Scratch a Lib Dem, find a Tory

The Lib Dems have lost another 3 parliamentary candidates to the Tories, bringing the total to six.

So nearly 1% of the Lib Dems' standard bearers in 2005 turned out to be Tories.

This

a) suggests they are scraping the barrel to find parliamentary candidates

and

b) suggests their activist base are primarily motivated by being anti-Labour

None of this is a surprise to anyone active in local government, where the outcome in virtually every hung council is a Tory/Lib Dem coalition deal.

Someone needs to tell the Lib Dems' voters though, many of whom are under the delusion they were voting for a centre-left party, and some even more naively thought they were voting for a party to the left of Labour.

Maybe they are already beginning to work this out as yesterday's Communicate Research poll numbers were: LAB 37% (+1%); CON 36% (+2%); LD 14% (-3%).

Blair's holidays

Can someone explain to me what the big deal is about whether or not the Blairs paid for their holiday?

Surely loads of people get put up for free by friends at Christmas and New Year?

I can understand why politicians should register hospitality they have received in case it might influence their judgement, but why is he expected by the press to have paid for his holiday?

Though why he wants to spend Christmas in Florida with one of the Bee Gees is beyond me... the Tuscany option of years gone by (without Berlusconi...) sounded a lot more tasteful.

More on Cruddas

My ambivalent feelings about Jon Cruddas' deputy leadership campaign were reinforced by his press splash about party membership levels.

On the one hand as a party activist I want the deputy leadership candidates to talk about organisation and recruitment ...

on the other hand:

a) Jon was selective in his use of the figures - he talked about the huge drop off in membership since 2000 as though it was continuing at the same rate and could therefore be extrapolated to show a membership of zero by 2013. In fact, membership was fairly stable in 2005/6 - the big fall-off was in the run up to and just after the Iraq War - the just under 200,000 members we have now are here for the long haul.
b) Jon's right about the solution - (""You are not going to resolve this from Westminster - you are not going to resolve this simply through edicts from the centre," Mr Cruddas said.
"You need to build it from the bottom up. Activity on the streets, a local presence, continuously year-on-year and not just at election times." ") but surely there isn't anyone running for deputy who isn't in favour of year round local activism? And as I'm sure Jon knows, you can't wave a magic wand or elect a new deputy leader to create that local activity - it requires local leadership by MPs (who are a sadly mixed bag when it comes to local campaigning) and senior councillors, and a lot of time commitment and organisational skill from key activists.
c) Although I'm convinced we can raise membership levels a bit, and spread organisational best practice, anyone who thinks we can suddenly become a mass membership party by some political coup de theatre is living in cloud-cuckoo land - the highest that membership has been in recent decades was just over 400,000 in 1997 and that was in truly exceptional circumstances - at the end of 18 years of Tory rule and with Blair at the height of his popularity. Turning round membership levels is going to be more about unglamorous hard local slog than anything happening at a national level.
d) I'm unconvinced of the value of having back the 200,000 people whose loyalty was so fragile that they ripped up their cards as an anti-government gesture - we need members who will stay in and fight for what they believe in, not who see membership as a passing fad - something trendy to do when Labour is popular, and to petulently resign when you disagree with something a Labour government does.
e) Was Cruddas' press activity on this likely to recruit anyone? I thought the coverage made Labour activists look like a very small, and getting smaller, bunch of whingers who don't support their own government. Hardly an attractive proposition for anyone thinking of joining.
f) I have a sneaky suspicion that some of Jon's supporters think the route to mass membership nirvana is through a switch to the kind of policies that will make us unelectable - a suspicion borne out when one of the vox pops his campaign put up on the BBC turned out to be Laura Bruni (Colchester PPC in 2005) who is a nice person but a sponsor of Labour Briefing dominated "Labour Against the War", described by Red Pepper as a "sound leftwinger", was backed for the NPF by the Labour Representation Committee and by Campaign Briefing for the London Regional Board. (I'm pretty sure half the rest of them are people I recognise as involved in Compass, which is almost as bad).

So I think what I'm looking for is a deputy leadership candidate who shares Jon's keenness to boost grassroots activism, the union link and membership levels but isn't using this as a not very subtle code for calling for a more dramatic change of political direction, and isn't supported by/flirting with the 57 varieties of Labour leftists... or for Cruddas to explicitly distance himself from Compass and the forces to the left of them.

Apologies for this note of sectarianism in the season of goodwill, but the price of electability is eternal vigilence.

Not bad xmas presents ...

... for Labour supporters from YouGov and Mori:

YouGov - CON 37% (unchanged from Nov): LAB 32% (unchanged): LD 15% (-1%).
Mori - CON 37% (+2%): LAB 36% (+3%): LD 18% (-2%).

Glasnost

To celebrate passing 30,000 hits I have finally put some info in my blogger profile - I think probably getting on for 1/3 of readers know me anyway but that the rest of you might need a bit of context to explain who I am.

Christmas/New Year Wish List

Dear Santa,

in 2007 the political wish list I would like you to deliver is:

1) The UK getting through the year without suffering a major terrorist attack
2) Iraqi security forces starting to defeat the insurgents so that British troops can start coming home
3) Parliament voting for the UK to renew its strategic nuclear deterrent
4) Tony Blair to have a successful final six months in office, and leave at a time of his own choosing with people wishing he wasn't going
5) Hard Left candidates to manage to be nominated for Labour leader & deputy then get humiliated in the actual vote
6) Gordon Brown to hit the ground running as PM with initiatives on tackling poverty in the UK and globally that will be intrinsically important but also unify and re-energise the Labour Party
7) Labour to be relected in the Scottish and Welsh elections on 3 May
8) Regime change to democracy in Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Burma
9) Global action to stop the genocide in Darfur
10) Real international action on climate change (as opposed to windmills on David Cameron's roof)

Kamikaze Wednesday

It's Kamikaze day over on the Labour left. I am having trouble keeping count of all the no-hope leadership or deputy leadership bids being launched: the latest one is Meacher.

The Ken Clause

Mayor Ken Livingstone seems to have inspired an entire clause in the DCLG's newly published Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Bill:

"Codes of conduct
131 Conduct that may be covered by code
(1) In section 49 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (principles governing
conduct of members of relevant authorities), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The principles which may be specified under subsection (1) or (2) are
not limited to principles applying to a member or co-opted member only in his official capacity.
(2) In section 50 of that Act (model code of conduct), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The provisions which may be included in a model code of conduct are
not limited to provisions applying to a member or co-opted member
only in his official capacity.”
(3) In section 51 of that Act (duty of relevant authorities to adopt codes of
conduct), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The provisions which may be included under subsection (4)(c) are not
limited to provisions applying to a member or co-opted member of the
authority only in his official capacity.”
(4) In section 52 of that Act (duty to comply with code of conduct), in each of
subsections (1) to (4), omit the words “in performing his functions”.”

Translated into English that means that the law will be changed so that part of Ken's defence in the Finegold case - that he had his coat on and had left the building so was "not acting in his official capacity" would no longer hold any legal weight - anything that any councillor says or does at any time has to comply with the Code of Conduct, there is no such concept as "off duty" if you hold public office.

The Nightmare Ticket

Lansbury, Bevan, Castle, Foot, Benn ... through Labour's history its left (boo, hiss) has had some mighty standard bearers, charismatic, eloquent and capable of inspiring mass support amongst the kind of people who sell newspapers or whose idea of a fun night out is a compositing meeting.

In their foot steps comes the latest Labour left dream ticket reflecting the full array of talent, national profile and heavyweight government experience in the massed ranks of the political praetorian guard that is the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs.

Step forward - John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.

As John McDonnell's campaign website says, "another world is possible". Thankfully another galaxy would be needed before this pair ever got anywhere near winning.

Interestingly, Harry at Reclaim Labour spends most of his post on this slagging off Jon Cruddas, which a) suggests the Hard Left are scared of Cruddas and b) makes me think a lot more favourably of him.

Guardian ICM Poll

Interesting poll in the Guardian today - full details here.

