in the last government. With 33 nominations behind him, Balls has exactly the number required to reach the ballot tomorrow. Balls is known for his combative, tribal, style, rather than the calmer, more intellectual, more pluralistic style of the Milibands. This may work well at the leadership hustings, where diatribes against the new government will probably go down well. Balls' has big issues with expenses, and only won his seat by a small majority, after the Tories targeted him for decapitation. Balls has an advantage in his Schools Ministry, which is likely to come under more attention than those of other party contenders, and therefore propel him into the media spotlight. I would say that Balls is the least likely of the contenders who have currently reached the nominations threshold though.

Andy Burnham is relatively unknown compared to the other candidates. Gordon Brown's last Health Secretary, Burnham was widely seen as an extremely competent and likeable cabinet minister. Currently Burnham is two nominations away from reaching the threshold, which he is likely to get. I would watch out for Burnham, if that cabinet likeability extends into solid media performances Burnham could well come from nowhere. There is a trend at the moment of young, talented politicians seemingly coming from nowhere to the public stage. Think Obama, think Cameron in 2005, think Nick Clegg's bursting onto the scene with the debates. If Burnham can pull this off, he may well achieve victory. In Burnham's favour is his background. The son of a telephone engineer from Liverpool, Burnham is genuinely working class, a factor that is likely to work in his favour amongst trade unionists, and to a lesser degree, activists. He has also been a member of the Labour Party since he was 14. Working to his disfavour is his record on expenses, which is not as bad as Balls', but still not a cause for celebration. Nonetheless, I think Burnham is one to watch, especially if Ed Miliband starts to lose steam.

John McDonnell is the leader of the Socialist Campaign Group, the group of 'Old Labour' MPs. The standard-bearer of the left McDonnell, is unlikely to reach the necessary nomination threshold, and is likely to withdraw in favour of fellow left-winger Diane Abbott.

Diane Abbott is primarily notable for being the only person in the contest who isn't white and male. On the traditional Labour left of the party, Abbott is mostly known for her appearances on This Week with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo. Currently she has the lowest number of nominations. While he has more nominations, it is foreseeable that fellow left-winger John McDonnell will withdraw in her favour, and his supporters will nominate her. It is likely that if he withdraws Abbott can win more nominations than McDonnell, among those New Labour MPs who want to see a black woman in the race. Harriet Harman has said she will nominate Abbott for instance because she wishes to see a woman in the race. It is difficult to see Harman backing McDonnell. If she reaches the ballot, Abbott's chances will be about zero, but a left-wing black female voice in the contest will help to broaden the terms of the debate.

How do you solve a problem like the Labour leadership?

Why with a Labour leadership contest of course! An election is an election, even if it isn't technically for a parliamentary position! Yet, who the next leader of the Labour Party is will affect politics and life in Britain far more than any by-election. The next Labour leader has a pretty good chance of being this country's next Prime Minister, but how will the new leader be elected?

There are two stages. Firstly a candidate needs to be nominated to the ballot. The nominations of 12.5% of MPs (33) are required to be nominated. This threshold is considered rather high in parts, and it is likely that of the six current candidates Diane Abbott and John McDonnell may not make it, whereas Andy Burnham will probably pass the hurdle but currently does not have the MPs. The Labour website handily details the various candidates and who has nominated them. There are several reasons why one may nominate a candidate, firstly one may support them for leader (obviously). Secondly a MP may not support a candidate but want to see them on the ballot. This is the case of right-wing Labour MP Frank Field (who is now serving as Cameron's 'poverty czar') who has nominated 'Old Labour' candidate John McDonnell. Field's nomination is said to be to have the widest possible list of candidates rather than actual support. Another may be career related – backing the eventual winner early on will make you look loyal to the new leader, which may aid promotion. There are currently 90 MPs (35.02% of the party) who have not declared. My own hope (and what will probably be best for the Labour Party) is that these 90 MPs break in such a way as to guarantee the largest field of candidates possible.

Once the final nominees have been decided, the actual election will go forward. The election uses the Alternative Vote method and is composed of an 'electoral college' of three equally weighted parts – the MPs and MEPs, Labour party members, and trade union and 'affiliated society' members. You CAN have multiple votes in each category. Let's say you're a MP who is a member of the UNITE trade union, the Labour Party itself and the Fabian Society, an affiliated think tank organisation. Then you get 1 vote in the MP and Labour Party membership colleges and two in the trade union and affiliates college. Despite the 'equal' weighting of the three groups, it is worth remembering that there are 271 MPs and MEPs, maybe a couple of hundred thousand Labour Party members, and millions of trade unionists. The system is essentially a compromise, it gives a voice to Labour's trade unionist base and its membership base but it avoids a situation where more left-wing members and trade unionists might thrust a leader onto MPs who they view as unelectable, (also the reasoning behind the high nominations threshold), unless they are capable of winning overwhelming support amongst those groups.

