Why John McDonnell should stand aside for Diane Abbott

It is Abbott who has the greater potential support.

The split between Diane Abbott and John McDonnell is reminiscent of the one between McDonnell and Michael Meacher in 2007. On that occasion, Meacher stood aside and endorsed McDonnell, although the latter still didn't make it on to the ballot paper.

Now, after McDonnell's ill-advised claim that he regrets not "asassinating Thatcher" (it was obviously a joke, but it showed why a lot of people don't take him seriously), there are calls for the Labour left-winger to stand aside to give Diane Abbott a chance of reaching 33 nominations.

Under Labour Party rules, MPs can nominate an alternative candidate if their original choice steps down before nominations close. As things stand, Abbott has eight nominations, while McDonnell has ten, though the former may pull ahead after yesterday's hustings (our own is tomorrow night). There are also six members of the Socialist Campaign Group who have yet to nominate a candidate and are likely to support either Abbott or McDonnell.

It may seem strange for McDonnell to be facing calls to stand aside. After all, with more confirmed support than Abbott, why shouldn't he be asking her to do the same?

But this argument ignores the fact that Abbott's potential support is greater than McDonnell's. There are a number of Labour MPs who would like to see a female candidate on the ballot but won't consider nominating Abbott until she has a realistic chance of proceeding to the next stage. By contrast, many Labour MPs consider McDonnell beyond the pale, due to past acts such as praising the IRA.

Abbott's presence in the contest would force the other candidates to engage with the sort of arguments on privatisation, Afghanistan and inequality that they have avoided for too long.

In an article last month McDonell wrote:

[I]f at the end of this fortnight my standing down would mean securing any woman on this ballot paper, or any black person, of course I will do so.

It may be time for him to do just that.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Tory Brexiter Daniel Hannan: Leave campaign never promised "radical decline" in immigration

The voters might not agree...

BBC Newsnight on Twitter

It was the Leave campaign's pledge to reduce EU immigration that won it the referendum. But Daniel Hannan struck a rather different tone on last night's Newsnight. "It means free movement of labour," the Conservative MEP said of the post-Brexit model he envisaged. An exasperated Evan Davis replied: “I’m sorry we’ve just been through three months of agony on the issue of immigration. The public have been led to believe that what they have voted for is an end to free movement." 

Hannan protested that EU migrants would lose "legal entitlements to live in other countries, to vote in other countries and to claim welfare and to have the same university tuition". But Davis wasn't backing down. "Why didn't you say this in the campaign? Why didn't you say in the campaign that you were wanting a scheme where we have free movement of labour? Come on, that's completely at odds with what the public think they have just voted for." 

Hannan concluded: "We never said there was going to be some radical decline ... we want a measure of control". Your Mole suspects many voters assumed otherwise. If immigration is barely changed, Hannan and others will soon be burned by the very fires they stoked. 

I'm a mole, innit.