Good news for the Tories as they are on 40% (+1% compared to the most recent ICM poll which was in the News of the World rather than the Guardian) - just into election winning territory.

The strange part is that despite the bad news over the last few weeks Labour is actually up 1% to 32% and its the Lib Dems, whose only news coverage has been Lembit Opik's cheeky antics, who are down 2% on 18%. The Guardian says "Labour's resilient performance confirms a trend suggesting support for the party has hit a bedrock of just over 30% and will not drop below that."

There's analysis by Anthony Wells (a Tory) here and Mike Smithson (a Lib Dem) here

The additional question re. who current party supporters would think about switching to is useful for political strategists:

Of Labour supporters, 30% would consider voting LD, 18% would consider voting Tory, 16% would consider voting Green, 9% would consider voting UKIP

Of Tory supporters, 32% would consider voting LD, 19% would consider voting Green, 14% would consider voting UKIP and only 10% would consider voting Labour

Of Lib Dem supporters, 32% would consider voting Labour, 30% would consider voting Green, 18% would consider voting Tory.

Of "other" voters (the biggest components of which are the SNP and Greens), 38% would consider voting LD, only 17% would consider voting Labour.

So -

Labour has not lost much support direct to the Tories - yet (hence we are not far adrift of our 2005 General Election support).
The Tories seem to have hoovered up a lot of the right wing of the 2005 Lib Dem vote but we (Labour) haven't won back the 1/3 of LDs that we could.
The LDs also need to really fear the Greens (as evidenced in many inner London council wards in May).
There isn't a lot of scope for Labour in squeezing the Greens and other minor parties - we aren't the second preference of those voters.

So going forward we need to work out how to grab back the 1/3 of Lib Dems (about 6% of the total voters) who might think about voting for us without alienating the 1/5 of our current support (about 6.5% of voters) that might defect to Cameron (or the 1/6 of our current support that might go for parties further to the right than the Tories) - and not forgetting about the 10% of Tories (4% of the electorate) who might switch back to us.

The location of these potential switchers is also key - are the 10% of Tories who might go Labour in more marginal seats than the 32% of Lib Dems?

And ... a Tory switcher in a Lab-Con marginal is worth a net change of 2 in the seat's majority (-1 Con, +1 Lab) whereas a Lib Dem switcher or a non-voter persuaded to vote only cause a net change of 1 - they up the Labour vote but don't reduce the Tory vote.

I don't think the LDs have gone as low as they can - a Labour recovery and continued urban growth in activity by the Greens could mean they end up back where Paddy Ashdown started in the early '90s.

Turkeys demand early Christmas

If I was an opposition leader with a mid-term lead of only 1%, I would not be demanding an early General Election which would take place at exactly the point at which the new PM was enjoying their political honeymoon.

"Political crimes"

Unless I have totally misunderstood the recent coverage, the Yates investigation is going to not result in charges, er... because the law wasn't broken.

So basically an extremist secessionist party (the SNP) has managed to persuade the Met to spend vast amounts of cash and police time investigating a conspiracy theory predicated on a complete misunderstanding of the criteria party leaders are allowed to use when awarding peerages.

If I make enough fuss about it can I get Yates to investigate the SNP for a) wasting police time and b) seditious treason (i.e. wanting to break up the UK)?

It all stands in sorry contrast to the years and years when the police ignored repeated calls for investigations into incidents of "granny farming" (proxy vote fraud involving stealing votes off the elderly) in various parts of the UK. In my own dear borough of Hackney a huge dosier with loads of evidence was handed over by the local Labour Party to the Police in the wake of the 1994 local elections regarding proxy vote fraud allegations. Similar stuff was provided after by-elections. No action was taken.

In the end Special Branch did investigate proxy vote fraud after the 1998 elections - and ended up convicting a Tory and a Lib Dem councillor on charges of conspiracy to defraud, fraud and attempted undue influence, and jailing them both. But in the mean time we had had a hung council for 3 years when the "real" electorate had actually voted for a Labour Council.

One of the 2 guys who was convicted for the 1998 crimes was the person in the frame for 1994 - which suggests he may have been guilty then but the police weren't prepared to resource an investigation...

Self-hating Labourism

Three whole days of nothing worth blogging about (or rather being too busy with Christmas parties to write anything) ... but today's Guardian provided plenty of ammo.

The theme seemed to be "we are Labour but we are ashamed of it, hate the government, hate ourselves for being Labour and are generally consumed with misery and self-loathing".

Which is an odd attitude to have when despite being 10 years into government, deep in mid-term, with a charismatic new opposition leader we are still only 1% behind in the polls - i.e. the hatred seems to be confined to our own ranks and the public who are a bit more objective still think we measure up quite well to the opposition.

Specific articles that wound me up during the 30 minutes of the 06.53 number 243 bus journey:

Larry Elliott appearing to condemn the government for protecting jobs in defence manufacturing (over the BAE/SFO case but actually he is making a wider point about the Defence Industrial Strategy once you delve beyond the headline) despite having been calling for the government to er... intervene to protect jobs in manufacturing in virtually every other article he writes. Presumably the government should instead of protecting "nasty" industries be investing in yoghurt-weaving collectives or similar. All the highly skilled engineers in Lancashire could stop making Eurofighters and re-train as Fresh & Wild check-out staff or recycling inspectors.

Patrick Wintour gets sarcastic about Blair's Middle East tour - despite the Guardian having been calling for us to take a leading role in brokering a Middle East peace deal ad nauseam. Blair actually goes and tries to do something about it, so the Guardian sneers at him.

Jackie Ashley tries to single-handedly reignite the leadership handover timing debate - after three months when there has been a direct correlation between everyone shutting up about the precise timing of the PM's departure and the Tory poll lead declining. Jackie we had that punch-up in September - it was a disaster - kindly don't re-start it.

Roy Hattersley implies that all Labour's major donors were venal and self-interested - a charming way to say thank you to the people that funded 3 election victories and whose main reward seems to have been to have their reputations smeared.

I don't think these people are capable of feeling happy about politics unless Labour is in opposition.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a newspaper in this country that supported the Labour Party unambiguously and featured commentators who were proud, rather than ashamed and self-flagellating, of the Labour Government?

No.10 replies on party funding and the union link

In my post below about the potential threat to the union link posed by the party funding review, I said "If anyone in No10 is reading this, please tell me the Guardian report is inaccurate".

John McTernan, Head of Political Operations at No10 has posted this response:

"John McTernan said...
Luke
Someone in No 10 is reading this and the Guardian report is totally untrue. I can do better than to give an account of what the Prime Minister said to the PLP Parliamentary Committee yesterday afternoon:

The Prime Minister attended the Parliamentary Committee where he was asked about Hayden Phillips Review of Party Funding. The PM made clear that he will do nothing that would break the link. In the discussion he said that the party has some serious decisions to make about party funding. If the status quo remains then Lord Ashcroft's money will mean that the Labour Party will be massively outspent in key Labour seats at the next General Election. We need annual spending limits and local spending limits to be introduced if there is to be a level playing field at the next election.The Tory Party want a cap on donations but they are resisting spending limits. Hayden Phillips needs to recognise that trade union funding is already highly regulated. He is proposing a model where trade unionists opt into paying the levy. That is completely unacceptable to the Labour Party."

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people

You can take a ringside seat as Tory activists bite chunks out of each other publicly over whether the drop to a 1% lead in today's Populus poll shows Cameron's strategy has failed. It's all online here.