Perhaps the best way of seeing how a Labour leadership election works out in practice is to look at one, but as the last Labour leadership election was in 1994, and was won overwhelmingly by Tony Blair, with slight rule changes since then a better overview is perhaps provided by the 2007 deputy leadership contest, which operates under the most similar rules. Here is round 1.

Candidate	Members of Affliated Organisations (%)	Members of Labour Party (%)	MPs and MEPs (%)	Percentage of Electoral College
Jon Cruddas	27.27%	17.01%	13.89%	19.39%
Harriet Harman	13.05%	24.12%	19.62%	18.93%
Alan Johnson	13.65%	16.59%	24.24%	18.16%
Hilary Benn	14.79%	21.63%	12.81%	16.4%
Peter Hain	19.92%	11.61%	14.43%	15.32%
Hazel Blears	11.31%	9%	14.97%	11.77%

Left-wing candidate Jon Cruddas started out ahead, due to overwhelming popularity amongst trade union and affliated societies. Among Labour Party members he is also popular, but less so, coming third. Among MPs he is second from last, winning the 'Old Labour' MPs, but few of the 'New Labour' ones. Hazel Blears came last so she was eliminated (as this is an Alternative Vote election) and the preferences of her voters were redistributed. Onto round 2!

Candidate	Members of Affliated Organisations (%)	Members of Labour Party (%)	MPs and MEPs (%)	Percentage of Electoral College
Alan Johnson	17.73%	19.05%	34.41%	23.74%
Harriet Harman	15.45%	26.4%	21.87%	21.23%
Jon Cruddas	28.92%	18.03%	14.22%	20.39%
Hilary Benn	16.68%	23.79%	14.22%	18.22%
Peter Hain	21.24%	12.72%	15.3%	16.42%

The votes of Arch-Blairite Hazel Blears were re-distributed. Unsurprisingly the bulk of her support went to another Blairite – Alan Johnson, who, with more than a third of MPs and MEPs now behind him, shifts from third to first. Jon Cruddas is too left-wing for the supporters of Blears so he was knocked down from first to third, all in all, he only gained a single percentage point. Peter Hain was second amongst affliated societies, but was still eliminated due to a particularly weak showing amongst Labour Party members. Rounds 3 and 4 were fairly boring, everyone remained where they were and Peter Hain and Hilary Benn were eliminated in order, so let's fasttrack to the penultimate round of Round 5.

Candidate	Members of Affliated Organisations (%)	Members of Labour Party (%)	MPs and MEPs (%)	Percentage of Electoral College
Alan Johnson	30.75%	32.1%	46.17%	36.35%
Harriet Harman	28.38%	41.46%	30.78%	33.58%
Jon Cruddas	40.83%	26.43%	22.95%	30.06%

The contest is down to three candidates – Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman and Jon Cruddas. Each had their obvious power base. Bookies favourite Johnson was popular amongst MPs and MEPs, Harman was popular among Labour members where her feminist campaign likely played well amongst young progressive activists and Jon Cruddas was popular among the trade unionists where his traditional left-wing rhetoric played well. However his inability to attract New Labour transfers led to his elimination.

Candidate	Members of Affliated Organisations (%)	Members of Labour Party (%)	MPs and MEPs (%)	Percentage of Electoral College
Harriet Harman	48.58%	56.49%	46.26%	50.43%
Alan Johnson	51.45%	43.5%	53.73%	49.56%

In the sixth and final round Harman won by a hair breadth over Alan Johnson. While her campaign had little to do with Socialism per say it was identifiably to the left of Johnson's and this may have helped her win transfers from Cruddas. Yet it is worth noting that amongst Cruddas's key territory of trade unionists she lost, as among the MPs and MEPs. Harman's real success was amongst the Labour membership, the only group she won. Yet there is no sign of universal hatred amongst trade unionists and MPs and MEPs, she still achieved 46% amongst her worst group (MPs and MEPs). I have to say this system is my favourite electoral method of the three main parties as it gives a fair voice to the party base, but guarantees that a leader unpopular with MPs is not chosen, which can lead to a rebellious parliamentary group (see Iain Duncan Smith who was elected under less well thought out rules). It is also worth noting that this system makes it very unlikely that a left-wing candidate like Abbott, Cruddas or McDonnell can win due to the MPs (though it is not impossible).

Britain Votes will continue to cover the leadership election as it continues. Expect to see more soon.