Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Compass group is claiming some credit for the outcome of the Labour Deputy Leader contest. Their account shows how an independent organisation decided to back one of the candidates, John Cruddas, and ensure him grass roots support. The result: he came first in the first round, and when he came third in the penultimate round, his second preferences swung it for Harriet. Does that make sense? In plain English his supporters gave her as their second choice so that she overtook Alan Johnson when Cruddas was eliminated. I think that Compass are if anything understating their influence. Almost certainly their campaign drew Labour members into voting who would otherwise have abstained. Without Cruddas and Compass, Labour would today have a duller, two-bloke leadership. And a less democratic one. The media has overwhelmingly taunted the contest as revealing Labour’s Dave Spart tendency. But the winner and the man who helped her win were the two most articulate supporters amongst the six candidates of the kind of democratic approach Trots despise. At least, if they meant their answers to OurKingdom’s candidate questionnaire. Here, to remind you, is what the two said about a written constitution:
Harriet Harman: Yes, we need a written constitution, one that makes clear our rights and responsibilities as citizens, one that respects our essential personal freedoms and guarantees our liberty, our security and our equal opportunities. We can’t just draw this up on the back of an envelope, though. We have to work with a wide body of people to try and build a national consensus on a constitution that commands real respect and will stand the test of time.
John Cruddas: Yes, I would be in favour of having a written constitution. A written constitution would be a useful tool for maintaining checks and balances on a powerful executive. I believe in strengthening the position of parliament in relation to the executive, especially on matters relating to taking our country to war. But more than this, a written constitution would be a unique opportunity to engage with the British people, whose input into the constitution and whose consent would be absolutely fundamental to the process.