Best quotes:

• "I'm no lover of Gordon Brown far from it, but where is the empirical evidence that he is a "loser"? We are in great danger of believing that he will be a push over. As much as I hope he is, I don't think we should underestimate this man."
• "We're trying to get Cameron into office despite all his most recent efforts to prevent it. When we give up in disgust and failure, there is only UKIP.36% on the poll of polls, down 3% since I started bloggin here, isnt even enough for a hung parliament.Yes I know this is a rogue poll and yes the feeling on the ground is much more positive etc etc etc etcBut "in the bowels of Christ I beseech thee, think thee that thou may be wrong?""
• "It is clear that the 2% we have lost has gone straight to the 'others', possibly UKIP.
  Greg Clarke may have totaly ruined my dream of seeing the back of Labour with his totally crass statements. He is as much of a fool as some of the crackpots in UKIP who are benefitting from his shocking judgement.
  Why hasn't Cameron sacked him?"
• "we are NOT going to win a majority in the Commons with 34% of the vote. We won't even get there with the 39% quoted in the Cameron v Brown figures.
  We are NOT going to win by actively trying to turn away conservatives from the Conservative Party!
  Why do you hold conservatives with such raw contempt?"
• "You and your kind do NOT believe in a broad church. You adhere to the bankrupt Portillo theory that you can alienate your core vote (who will still vote for you out of deference) and win a General Election by picking up floating Lib Dem-leaning votes in a few constituencies in Greater London and the South-East. This strategy has always struck me as utterly bonkers, even from a purely tactical perspective"
• "We do face a serious challenge from Labour and to convince the public that we've really changed. "
• ""Putting the brake on change is the last thing we need now. We need to go faster."
  That presupposes that the "change" message is one that appeals to much of the electorate. I don't think it does, and may even be demoralising our supporters."
• "I cannot live with this "leader" who seems so shallow and uninterested in real issues facing this country. Brown is more attractive to me than Cameron"
• "I've expecting for months that the wheels would come off the Cameron bandwagon. This poll seems to indicate that the public are finally suffering the long-predicted effects of Cameron fatigue.
  Once Cameron starts to lag in the polls he will soon be easy meat in the water, just as IDS was before him. Then the predators can move in for the kill.
  I voted for Davis in the election last year but I'm moving to favour a comeback by Hague."
• "On the evidence to date I cannot see the Cameron makeover putting the Tories back into power. Cameron's attempts to woo the electorate are analagous to a younger sister plastering herself in make-up to draw the attention of an older sister's boyfriend. The overall effect is shallow, embarrassing, and ultimately self-defeating. "
• "Well, as the saying goes, you get to reap what you sow.
  Having prostituted the Party against the wishes of a large minority (at least)of the membership with his reckless and needless gamble at the altar of touchy feely Political correctness, it's landed butter side down.
  What price Ming being the only current leader still in situ at the next GE ?"

IDS

Has it occurred to IDS and the other Tories pontificating about marriage being the great social cure-all that they might have mistaken cause and effect? I.e. that contrary to their suggestion that unmarried couples lead to relationships breaking up leads to crime, poverty etc. that it might be that poverty and deprivation, as well as breeding crime, put such strain on people that they contribute to their relationships breaking down?

Defend the union link

If this report in today's Guardian is true, and Blair wants to use the review of party funding to sever the union link with Labour, I am aghast at the short-termism and stupidity.

I can understand that at the moment a number of General Secretaries are seen as destructive or unhelpful towards the government. But the answer to that is for the moderate majority in the unions to get organised and elect some new general secretaries with a less dinosaur attitude.

It isn't for Blair to turn the final months of his premiership into a fight he does not need to have, will probably lose and if he wins it will destroy the character of the Labour Party and ultimately weaken it.

The union link works. It gives a voice in Labour's policy making to millions of ordinary working class voters whose concerns are grounded in the realities and bread and butter issues of the workplace and who counterbalance the esoteric and sometimes extremist views of often middle class individual party members. It means that Labour's leaders are elected by a large, representative sample of those who actually vote for the Party. The only problem with the link is that it needs strengthening at a local level with far more trade unionists being encouraged to both join the Party as individual members and become union delegates to their constituency parties.

The link provides a constant conveyer belt from union activists of recruits to public office - councillors and MPs - virtually the only way in which ordinary working class people get to hold public office - if it didn't exist the PLP would be even more dominated by lawyers and other professionals and career politicians (before anyone fills the comments box, yes I know that I fall into the latter category - it doesn't stop me being objective about Labour's candidates needing to be representative).

In policy terms it is difficult to see how anyone could think that the Warwick Agreement reached with the affiliated unions was not a positive input to Labour's 2005 Manifesto, including important policies on workers' rights that might otherwise have not been committed to.

When the Labour Party hits hard times, the unions keep it going. When it tried to self destruct in the 1930s, '50s and '80s the unions were the voice of sanity and moderation.

We owe our existence as a party to the decision of the unions to set up the LRC with the Fabians and ILP, and to the work of individual trade unionists in setting up a CLP organisation on the ground.

Without the unions we are just A.N.Other centre-left political party like the Lib Dems, the SDP or the US Democrats - rootless, not embedded in the communities we represent, and liable to be blown away by the first political gale just like the Liberals were in the early years of the century and the SDP were at the end of the '80s.

I cannot think of more than a dozen Labour MPs who would back any move to sever the link.

This is not a left-right issue - most of my friends on the right of the party are passionate supporters of the union link.

I declare an interest - I'm an Amicus member, serve on my union's Regional Political Committee and am a union delegate to my local Labour Party.

If anyone in No10 is reading this, please tell me the Guardian report is inaccurate, and if it isn't please try to stop this crass act of political madness before it goes any further.

Rudd puts ALP into lead

The switch of Labor leader last week to Kevin Rudd seems to have worked. The first poll since it happened puts the ALP on 46% (up 7%) on its first preference support.

After second preferences from minor parties are redistributed the ALP is on 55%, the Liberal/National Coalition government on 45%.

Official: Luke's blog has more readers than Workers' Liberty newspaper

I enjoyed having a go back at Kit of the AWL in the comments to the last post, so here is the exchange again:

Kit said:

""Solidarity" a fringe journal? Hardly. I know that it has a circulation in the thousands every fortnight from subscribers alone, which include several Labour MPs, trade union leaders, as well as hundreds of Labour members and trade unionists. Trust me. I've stuffed those envelopes. Plus, the AWL website gets tens of thousands of hits every three days or so. More than your blog, Luke. Get a grip, Luke. Quite frankly, you're not important. I just can't let lies and bullshit stand."

I said:
"OK Kit, some facts from the AWL's registration and reports on the Electoral Commission website:

1) Workers' Liberty is a registered political party and has been since 1999. It has no more remit to interfere in Labour's leadership election than the Tories or Lib Dems do.

2) In 2005 sales of Solidarity raised £17,803 at a subscription price of £15 per year (according to the AWL website) meaning it has just under 1200 subscribers which is about 150 less than the number of individual readers I get per month.The AWL website points out that every member has to sell at least 12 copies of Solidarity a month - presumably you buy them yourself if you can't sell them, thus inflating the circulation - effectively Solidarity is just a way of adding £13.20 to each member's monthly fees.

3) AWL membership subs raised £40,647 that year. Members without dependents on any income above £940 a month pay £120 per month to the party - i.e. you could have as few as 28 members - but assuming most of your members are students and don't pay the full whack I'll be generous and assume your entire national "party" has over 100 members i.e. about the size of a single large Labour ward party or just over twice the size of the Hackney Council Labour Group. AWL's own conference report 2006 says: " The general picture is that our own weaknesses, and theweaknesses of the movement around us, have prevented uspushing through the desirable goals we set ourselves in our 2005conference resolution."

The voting figures in the minutes of AWL's 2006 conference report 52 or 53 members present - most of whom I recognised by their "Mark S" or "Janine B" nommes de guerre - as attendance is open to all members and you lot do enjoy meetings, I guess that is the sum total of your active membership.At least you are not the SWP, but please don't kid yourselves you are going to change the direction of the Labour Party.

P.S. many of the hits on your site are me reading the internal strategy documents you helpfully post there. "

Going nowhere fast with John McD

The Alliance for Workers' Liberty' s newspaper "Solidarity" (circulation probably lower than this website) provides some interesting insights into the market that exists out there in the Labour Party for John McDonnell as Leader.

According to AWL the key to the campaign is to "organise local meetings". Just what the labour movement needs, another series of meetings.

