Labour leadership: where will the final nominations go?

Burnham certain to make the ballot but the left remains hopelessly divided.

Labour MPs have just a few hours left to make up their minds before nominations for the leadership close at 12.30pm. Andy Burnham is now just two short of the required 33 nominations and is certain to make it on to the ballot paper. (You'll be able to see him at our Labour leadership debate tonight.) In fact, since David Miliband has promised to lend his vote to any candidate who needs it, Burnham is just one short.

But so far, Ed Balls is the only nominee to take the bolder step of urging his supporters to back an alternative candidate in order to ensure a politically diverse field.

As things stand, it doesn't look like either John McDonnell or Diane Abbott will stand aside to give the left a fighting chance of making the ballot. A lot of McDonnell supporters were unhappy with my call for the Labour left-winger to step down and endorse Abbott.

But, even though McDonnell now has 16 nominations to Abbott's 11, it is Abbott who would have the best chance of proceeding.

Most of Abbott's centrist supporters, such as Harriet Harman, David Lammy, Fiona Mactaggart and Keith Vaz, would not transfer to McDonnell. I'm also confident that many Labour MPs who would never consider nominating McDonnell, would vote for Abbott if she had a genuine chance of making the ballot.

I'd expect a fair number of Labour women to follow Harman and nominate Abbott (McDonnell is unlikely to win any more votes), but it will take something special for her to win the 22 nominations she needs.

There are 36 MPs yet to nominate a candidate. Here is a list of them:

Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow)

Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West)

Margaret Beckett (Derby South)

Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)

Nick Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne East)

Chris Bryant (Rhondda)

Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield)

Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill)

Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)

Tony Cunningham (Workington)

Nick Dakin (Scunthorpe)

Angela Eagle (Wallasey)

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East)

Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green)

David Heyes (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central)

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore)

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn)

Sian James (Swansea East)

Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Graham Jones (Hyndburn)

Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central)

Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham Ladywood)

Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)

Ian Mearns (Gateshead)

George Mudie (Leeds East)

Dawn Primarolo (Bristol South)

Jack Straw (Blackburn)

Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton)

Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston)

Stephen Twigg (Liverpool West Derby)

David Winnick (Walsall North)

Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth)

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
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland