The next leader of the Labour Party (and other matters)

[david_carnell]

I will admit being a member of the Labour Party. But I am not proud.

I joined in my teens and now, in my late 20s, am living under a Conservative (ish) government for the first time as an adult. For years, however, I have been a reluctant member. Unspiring policy, media and power obsessed politicians and morally objectionable legislation led me to not only become apathetic towards the party but come very close to handing back my card.

However, with the opportunity for renewal in the face of defeat (and it was a resounding rejection of Labour despite what anyone says), I felt that there was light at the end of the tunnel once more. A chance to engage and a strange feeling of optimism.

But I am depressed again. I felt there was just a chance of being excited by politics again. Fighting the good fight etc? and against such a perfect political foe as Cameron. With every headline and new announcement I fear for this country, my loved ones and myself. I do not believe it to be a scaremongering or hyperbole to say that this is going to be the nadir of modern British fortune.

Most of all, I wanted Jon Cruddas to stand for Leader of the Labour Party and to win. I felt he had the intellect, the background and the determination to win, to change the party and the country for the better. He clearly does not feel the same. For shame.

Now where do I look for the progressive left? Miliband 1 & 2? Two policy wonks and party apparatchiks who've barely worked outside politics and who were architects of New Labour, but now renounce it's failings as if they had nothing to do with it? I think not. Despite their rhetoric they are a disgrace to the ideological zeal of their father.

I wanted ideals or convictions. I didn't want policy-by-focus-group any longer. I wanted clear beliefs and the passion to articulate them. To inspire the ignorant or the apathetic, to convert the undecided. As a student of politics and British political history, Michael Foot, the 1983 election and the 'longest suicide note in history' come to mind when talking of such things. And then I found this quote by Foot:

...we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth...

Now...who is saying that in the Labour Party today? No one, aside from some of the socialist Campaign Group candidates who won't stand, won't win and who are loathed by most of their own party. Jon McDonnell is a dinosaur who thinks we are still on the side of the miners and could renationalise the means of production. He is delusional.

I apologise for the rambling verbosity and general pessimism of this post. I hope it sparks some debate as to the direction the progressive left, both inside and out of the Labour Party, should now take.

Where will those of us looking for inspiration and optimism find it in our rump of a parliamentary party? Which candidate should we vote for and why?

[Loz]

I think that this is the ideal time for Labour to cast off dead wood and start afresh. Luckily for Labour, Mad Hattie is not throwing her hat in the ring but dangerously, Ed Balls is. Neither are electable. I do agree with you that Cruddas would be the most traditional 'Labour' leader. But, in this soundbite age, would he really grab the attention of the electorate? He has never really come over as a leader - more of an ideas man.

Tony Blair, for all his faults, did realise one thing: 'old' labour were pretty much next to unelectable. And I still think that is the case today. Should Labour move to the left, they risk the losing the necessary moderate vote. And Labour need to heed the hard lesson the LibDems learnt this time around - having policies and ideas are all well and good, but if you are not in power, they are just words on paper. Something in the policy sometimes has to give.

Labour needs every vote they can in the centre-left area. And, sadly, they don't need to pander too much to the traditional working class vote. It has nowhere much to go except the wasted vote area of the SWP and the BNP. Look at the unions - Labour did little for them in 13 years, but they still keep giving them cash. That part of the electorate is a banker for them.

Labour have to hope that the coalition ends in tears and recriminations. If it is anything like a half-decent success then Labour risks the Tories holding onto power at the next election and the LibDems gaining enough credibility to hold and even expand their vote. Of course, if it does go wrong, Labour will walk into power. So there's not much Labour can do except not to scare the horses.

So, I fear that looking in the box marked 'talent', a Miliband may be the only way forward for Labour at the moment. There's not much else in there. It's either 'past it' like Jack Straw or 'not there yet' like Douglas Alexander.

Just pray it's the one marked 'Ed'.

[dc]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mad Hattie is not throwing her hat in the ring

Can you please stop using this epithet? It's pathetic and unpleasant - quite apart from the unacceptable use of 'mad' as a throwaway pejorative term.

[immaterial]

I've just rejoined Labour after 28 years in the political 'wilderness'!

Although active in the unions for all that time, I just couldn't stomach the witch hunts of Kinnock et al, followed by 13 years of Blairite shenanigans - pushing the boundaries of privatization further than even Thatcher would've dared, not repealing anti-democratic, anti-union laws, light-touch regulation of the financial sector, widening the gulf between the rich and the subaltern classes.

The time for an open, frank discussion within the party of Labour seems to have arrived. From conversations with active trade unionists and socialists of all persuasions, the general mood seems to be one of optimism and hope; a desire to debate within the party structures, unblock the democratic channels sealed by Blair and his cronies and to support a 'dinosaur', like John Mcdonnell, in an attempt to revive the broad church of socialist viewpoints that the party once was.

[Loz]

dc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > Mad Hattie is not throwing her hat in the ring

>

> Can you please stop using this epithet? It's

> pathetic and unpleasant - quite apart from the

> unacceptable use of 'mad' as a throwaway

> pejorative term.

No, I won't stop. I like it. "Mad Hattie", as you successfully point out, is an apt usage for a politician who is, IMO, pathetic and unpleasant.

You must really hate Alice in Wonderland.

PS I hope your concern at the use of such pejorative terms lasts longer than your concern for 'underpaid' Polish leaflet deliverers.

[Huguenot]

LOL!

On other notes... "...we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth..."

I don't see a current ideological split between the parties on this. Most of them are in the middle. There's a certain amount of quibbling over the definitions of "weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled" but a general belief in the welfare state.

The concern is noted in the electorate. We've had threads on this forum about perfectly fit ruddy cheeked right wing tossers jogging away from disabled parking spots because we 'can't do nuffink abaaaart it' *finger*.

The debate lies outside some sort of bleeding heart concern for corpses in the gutter, and much closer to the complexities of international cooperation in the face of limited resources.

The Tories think they can achieve this by spinking down the stave end of their Britannia trident in the gutter (which is moronic), the Lib Dems are more conciliatory. Labour are just fluttering in the wind.

[Marmora Man]

I'd like to respond more fully to dc later if I can find time. However Loz's quote below is quite depressing

Labour have to hope that the coalition ends in tears and recriminations. If it is anything like a half-decent success then Labour risks the Tories holding onto power at the next election and the LibDems gaining enough credibility to hold and even expand their vote. Of course, if it does go wrong, Labour will walk into power. So there's not much Labour can do except not to scare the horses.

There's nothing positive in this at all. Nothing about developing new policies, nothing about establishing Labour as a viable alternative, nothing about responding to the public's concerns. Just hoping the "other side" will fail and let Labour get back in. Left of centre politics and policies are not a default setting - those that wish to support Labour must present a case and an argument if they wish to form the next government.

[Brendan]

I think Charles Kennedy should run.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

It's a shame John Prescott has gone - he had a decided rump.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I agree with Marmora Man (on this one)

I also disagree with Loz about Labour being unelectable without Tony Blair. John Smith (ahem) was immensley popular and well on course for a significant win. Maybe not 1997 landslide but plenty good enough.

I also share the OP's general gloom tho

[Loz]

immaterial,

John McDonnell is exactly the sort of left-wing extremist that will lead the Labour Party into the political wilderness. If they go down that route, prepare yourself for many, many years of life with a Tory government. Like it or not, Kinnock, Smith and Blair made Labour electable. And it took them 15 years of battling with the hard left to achieve it.

Sorry, but the days of union power capturing the public mood is long gone. Look at the current BA dispute: Willie Walsh is out to destroy the union and public sentiment is - as far as I can see - firmly with BA on this one. (And if Unite don't win on Thursday, Walsh will do exactly that.) On the railways, Bob Crow has exhausted the public's patience with his shenanigans.

'Progressive Left' and 'Hard Left Union Power' are not the same thing. Last time the hard left made Labour unelectable for the best part of a generation. Next time, with the LibDems approaching electoral credibility for the first time in decades, it could actually destroy the party.

[Loz]

Sean,

I agree that Blair wasn't, himself, necessary. But Kinnock then Smith then Blair all threw off the shackles of the hard left. It was that evolution that made Labour electable. Had the unions re-assumed power in the Party following Smith's death and installed a leader that swung the party back left, 1997 might well have played out much differently.

[immaterial]

Loz,

Could you explain why left-wing Labour MPs actually increased their percentage of the vote at this election? How does this prove the unelectability of socialist candidates or the unpopularity of egalitarian, left-wing ideologies? I've heard Mcdonnell speak at Unionlearn, PCS and TUC conferences and he has been warmly received by all the assembled delegates, of all political persuasions, for his rational, honest and principled stance on a range of issues.He would make a fine candidate for the leadership, but more importantly this would open up the party to a crucial dialogue and debate about socialist responses to the current crisis of capital.

After recent public sector strikes and with a High Court victory under our belts, along with widespread public support, my own union, the PCS, is looking to forge a Broad front coalition of public sector unions, and community groups, to fight the looming ?6 billion worth of cuts. I'm not sure if you're aware, but the 'public', of which you speak, form the various elements of the workforce who are facing increased job losses and also use those services that are about to be torn to ribbons.

Unsurprisingly, I also disagree with you vis-a-vis those turncoat Lib-Dem.s. Their betrayal of the electorate's wishes and throwing their lot in with the Tories - "vote for us to keep out the Conservatives" - has already destroyed their nascent credibility; theirs will be the party to self-destruct, not the workers' party...

[Huguenot]

I don't think the population is as politically savvy as you immaterial.

I sincerely doubt that they elected Labour MPs on the basis of their individual persuasion, but on the overall party apperance - the New Labour project - and fear of the Tories.

If left-wingers got voted in it was by accident not design.

I agree with Loz: if Labour as a whole steps back into dinosaur territory, as soon as the public find out they'll drop you like a hot coal.

I suspect a lot of dinosaurs would quite like that. Many of them would take immense personal joy from being a martyr to their ideology.

[????]

In reality shouldn't the 'workers' party now be called the 'white-collar middleclass public sector workers' party?

[Marmora Man]

For David Carnell:

A rambling reply from a right of centre perspective.

I will admit being a member of the Conservative Party ? because it is the closest I can get, in electability terms, to my preference of a Libertarian low tax, small government.

You mention that you felt there was a chance of being excited by politics again. Fighting the good fight etc? and go on to describe Cameron as the perfect political foe ? but don?t say why. Surely the analytical observer that you are has reasons and an argument to explain why?

Equally, I cannot subscribe to your view that the next 5 years is going to be the nadir of British fortune. That it is going to be tough ? I don?t doubt. That there will be big cuts in public spending I am certain. That this will affect many hundreds of thousands, if not millions. I agree. However, these will not be malicious acts of class warfare ? which is what the hard left is already tooling itself up to claim. They will be the necessary, and often reluctant, actions of a responsible government to tackle a major problem.

You wanted Jon Cruddas ? I?d agree he?s a clear thinker who can articulate the left of centre argument well. However, he?s arguing for a tactical / strategic need to reconnect with Labour?s core vote; I would suggest this is a form of delusional thinking. Political parties should not be tribal representatives ? bashing ?them? and supporting ?us?. I would wish to have individuals of any political persuasion ? left, right and centre that can see the wider picture, and make a case for rational change or improvement. Frank Field springs to mind for Labour and, intriguingly Iain Duncan Smith for the Conservatives ? perhaps there?s something about he area they both wish to tackle that makes for serious and sensible thinking. Such individuals do not need to be in power to wield power.

Why do you seek ideological zeal? It may be fun, it may be exciting, it?s probably rather like life back at university in the debating club, but it?s not grown up politics. Michael Foot might have said that the only certain good and great purpose was to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. It?s not a bad slogan but it?s not a solution. The big question is surely HOW can we provide for the weaker etc etc?

The radio has just reported that Jon McDonnell will stand. I expect him to lose comprehensively. None of the other candidates have yet said anything remotely interesting or anything that persuades me that they are developing a rational argument for left of centre politics.

Maybe you (Labour) need a big defector from Lib Dems to put the argument for you?

Maybe the 21st century is going to be a liberal era ? with individual rights and responsibilities trumping state solutions? Maybe not ? but I haven?t yet heard anything that suggest the current crop of candidates are doing anythingmore than debate about how best to win power ? when they should be worrying about how best to develop and implement solutions to the ills they perceive and then go out and try to persuade others to adopt those policies. If enough are persuaded - power follows. It was Blair's curse to find he had won power but had no intellectual hinterland to call on to help him do something truly radical or positive with it.

[dc]

David C - I agree with MM's analysis (I'm rather surprised to say) although I'm coming from the other wing. The moment that Labour deliberately cedes the centre ground - which it already has to some extent as exemplified by the drop in votes of key social groups in 2010 - is the moment it opts to walk back into the wilderness of empty, impotent, political gesture. I lived through it in the 80s and most of the 90s and any number of marches and protests and pickets and boycotts made no difference to the voiceless people that Labour was founded to speak up for.

1997-2010 saw the greatest redistribution of income from the top 10% to the bottom 10% of any OECD country - you David C have cited the evidence yourself in other threads - and the fact that we even bothered to try puts us in a very exclusive club. The 'problem' of course is in ownership of assets that has rocketed in higher income deciles fuelled by the move towards home ownership stoked by property inflation and resulting in the establishment across a broader range of those income deciles of inheritable capital assets (not of itself a bad thing of course). This has however, barely changed for people stuck on lower incomes and that is why the removal of such positive measures like child trust funds, that would have at least established some sort of enhanced asset base for those on the lowest incomes as they enter higher education or work, is such a regressive step by the new government (as is the proposed removal of the EMA which has helped students from lower income groups stay in education to their longer term benefit).

Schools in this constituency have moved from a position in 1996 where, at some, fewer than 1 in 10 pupils were obtaining 5 A*-C GCSEs to a position now where every pupil is expected to achieve and be able to hold their own when it comes to jobs, higher education and wider opportunities. The removal of 30 year old 'temporary' prefab classrooms and outside toilets in local schools apparently only needed a government that saw state education as a priority and invested accordingly. The brand new and refurbished schools across the constituency are superb and each sends out a message in its own way that education is important, that it should be valued and that the staff and pupils in those schools deserve the very best.

So don't be downcast DC. You have just had three terms of a Labour government - the best we achieved before was a single full term. The NHS and state education have been transformed for the better and the language even the Tories are using is more our language than the language of Thatcherism (remember Section 28). So get involved and don't park yourself in a political cul-de-sac. I've been there and believe me, 18 years was an incredibly long time to put up with a government that had almost no interest in our public services. Maybe you should spend a bit more time 'on the knocker' and a little less on the Forum to enhance your perspective of what Labour has achieved and why people voted so strongly for Labour in our local constituency?

And MM - I agree that the question is HOW we provide for the weaker etc but it's also whether there is a will to even bother in the first place.

[Marmora Man]

And now Dianne Abbot is standing - epitome of New Labour values but sends son to fee paying elite school. Don't mind either position but combining the two is hypocritical.

[MitchK]

Please vote for Abbott as Socialist leader, that would be brilliant. Classic left wing hypocrite, criticising inequality and the rich but getting her son into City of London boys school. Just like Blair and Harman.

[Marmora Man]

And MM - I agree that the question is HOW we provide for the weaker etc but it's also whether there is a will to even bother in the first place.

Nice to have agreement across the political divide!

One of my concerns is that the gradual growth, over the last five decades, of state funded solutions to help the weaker etc can, certainly sometimes and perhaps too often, weaken the will of the greater society to help their brethren.

EG: Is it easier to sling "old grandad" into a council funded care home than look after him and his needs within the family? Is it easier to walk past the rough sleeper knowing that "the state and my taxes" are providing shelters rather than joining a charity and handing out soup, clean clothes, advice and shelter to help the man back into work?

I'm not suggesting a return to a "lady of the parish" handing out baskets of goodies to the deserving poor - but I do believe we can all do more to help others in ways that go beyond simply paying taxes for the state to dole out the help. It doesn't have to be an obvious direct link - becoming a volunteer with a youth group (scouts, cadets, youth clubs, art clubs, boxing club etc etc) can sometimes help youngsters avoid the gangs, knives & crime trap. Helping as a volunteer with an adult reading class could achieve more to help an unemployed person than the same person attending a Job Centre "clinic".

How to generate, develop, accelerate a desire to help with solutions is therefore perhaps an even more critical question.

[????]

Abbot epuousing left wing values is a bleedin' joke. She knows what's good for the plebs children but not her own...double ironic given that it was left wing ideology that helped wreck much of our state education in the first place.

[Loz]

I actually quite like Diane Abbott. Yes, she does have one weakness in her ideology in sending her kids to a posh school, but apart from that she's pretty sound.

Not sure she'd make a great leader, though. She can be a bit too frank and forthright in her views - diplomacy doesn't seem to be her strong point. She just doesn't seem to be a 'party' person - maybe that's why I like her.

I think she'd be a great local MP if she ever wants to up sticks from Hackney and head south of the river. Just can't see her leading Labour.

[TonyQuinn]

I suggest you all watch A Very British Coup for the only proper Labour government since Attlee's.....Ray McAnally, the greatest Labour Prime Minister ever.

[SeanMacGabhann]

DA is also a woo merchant

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah I like Diane Abbott too but I think she has no chance of winning. Unfortunately we are going to get one of the Milliblands probably (mispelling intended).....dull dull dull.