Note that it doesn't say invite McDonnell or someone from his campaign to your local branch Labour Party or constituency General Committee. Which may hint at how much of the enthusiasm for McDonnell is coming from outside the ranks of the party he seeks to lead.

Apparently the campaign has "a lack of resources" - something to do with having very few supporters?

There are apparently "hundreds of thousands of disgruntled Labour members and ex-members, opponents of Blairism in the unions and Trades Councils who can help a local organisational push" - again references to groups of people who (even in the unlikely event that they do number in hundreds of thousands - hundreds is more likely) are not all Labour Party members.

Apparently my own dear borough is the organising model for this:
"In Hackney, we've set up an organising group, which on December 2nd brought together 22 comrades willing to take a role in building support for John in their unions - and in other campaigns, such as Keep Our NHS Public, tenants' organisations and Stop the War. Passing resolutions in trade union and Labour branches is part of this work - our ultimate goal is to hold a conference of local working-class activists and community campaigners in March to support John4Leader. Helping John's influence to grow requires gradual campaign-building and an ongoing local organising body, with regular meetings."

I'd love to know who the 22 "comrades" are because counting heads I know John McDonnell hasn't got 22 active supporters inside the Hackney Labour Party (at a rough count I make it about 12).

Then comes the big admission - they have absolutely zappo support or organisation amongst actual Labour Party members:

"Gone are the days when Tony Benn won 83% of the constituency Labour Party vote for deputy leader, when local parties were the main base of the left and the leadership had to rely on the union block vote to save its skin at Labour Party conference. It is not just a question of the Labour membership moving to the right: much more fundamental is the fact that most local parties have withered almost the point of dissolution, so that there is very little left to fight about. True, party members will have big say in the leadership election, but there is little organisation left to provide the basis of working-class party cleansed of Blairism."

I suspect the trade union support McDonnell has is not from Labour Party members involved in their union's political structures but from flotsam and jetsom from other political parties who happen to be trade unionists.

It then goes on to suggest how to organise for McDonnell in your union, citing examples of work done in the RMT and NUT. I hate to point it out comrades but activity relating to a Labour leadership campaign in either of those unions is a complete waste of time as neither of them is affiliated to Labour so they have no voice in the process.

So, the current state of the Labour "hard left":
- backing a leadership candidate who can't win
- no funding because no one supports them
- cheerled by expelled groups of Trots
- mainly organising in unions that aren't Labour affiliates
- incapable of organising in the CLPs due to lack of support
- self-confessedly unpopular amongst ordinary Labour Party members
- but organising lots and lots of extra meetings!

Keep up the good work comrades, at least it is occupying your time so you can't do anything more dangerous.

A new member...

I am glad to report as Membership Secretary of Hackney North & Stoke Newington CLP (having waited until he announced it himself) that we have a new comrade ... blogger Dave Osler has rejoined the Labour Party.

We will be in the same ward party, which could mean there will be some interesting debates.

Dave isn't exactly coming from the same place as me in the political spectrum - in fact he named me in his chapter on Labour people in the public affairs industry in his book Labour Party plc - but as he explains in detail in his blog he is not an entryist, so I'm pleased he has rejoined.

We are an extremely broad church in the Hackney North party and manage to combine vigorous differences of opinion with being comradely and friendly towards each other, so I think he'll fit in fine.

Bloggers4labour can now add Dave to their lists ...

Pinochet dead ...

part of me wants to celebrate, part of me to regret that he did not live long enough to be brought to justice by the courts in Chile.

It Says Nothing To Me About My Life

Here we go again ... obscure Tory frontbencher Dominic Grieve has called for a return to Victorian values.

Are we the only country that has politicians who seriously look at society 100 to 150 years ago for moral and policy guidance?

Do the German CDU say "let's get back to Wilhelmine values" or French conservatives say "let's get back to 3rd Republic values".

I don't want to go back to Victorian values - private repression and hypocrisy, gross inequality and exploitation, public moralising and espousals of religiosity by people with lifestyles funded by the systematic ripping off of the British working classes and the colonies.

Grieve's core argument seems to be that all the ills of society are created by people not getting married. As someone who has been with the same partner for 8 years, has a child with them, and has no intention of getting married, I feel personally insulted by Mr Grieve's insinuation that I am the root cause of, according to the Observer, " poverty, school failure and crime."

The reality is that people's lives don't all fit into a neat pattern of marry, have 2.4 kids and live happily ever after. Attempts by the Tories to assert that that's how everyone should live just remind people that they are offering 19th century solutions to 21st century problems.

Every day is like Sunday

As fellow Labour bloggers The Daily spotted (though they didn't bother to come over and say hallo) Linda and I spent Friday evening at the Morrissey concert at Wembley Arena.

As expected it was fantastic - I even forgive him the lyric

"I've been dreaming of a time whenThe English are sick to death of Labour, And Tories"

as I expect does David Cameron, who was there in the audience too, according to the Sunday Times.

Disappointingly he didn't sing "Margaret on the Guillotine"...

Clwyd vs Lloyd

Ann Clwyd's defeat as PLP Chair by Tony Lloyd just goes to show how a lot of MPs don't fit easily into categories, how Blair has had personal support from a few lefties (another example is Dennis Skinner) and how Iraq has cut across traditional left-right lines.

Clwyd has been characterised as the "Blairite" candidate in the election because of her support for the Iraq War on human rights grounds. But this is almost the only issue on which she has ever agreed with Blair.

If my memory of conversations with former comrade (now sadly departed to the Lib Dems) Brian Sedgemore is correct, Ann was a big friend of him and other maverick MPs Bob Marshall-Andrews and Dale Campbell-Savours (at least until the vote on the war).

She was sacked from the frontbench by Kinnock for voting against the defence estimates in 1988, and sacked again by Blair in 1996 for ignoring whips' instructions on not travelling to Kurdistan.

She is anti-nuclear and voted against the whip on single parent benefits, invalidity benefits, trial by jury, the pensions/earning link, the NATS PPP, newspaper predatory pricing, and FoI.

My hunch is that the maths of her narrow victory in 2005 being turned into a narrow defeat this time is very simple: some or all of the 17 signatories of the September "Blair must go"letter would have voted either by conviction or because of being PPSs for Clwyd in '05 but in '06 voted for the Brownite candidate instead.

I think it's a shame that a principled politician like Clwyd (who I would disagree with on almost every issue other than Iraq) has lost her position, but I buy into some of the PLP critique that Lloyd will bring more open debate - perhaps if more debate and votes happen at PLP meetings MPs will feel they have had their say and be more accepting of the PLP's collective discipline.

Dave on the Lib Dems

Probably much to his horror/surprise, I quite often find things I agree with on the blog of fellow N16 resident Dave Osler - http://www.davidosler.com/

His description of Lib Dem council candidates today was particularly good:

"the vast majority of council candidate-level activists in Ming Campbell’s mob are unprincipled, opportunist, careerist, scheming, hypocritical, double-dealing, two-faced, pavement politics obsessed inner and outer tossers."

Dutch Courage

This has got to be the sickest joke in military history - medals for the Dutch UN peacekeepers who stood by and watched the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.

MPs' pay

My solution to the calls from some MPs for a pay increase from £60k to £100k:

give them the pay increase but cut the number of MPs to 388 so the total bill remains the same.

This would still be more than enough members to provide ministers and opposition front benches and would guarantee that every remaining backbencher had a meaningful scrutiny role on a select committee.

The US manages with 435 Congressmen and 100 senators for a population 5 times larger than us.

Independent salary review bodies have consistently given Directly Elected Mayors more pay than backbench MPs because of the executive powers and management role they have, so let's see council leaders rewarded properly across the country and some of our surplus legislators encouraged to go back into their communities and run the local council.

Just an idea, what do people think?

Another leadership change for ALP

As posted about here over the weekend, the 88 federal MPs and Senators of the Austalian Labor Party held a leadership ballot on Monday.

Incumbent leader Kim "Bomber" Beazley was beaten by 49-39 by Kevin Rudd, running on a "New Labor" ticket.

This follows changes of leader in 2001 (the first time Beazley was ousted), 2003 and 2005.

Both candidates are on the right of the ALP - Rudd is a big supporter of Israel who self-describes as "basically a conservative when it comes to questions of public financial management". The choice was mainly about style - age & experience versus a fresh start.

In his acceptance speech Rudd said Labor stood for "equity ... sustainability ... compassion'' and was the Australian party of "social democrats" and said:

"The bogus proposition, which has been put by those opposite for over a decade or so now, is that somehow we from the Centre Left of politics in this country and around the world have been disoriented by the fall of the Iron Curtain. Our movement for a century fought against Marxism, if you bother to read your history. We have had nothing to do with Marxism and madness. We have always seen our role as what we can do to civilise the market. That is where we come from as a tradition. Why do you think Keynes and the rest of them were called upon to try to save market capitalism from itself after the Great Depression? Because social Democrats believed that you had to have constraints placed around the market, otherwise it becomes too destructive indeed. "

The polls suggest that this change of leader will not impact on the 2-party preferred vote (in Australia they have a transferable voting system where most lower house seats end up in a run off between a Labor and Coalition candidate) but will boost Labor's first preferences share by squeezing the Greens and minor parties.

It may also have a big impact in Queensland, where Rudd is from, where Labor only holds six of I think 23 seats and needs to pick up a lot of marginals to win at a federal level.

The continued chaos at the federal level of the ALP, which has now been in opposition since 1996, contrasts with the state level where the ALP has been enjoying its most sucessful period ever electorally and where a lot of talented ALP politicians have chosen to focus their energy.

Pinochet

It's being reported that General Pinochet has been given the last rites by a priest.

I wonder how much of what he did or ordered to be done as dictator of Chile he ever confessed and sought absolution for?

And how many of the socialists, trade unionists and democrats who were his victims had the consolation of receiving the last rites as they were bombed in Allende's presidential palace, tortured to death in the national stadium or military barracks or thrown to their deaths into the Pacific from military aircraft?

There are very few thoroughly evil personalities in world politics, but Pinochet was one of them. During his 17 year rule, which overthrew a previously stable democracy, he is thought to have had 3,000 political opponents killed, about 30,000 tortured and another 70,000 detained.

And this was a regime that many British Tories openly praised ...

"New Labor" may mean something different Down Under

In Australia the Labor Party has a leadership ballot on Monday, the second in as many years and 5th in the time Labour in the UK has had one leader.

No new-fangled OMOV or electoral college there - only the 88 ALP MPs get a vote.

It's between incumbent retread veteran leader Kim Beazley (from Western Australia but historically an ally of the powerful New South Wales Right faction) and Queenslander Kevin Rudd, the shadow foreign minister, who is running as "New Labor". Rudd was historically a Beazley ally but has paired up with Julia Gillard from the Victorian Left faction to pull in left votes. The NSW Right has split over the election with former state premier Bob Carr backing Rudd, but current state premier Morris Iemma backing Beazley.

One Labor commentator called the election one between "Right and Righter" (hmm... how unlike any recent infighting here in the northern hemisphere).

The main rightwing unions seem to be sticking with Beazley on the basis that he has the gravitas to take on John Howard whereas Rudd might be taken apart by the coalition in the same way the inexperienced Mark Latham was. Former Latham supporters are said to be behind the Rudd leadership bid.

The latest round of ALP infighting looks mainly to be helping Howard, whoever wins on Monday.

More here and here

November Stats

During the course of November the site had 5919 page views (up from 5500 in Oct) and 1354 different visitors (narrowly up from 1335 in Oct).

Top 10 referring sites sending people here:http://www.google.com/ and variants – 19% of visitors
http://www.bloggers4labour.org/ - 8% of visitors
http://www.blogger.com/ – 7% of visitors
http://www.davespartblog.blogspot.com/ – 3% of visitors
http://www.lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com/ – 3% of visitors
http://www.kris-stoke-newington.blogspot.com/ – 2% of visitors
http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/ – 2% of visitors
http://www.reclaimlabour.blogspot.com/ – 2% of visitors
http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/ – 2% of visitors
http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/ – 1% of visitors

(5 of the above were sites having a go at me … thanks for the traffic)

Visitor locations:UK 65% (-2% from Oct)USA 11% (-1%)
Canada 1% (+1%)
Australia 1% (+1%) … must have been the Kim Beazley mention … or emigration of my former researcher at work to Sydney – g’day Tom…

Heaviest day of traffic: Nov 27

Most read posts: this and this

Strangest google seach terms leading to this site:”foie gras akehurst”
“what was the housing like in Dagenham long ago”
“I hate Diane Abbott”

Dom McElroy

The sad news that Gordon Brown's baby son has cystic fibrosis made me think about Dominic McElroy.

Dom was my flatmate in about 1998 and a member of the Labour Students National Committee with me.

He tragically died from cystic fibrosis in 2001 when he was only 27 years old.

Although he knew that he was not likely to live a long life and had to constantly remember medication and diet and go for check-ups he never made a fuss about his condition (most people who met him in politics were unaware of it) and in fact dedicated himself to Labour Party activism - packing in more voluntary and professional work for the Party into his 27 years than many people do into decades.

You can donate online to the cystic fibrosis trust, which is trying to research a cure, here: http://www.cftrust.org.uk/index.jsp

My alter ego comes visiting

I don't often draw attention to the spoof Luke Akehurst site (it just encourages him) but think it's justified today on 2 grounds:

a) Standing outside my house taking photos of it is creepy and goes a bit beyond satire and into the realms of stalking, and was also a bit stupid as Cllr Smith was at home and saw you.

b) You have made several recent references to the President of Kazakhstan, suggesting I support dodgy central Asian tyrannies. This is spectacularly wide of the mark, as my only connection with Borat's homeland or any other country in the region is that back in 2004 I actually used to work for the then democratic opposition party, Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan, helping them inform MPs here about the human rights situation in their country.

Top Ten things I'd never do

Kris has tagged me with this, which I think was a chain started by Iain Dale.

Anyway, here goes.

I would never:

1) Become a vegetarian
2) Be a football fan
3) Vote for any party other than Labour
4) Forgive Margaret Thatcher for what she did to this country
5) Understand why some people on the "left" enthuse about dictatorships like Cuba but attack the USA and Israel
6) Turn down an invite to a good restaurant
7) Get bored of listening to anything by the Smiths or Morrissey (despite my views on vegetarianism)
8) Take another politically restricted job that stopped me blogging, writing to newspapers and canvassing (tried it and hated it)
9) Send my son to a faith, selective or fee-paying school
10) Hide what I believe in to win votes

The 10 fellow bloggers I nominate to do the same are:

Dave Osler, Theo Blackwell, Dave Hill, Stuart Bruce, Tom Watson, David Cole, Adele Reynolds, Paulie, Martin Whelton, Shamik Das.

Bob, Ken, Trevor and race

Today's Daily Mirror reveals that Bob Spink MP has modified none of his less than charming views on race and immigration since I stood against him in Castle Point in the last General Election.

Back then, he ran a series of local newspaper adverts with the headline "'What bit of 'send them back' don't you understand Mr Blair?' " and me & the Lib Dem candidate complained about him to the CRE.

So much for Cameron's new cuddly liberal Tory Party. Same old Tories, same old redneck views.

However, rather than focussing on this kind of disgusting bigotry, anti-racists are busy attacking each other - see Ken Livingstone's bizarre series of attacks on Trevor Phillips.

Ken - hint - on this issue your enemies are Bob Spink and the BNP not Trevor and the CRE.

Cameron in IDS polling territory

The MORI poll reported in the Observer yesterday shows (their words) this:

"satisfaction ratings among British voters have plummeted lower than Tony Blair's, a new Ipsos Mori poll reveals, raising fresh questions over whether his rebranding of the party has worked.
As he approaches his first anniversary as leader next month, the Conservatives are still two points ahead of Labour, on 35 to 33 per cent of the vote among those absolutely certain to go to the ballot box. But attempts to woo women and young people with initiatives such as promising tax relief on childcare, recruiting more female MPs or sympathising with hoodies appear to have failed, with the two per cent rise in Tory support since the general election - when Michael Howard was in charge - coming mostly from men and the middle-aged.

One year on and Cameron is slippingTory leader's satisfaction ratings are comparable to that of Howard, Hague and IDS, new poll shows Gaby Hinsliff, political editorSunday November 26, 2006The Observer
David Cameron's satisfaction ratings among British voters have plummeted lower than Tony Blair's, a new Ipsos Mori poll reveals, raising fresh questions over whether his rebranding of the party has worked.
As he approaches his first anniversary as leader next month, the Conservatives are still two points ahead of Labour, on 35 to 33 per cent of the vote among those absolutely certain to go to the ballot box. But attempts to woo women and young people with initiatives such as promising tax relief on childcare, recruiting more female MPs or sympathising with hoodies appear to have failed, with the two per cent rise in Tory support since the general election - when Michael Howard was in charge - coming mostly from men and the middle-aged.
The revelation that only 25 per cent of the electorate consider themselves 'satisfied' with Cameron's performance as leader of the opposition - rising only to 45 per cent among Tory voters, down from 60 per cent in February - will be a blow to his inner circle, given that it suggests a similar trajectory to his failed predecessors Howard, Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague.
The most common reason for dissatisfaction was lack of clarity about his policies.
Damagingly, voters who previously approved of Cameron are now starting to turn against him, according to Mori founder Sir Robert Worcester."

The actual figures "found Conservative support at 35 per cent, Labour on 33 and the Liberal Democrats on 20 per cent among those certain to vote - who made up 56 per cent of those questioned. Among all those giving a preference, Labour has a five-point lead, but these individuals are not all likely to vote."

Sounds like a good reason to intriduce compulsory voting.

GLLP Conference

On Saturday I took time out from unpacking my 26 boxes of political biographies, Times guides to the Commons, Waller's almanacs etc to attend the Greater London Labour Party biennial regional conference.

Highlight for me was falling asleep during Ken Livingstone's speech. I woke up in time to hear that the GLA (and presumably the London precept on my council tax) are funding a festival of Cuban culture next year to celebrate 50 years of the revolution. I restrained myself from using the Q&A to ask if the festival would mention Cuban democracy and human rights (or lack thereof).

As usual the left made a lot of noise but didn't actually seem to have a majority amongst either TU or CLP delegates, which is significant given London's historic role as the thermometer of the Labour Party where political trends are evident first before they reach the rest of the country.

On the key "test vote" which was a move to reference back the Conference Arrangement Committee report (GLLP conferences are a bit '80s retro in style) and allow an emergency debate from the TSSA against private sector involvement in the East London Line, the platform won by 106 votes to 76.

Elections to the GLLP Board produced the following results (descriptions of candidates in the CLP section are my interpretation partly based on the "line" that was in the left's Campaign Briefing flyer - apologies to anyone who feels I have misrepresented their position):

Chair: Len Duvall LAM (unopposed)
Vice-Chair: Linda Perks (UNISON) - (unopposed)
National Policy Forum: Maggie Cosin (moderate, GMB) and Pat O'Keefe (left, TGWU) (both unopposed)
Ethnic Minorities Officer: Raj Jethwa (left, GMB) 85% beat Munir Malik (moderate, Co-Op) 13%, Abdul Aziz Toki (Lewisham W) 1%, Nagus Narenthira (Hendon) 1%
CLPs London NW
Woman: Lisa Homan (moderate, Chelsea & Fulham) 82%, beating Claire Farrier (Hendon, don't know her politics) 18%
Man: Chris Payne (moderate, Ealing Southall) 53%, beating Colin Bastin (left, Ealing Acton & SB) 18%, Alex Brodin (Hendon) 18%, William Hunter (Hammersmith) 12%.
CLPs London S & SE
Woman: Joanne Milligan (moderate, Croydon C) unopposed
Man: Charlie Mansell (moderate, Sutton & Cheam) 93% beat Chris Purnell (left, Orpington) 7%
CLPs London N & NE
Woman: Sally Mulready (moderate, Hackney N) 69% beat Laura Bruni (left, Walthamstow) 31%
Man: Aktar Beg (left, Chingford) 51% beat Alan Griffiths (moderate, W Ham) 49% - largely because the East Ham delegate went home early having forgotten to vote!
CLPs London Central
Woman: Lucy Anderson (left, Holborn) unopposed
Man: Francis Prideaux (left, Westminster N) 64% beat Sam Townend (moderate, Vauxhall) 36%
Trade Unions
Elected:
Jenny Bremner (Amicus) unopposed
Hilary Hosking (TSSA) unopposed
Sheila Thomas (USDAW) unopposed
Rachel Voller (UNISON) unopposed
Ed Blissett (GMB) 303,000
Steve Hart (TGWU) 303,000
Alan Tate (CWU) 303,000
Stuart King (Amicus) 200,000
Not elected: Amarjit Singh (TSSA) 103,000
Co-Op: Joe Simpson & Dora Dixon Fyle - both uncontested
Socialist Societies: Huw Davies, uncontested
Young Labour: Alun Or-Bach, uncontested
MEP: Mary Honeyball, uncontested
MPs: Jon Cruddas and Andrew Dismore, both uncontested
London Councils: Chris Roberts & Tony Newman, both uncontested

Moving

Apologies for the silence for 3 days as I have been busy moving house to Beatty Road, which for the political anoraks out there is in Stoke Newington Central ward, politically the soundest branch in Hackney North CLP, and the one I used to chair before our previous move four years ago.

This has the added benefit of moving me out of the only Lib Dem ward in Hackney, so now I have Labour councillors again (and a CPZ and compulsory recycling to get used to).

In the mean time Kerron Cross seems to have got concerned that I have won the Labour Home poll on which blogger should be deputy Labour leader in 2022. Final results were:

Antonia Bance 16 votes - 31 %
Andrew Regan 0 votes - 0 %
Neil Harding 2 votes - 3 %
Alex Hilton 5 votes - 9 %
Kerron Cross 5 votes - 9 %
Tom Freeman 2 votes - 3 %
Adele Reynolds 1 vote - 1 %
Luke Akehurst 21 votes - 41 %
Miranda Grell 1 vote - 1 %
Andrew Brown 1 vote - 1 %
51 Total Votes

and various comradely people to my left have defended my honour in the comments section after Reclaim Labour got rather over excited last week (thank you David, Duncan & Hamer, much appreciated that you can disagree with me without resorting to Mr Perkins' line in abuse).

Hackney City Farm

Thanks to my council colleagues Barry, Sade & Jonathan at http://www.haggerstonlabour.blogspot.com/ for the news that the excellent Hackney City Farm in their ward won £50k to reclaim and clean up unused wasteland in and around Haggerston Park and local estates for public and community use from the Big Lottery Fund.

Jed Akehurst (aged 13 months) particularly enjoyed the pigs and the Music and Movement for 0-2 1/2 year olds when he went there last Friday with his mum. I was stuck at work so will have to wait for a weekend trip before I get to go...

Wind power

At last night's Homerton Neighbourhood Forum we heard a really interesting presentation from the Olympic Delivery Authority about the physical legacy that will be created by having the Olympics on Hackney's doorstep.

The one bit that I didn't like is the plan to have a 120 metre high wind turbine permanently towering over the Lea Valley marshes.

I don't mind wind turbines out at sea - in fact the ones in the Thames Estuary north of Herne Bay look quite good - but on land I'm concerned that the environmental benefits of the green energy production are balanced out by the environmental despoilation of having an ugly eyesore towering over the landscape.

What do people think?

Hello

I'm interested to find out who the 250-ish people are who read this blog most days but never post a comment.

In blog-speak you are known rather insultingly as "lurkers" - I prefer "readers".

So in the spirit of the "readers' meetings" that Militant used to have, this post is an online "readers' meeting".

