Why did the centrist candidate beat the left wing-candidate so comprehensively?
While left-winger Jeremy Corbyn goes from strength to strength, it seems to have gone almost unnoticed that in the Constituency Labour Party (CLP) nominations for London Mayor, the centrist candidate Tessa Jowell thrashed the socialist Diane Abbott.
London CLP Results: 1st choice nomination for mayor:
Tessa Jowell – 63 CLP nominations;
Diane Abbott – 8 CLP nominations.
CLPs that nominated both Jowell and Abbott: 0.
When each London Constituency Labour Party (CLP) nominated its two candidates for mayor, there was a procedure in place: the first nomination of each CLP must be a woman. Abbott and Jowell were the only two women in the race. Thus they competed directly against one another.
Why did no CLP choose to nominate both women? Why did the centrist candidate beat the left wing-candidate so comprehensively?
Diane Abbott is well-known and popular in London and, like the rising star Jeremy Corbyn who she often shares a platform with, she has a distinct voice in the Labour party. One might have expected her to get more than eight nominations.
Well, Labour bungled the nomination process. At CLP meetings, everyone present was asked to vote twice. First they voted for a female candidate – between Diane Abbott and Tessa Jowell. Then the winning woman “1st candidate” was announced, and then they voted again (now for a man or a woman).
It seems very likely that this two-stage process had a large psychological impact on the members’ voting. If you voted for Abbott in the first round and saw her lose, you were unlikely to vote for her again. In effect there were two races, one for women and then one for men.
As for Jowell’s comprehensive victory over Abbott, this would seem to have much to do with ‘electability’. London Labour, it is sometimes said, like to pick a ‘winner’: there was a perception that Jowell could win and that Abbott couldn’t. A former cabinet minister under Blair and Brown who successfully presided over the Olympics, Jowell had the appearance of the next London Mayor.
If this theory is right, then it would seem to separate Jowell not just from the other mayoral candidates but also from the other candidates in the Party’s Leadership election.
| Labour Leadership Candidate | % of London CLPs nominated |
% of Nationwide CLPs nominated |
| Andy Burnham | 15% | 28% |
| Yvette Cooper | 31% | 28% |
| Jeremy Corbyn | 37% | 39% |
| Liz Kendall | 17% | 5% |
As compared with the nationwide CLPs, London’s were indeed more likely to nominate one of the centrist candidates. Kendall does markedly better in London than she does nationwide, for instance. Still, Corbyn – who never scores well on ‘electability’ even according to those nominating him – did very well in London.
Evidently, it is not solely ‘winning’ that London CLPs think about.
Perhaps there is a general perception across the London party that none of the leadership candidates can win a general election and become prime minister. So why not vote for Corbyn at your local CLP meeting?
This can still leave us wondering why Abbott did not do better in the mayoral nominations, when – like Corbyn – she was clearly the sole ‘left candidate’. Of course we don’t know for certain, but she does appear to have been disadvantaged by a combination of:
- Labour’s inept voting procedure
- the perceived electability of Jowell
Counter-intuitively Abbott may well have got more nominations than actually she did if the at least one woman rule had never been introduced. Jowell, it seems, was a particularly difficult opponent for Abbott to be in a head to head race with.
There is an easy improvement that could be made to the nominations procedure, consistent (of course) with ‘the at least one woman rule’, but avoiding two separate races. The Labour Party could simply instruct its London CLPs to have members vote according to the following simple procedure: Each member attending the meeting will cast two votes on a single voting slip. In accordance with the Party’s rule that at least one woman be nominated, any voting slip that does not contain the name either of one or of two of the women candidates will be deemed ‘spoiled’.
This, I believe, would have led to some CLPs nominating both women (Jowell and Abbott), and increased Abbott’s number of nominations. By avoiding two separate races, seemingly one for a woman and one for a man, it would also have better reflected the preferences of those Labour members who voted.
It will be interesting to see if, to any extent, Abbott can build on the success of Corbyn in the race itself.
Peter Wiggins is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter
13 Responses to “Jowell vs Abbott”
lcfcsr
It is very simple, people will vote for candidates that represent their views and, equally as important if not more important, are electable in their view. Diane Abbott is clearly unelectable, therefore will not be supported by the membership, even amongst the most hard left of members. It is the same reason why she lost leadership election so convincingly in 2010, it’s not because the members were more right wing back then, it’s because Diane Abbott was/is not a credible candidate. The reason Corbyn is doing so well in comparison despite holding relatively similar views is because he is a credible candidate and I would suggest is not perceived amongst the party membership as the unelectable figure that he is being portrayed as.
I think the biggest problem with this article, interesting as the analysis is, is that their seems to be no distinction made between Abbott and Corbyn, when to me and I’d suggest to the vast majority of Labour Party members there is an absolutely huge difference between the two, if not on policy on personality and political ability. By ignoring the major differences between the two and simply suggesting that they are the sole left wing candidates in their respective elections and that’s that, you ignore the real reason why Abbott is performing so badly (because she is a terrible candidate), and you ignore one of the key reasons why Corbyn is doing so well (because he is actually very credible and very talented). Because you are ignoring the real reasons behind your original question you are seeking alternative answers that just aren’t there. Some of your analysis was interesting no doubt, and the CLP nomination process may have played a small factor in keeping down Abbott’s nominations, but ultimately she is losing because she is a terrible candidate.
I get why you’re trying to come to different conclusion. Even if I completely disagree I recognise that some people are struggling to get their head around the idea that in fact most people supporting Corbyn do perceive him to be electable, but that is the truth and for very good reason in my opinion. I’m an example of this, in 2010 there is no way that I was ever going to vote for Diane Abbott, she was/is truly unelectable, however at this election I will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn. There are other examples, Ken Livingstone has spoke about how he didn’t support Foot in 1980 because he thought he was unelectable, however he is supporting Corbyn at this election because he is electable. The Conservative minister Ken Clarke has already warned the Tories not to underestimate Corbyn as he is capable of winning the General Election in 2020. A lot of party members also share these views, which is why they are voting Jeremy Corbyn, but not for Diane Abbott, it is as simple as that.
Matthew Blott
What does that have to do with the article above?
AlanGiles
Many people regard Ms Abbott as a hypocrite because of her choice of school for her son: at least she didn’t plead that somebody made her sign the forms without her reading them. Ms Abbott didn’t try to foist Georgia Gould on Erith and Thamesmead. Ms Abbott didn’t pretend she had seperated from her husband.
What is worse – a hypocrite (some would say) or a total money mad liar?
Mauro Andrade
Jowell is a bit like like that guy who kept telling us we needed to ‘re-assess our principles’ the other day. Unbearably irritating, sanctimonious and completely wrong on pretty much every substantive political issue.
Ted
Spot on.