If you have never posted a comment before (maybe because you agree with everything I say!) please break your silence and say hi, and tell us a bit about who you are and where you are from, why you read the site (is it because you agree with it or you enjoy being wound up by things you disagree with?) and any suggestions you have (e.g. topics I should post more about).

PS

I am delighted to take back my mention of Margaret Beckett as a Trident replacement sceptic in yesterday's post. The Guardian today says she "said yesterday she would support the retention of a British independent nuclear deterrent." Well done Mrs Beckett.

Reverting to type

Long forgotten political alignments seem to be bubbling to the surface in certain quarters - see this article in the Times saying Beckett, Hain and H Benn "have all expressed private reservations about extending or replacing the Trident missile system".

I'm prepared to bet quite a bit Ms Harman will also jump on that particular bandwagon.

All helps me decide who not to give my lower preference votes to in the Deputy Leadership election.

And makes me feel very uneasy about what shallow roots the sane Labour project has amongst some parliamentarians. Being pro-nuclear deterrent isn't even after all a Blair era change - unpicking this is going back on a pretty basic policy change enacted by Kinnock as long ago as 1988.

Anyone would have thought some of these characters were actively wanting a period in opposition.

Perhaps ...

... Syria is not necessarily the best potential partner in the War on Terror?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6169606.stm

Voting time

A perfect opportunity has been created for my online fan club to vent their spleen by voting against me for something ... Paul Burgin has created a fantasy deputy leadership where the candidates are Labour bloggers - he's put me down as one of 10 candidates - you can vote here:

http://pauldburgin.labourhome.org/story/2006/11/20/9131/2158

Of course positive support is also welcome, though I am not holding my breath until I get my first vote.

Be careful who you invite to dinner

Poor Margaret Hodge - all over the news for a few indiscrete remarks about Iraq at an Islington Fabian Society dinner.

Perhaps it was not that sensible of the Islington Fabians to give a ticket to the man who broke the story - Eric Gordon. Eric edits three of the most lively, intensely political and investigative local free newspapers in the country: the Islington Tribune, Camden New Journal and West End Extra.

But he ain't exactly a fan of the moderate wing of the Labour Party - there's more about his political background here - living in China in the '60s, he was "fundamentally sympathetic and supportive of Mao" (until put under house arrest) and admits he had "taken part in the whole Cultural Revolution" (charming - as it involved the deaths of several million innocent people).

Eric must have thought it was journalistic christmas when Margaret started having a go at Blair's foreign policy.

If the Islington Fabians would like a speaker who actually supports Blair's foreign policy and is in favour of "moral imperialism" (assuming she meant exporting democratic values) I would be happy to oblige - as long as I get to choose the restaurant. Journalists welcome and on the record.

In praise of Nick Cohen

One of the effects of the post 9/11 era has been to bring out the worst in some people on the left - prime example G Galloway - and the best in others.

Nick Cohen pre-2001 was a rather irritating Observer columnist mainly churning out trite and simplistic attacks on Blair and PPP and PFI.

Post-2001 he has focussed instead on a very admirable defence of the universal values of democracy and liberalism and disecting the worst dicator-apologising instincts of the anti-war left.

A really good example of the stuff he writes is his interview this week with political philosopher Prof Ted Honderich in the New Statesman - here.

Honderich, who nauseatingly is actually still a member of the Labour Party, comes out with gems such as accusing David Aaronovitch of being a part of "Israel's fifth column", conflating Islamism, al-Qaeda and Islam into one set of ideas, saying al-Qaeda terrorism is the fault of "neo-Zionism"and ends up by telling Cohen that he is "delighted" not to be like "a lot of people, of whom perhaps you are one, who have managed, as you would say, to educate yourself and change your views under various pressures. One of them, by the way, is the pressure of being Jewish."

Cohen to his credit terminated the interview at the point that Honderich said "Everything is very dark at the moment and you are making a contribution to it. The world is ever darker. It's a shitty place now and you are also responsible, [you] bear a part of the responsibility for 9/11 and 7/7."

Cohen concludes:

"It was only when I was making my way home through Tavistock Square that I realised the "root cause" of the errors of Honderich and those like him. In a review of After the Terror for the online journal Democratiya, Jon Pike, a philosopher with the Open University, told me something I hadn't realised about the 7/7 attacks. The bus bomb in the square exploded just round the corner from Honderich's University College. Emails flew across the net, as academics checked that the bomber hadn't killed their colleagues. All the philosophers survived to carry on speculating. University College's sole fatality was Gladys Wundowa, a Ghanaian cleaner and charity worker.

If Honderich could have brought the bus bomber Hasib Hussain back to life and asked him what kind of society he had murdered her to create, what would he have said? If that sounds too speculative, look at the societies being created by the movements Honderich explains away as the fault of others. Would feminists, socialists, liberals, religious minorities and atheists be happy living in a Palestine ruled by Hamas rather than Fatah, or modern Iran, or Afghanistan, if al-Qaeda and the Taliban come back, or Iraq if the "insurgents" win? Would emeritus professors?

It's a poor consequentialist who can't think about consequences. Honderich can't because, I think, the emotional consequences of admitting that not all the darkness of the world is the fault of the west would be too great for him to endure."

Good news

This is very heartening news.

Some thoughts about loans & peerages

1) The thoroughness of Yates' investigation is in everyone's interest - it wouldn't have helped the Labour Party if the allegation had been made and not properly investigated.

2) The Labour Party has extremely good lawyers who would have been asked for advice about the legality of any fund-raising - does anyone really think a political party would risk doing something illegal just to be able to afford a few more billboards?

3) If there was the slightest chance that Blair had broken the law wouldn't the party's lawyers have warned him of the possibility and wouldn't he have found an excuse to quit early as PM to reduce any damage to the wider party?

4) If there was any chance that any Labour or No10 staff had broken the law isn't Blair ruthless enough that he would have asked them to publicly fall on their swords and accept personal responsibility?

Worth quoting

Because history may record yesterday's Queen's Speech debate as the moment when Cameron lost the next General Election:

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): “Mr. Speaker, before I come to my speech, let me just say to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who talked about 12 years ago, that I remember 12 years ago; our economy had just been through two recessions caused by the Conservative Government. Today we have the strongest economy, the lowest unemployment, the lowest inflation and the lowest interest rates. I remember that, 12 years ago, we had thousands of people waiting 18 months, and that was just on an in-patient list. Now, we are on the way to an 18-week maximum target for in and out-patients. I remember that 12 years ago we had kids being taught in crumbling school buildings. I remember, 12 years ago, a Conservative Government who had doubled crime. He is talking about hope, but let me just tell him something about hope. Hope is not built on talking about sunshine, any more than antisocial behaviour is combated by “love”. Hope is what a strong economy gives us; hope is what investment in the NHS and schools gives us. Hope means proper measures to tackle the long-term challenges. Hope, true hope, is about tough decision making, and the right hon. Gentleman has never taken a tough decision in his life. Now for my speech— [Interruption.] I may be going out, but on that performance, he is not coming in.

…

The fact of the matter is that, as the right hon. Gentleman demonstrated again today, in the end, because he has no interest in the substance of policy, he can neither understand the long-term challenges facing this country, nor meet them. The next election will be a flyweight versus a heavyweight. However much the right hon. Gentleman may dance around the ring beforehand, at some point, he will come within the reach of a big clunking fist, and you know what, he will be out on his feet, carried out of the ring—the fifth Tory leader to be carried out, and a fourth term Labour Government still standing.”

Reclaiming Labour from Reclaim Labour

I think there's something pretty cowardly about dishing out political attacks whilst hiding behind the anonymity of a pseudonym like "Harry Perkins" over at http://reclaimlabour.blogspot.com/.

"Harry", assuming you are actually a Labour Party member and not a spoof, why don't you have the courage to write under your own name and be held politically accountable for what you say? How do we know you don't sing a different tune in real life? For all we know you could be a careerist soft leftie in the flesh.

The title of your blog is also a bit of a joke - "reclaiming" something that was never your's in the first place. Bennites wanting to "reclaim Labour" is a bit like fleas wanting to reclaim a pet.

But keep up the good work because every bad tempered rant you post helps show younger party members why the politics of the early '80s were so damaging and reminds the rest of us why we don't want a re-run.

International patterns

In the US, the Democrats won the mid-terms because moderate candidates from groups like the DLC, the NDN and the Blue Dog Democrats (who make me look like a raving leftie) recaptured the political centre ground.

In France the latest polling in the PS primary for Socialist Presidential candidate put modernising candidate Segolene Royal on 58%, another party moderate Dominique Strauss-Kahn on 32% and the hard left candidate Fabius on only 9%.

In Australia party rightwinger Kim Beazley is back as leader of the Labor Party.

Here, the hard left will view it as an achievement if John McDonnell even gets enough nominations to get on the ballot paper for Labour Leader.

A pattern emerging?

Cracking of whips

Thanks to Tom Watson for posting a link to the latest Nottingham Uni research on whip-breaking by the PLP.

The numbers are here.

The top of the league table - which just covers votes against the whip in 2005-06, reads:

Now I can see that there might be exceptional circumstances where your election address commitments, conscience or the interests of your constituency might make an MP break the whip. Everyone has their political "lines-in-the-sand" that they will not cross. If I'd been an MP in the 2001-05 parliament I would have been very tempted to vote against the governance arrangements for foundation hospitals and against differential top-up tuition fees - though as I wasn't there luckily I wasn't presented with that moral dilemma.

However, breaking the whip dozens of times in one parliamentary session is just sticking two fingers up at the collective decision-making of the PLP. It implies a complete absence of self-discipline, sense of unity and collective responsibility or solidarity with colleagues.

As Tom points out, the chief offender is actually running for leader of a party he failed to vote with 63 times in one year!

It is particularly galling for those of us who are councillors and would be on a short trip to being suspended from our Labour Groups for breaking the whip once, let alone 15 or 63 times.

How did we ever get in this mess? And when are the whips going to start actually implementing the standing orders of the PLP and applying some kind of sanction? Otherwise we might as well not have a "Parliamentary Labour Party" - just 350 odd independent vaguely Labour-ish MPs.

Running scared

Anyone would have thought from reading this article in the Evening Standard that certain declared deputy leadership candidates are frightened by the idea that Hazel Blears might join the contest.

And well they might be. If she wasn't potentially a strong candidate they wouldn't be trying to undermine her like this.

The attempt to smear Hazel for doing the right thing and concentrating on her role as Party Chair until there is actually a vacancy and a contest is the kind of negative politics we don't need right now.

Extreme clean up

Before and after pictures of the Jack Dunning Estate garages near to the former Lord Cecil pub at junction of Median Road and Lower Clapton Road in my ward.

Before (picture sent to me by resident complaining about flytipping eyesore):

After (after complaint by me as ward councillor, Hackney Homes not only removes rubbish but removes derelict garages as well):

Know your enemy

As regular readers will know, one of my hobbies is trying to follow the convoluted splits and mergers of British Trotskyism. One of the best pamphlets on this subject is "As Soon as this Pub Closes". I was unaware until a commenter on Dave Osler's blog posted a link to it that it's online here:

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Sectariana/Pub.html

It's out of date but provides a useful guide to the political antecedents of some of the current groups.

To map the groups described across to their current incarnations for the benefit of younger readers:

Militant is now the Socialist Party (in England & Wales) and the SSP plus Sheridan's Solidarity in Scotland.
The SWP is still the SWP but now has Respect as a broader front group.
Socialist Organiser is now the Alliance for Workers Liberty.
Socialist Action & the IMG now run London through the employment of leading members by Mayor Ken.
Red Action is now the Independent Working Class Association (IWCA), the Hackney branch of which split off to become "Hackney Independent".

Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns etc

This is probably a sure-fire way to make myself political toast with Labour colleagues but I actually feel rather sorry for Donald Rumsfeld and find the gloating at his resignation distasteful.

Why?

1) Well for a start off his strategy in Iraq was our Labour government's too so if he's such a bad/wrong person so are we - or at least everyone of us that supported the government line.

2) If you are going to have Republicans in power (and I'd rather we were now 6 years into an Al Gore Presidency) I would rather they were idealistic ones that believed in spreading democracy to the Middle East than Kissinger/Nixon style cynics practicising real-politik and focussed just on national self-interest rather than some higher ideological ends.

3) He's the fall guy for his boss in the White House who in a European political system would be the one resigning after these elections.

4) He actually did the traditional job of Defense Secretary very well - overseeing two stunning military victories in Afganistan and Iraq in a matter of weeks - what he is being blamed for is the subsequent failiure to rebuild Iraq and of the US armed forces to peacekeep - neither of which traditionally were or should be core US military functions.

My hunch is history will say Rumsfeld made all of us a lot safer by destroying the Taliban/al-Qaeda base in Afghanistan and removing Saddam from power so he wasn't around to refresh his WMD arsenal and marry it with N Korean missile technology.

There are a lot of Afghans and Iraqis (particularly Kurds and Shiites) who have a lot to thank him for.

US Mid-terms

Excellent results from the US Mid-terms - for the Democrats and independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman (not quite sure how I manage to square liking both but I do).

Before everyone starts babbling on about the anti-war tide, the other major factor was that the Democrats ran agressively centrist candidates in most of their key seats e.g. Reagan's former Navy Secretary in defence-employment heavy Virginia.

This analysis on the BBC is interesting - particularly the graph of what issues motivated voters:

Another bonus to the campaign was the accidental self-destruction of John Kerry, the fool whose misguided strategy of concerntrating on mobilising the Democrats' core vote rather than reaching out to moderate Republicans gifted Bush a second term in the White House.

And in the same week as Ortega got back in in Nicaragua (a shame Castro never had the guts to put himself in front of a democratic election like the Sandanistas did) - I shall have to dig out my Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign t-shirt.

Pet hate

One of my pet hates is Socialist Worker's house-style of using the word "Tory" to describe any right-of-centre party or government anywhere in the world.

Example from today here - "Greek primary schools all-out strike ends as Tories retreat" which I initially thought might be an article about Enfield Council falling out with one half of the Cypriot community.

The same article describes PASOK as "Pasok, Greece’s New Labour type party" which may come as a surprise to most of its members ...

I know that the SWP's politics are moronic but do they really have to treat their readers like idiots who don't know that political parties in mainland Europe are not called "Tories" and "New Labour"?

Does the SWP's sister party in Greece carry articles saying "British comrades say sack Blair as PASOK leader", "Britain's PASOK government" and "David Cameron, the leader of Britain's Nea Dhimokratia type party"?

Today's Populus Poll

Interesting poll in the Times - Con 36%, Lab 33%, LD 20% and with the detail showing mem favouring Brown over Cameron but women strongly favouring Cameron.

Two reactions:

a) the Tories are not going to get anywhere near winning if they can only manage a 3% lead at this stage in the electoral cycle (despite shiny new leader). Cameron is 11 months into his leadership. When Blair had been leader of the opposition for 11 months he was 19% ahead.

b) the potential defecit amongst women voters is another good argument that Labour needs a woman deputy leader.

Just a thought ...

Aside from "supporting calls from Pete Willsman for an Inquiry into Conference" (presumably on the grounds that the delegates this year were all far too sensible) "Save the Labour Party" are holding their AGM next weekend in Camden Town.

Just one stop away on the Northern Line in Kentish Town the Camden Labour Party is fighting tooth and nail to hold a council by-election in a 3-way marginal against the Lib Dems and Greens.

It's just an idea, but wouldn't it be great if all the "Save the Labour Party" comrades took time out during the day from their important deliberations on "the possible merger with Labour Reform" and listening to "Jon Cruddas MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Katy Clark MP, Ann Black NEC" and went up the road to Kentish Town and did some canvassing and leafleting that would make a practical contribution to "saving the Labour Party"?

P.S. before anyone asks I practice what I preach and was there this Sunday.

Why aren't the Tories doing better in local by-elections?

Last night Labour gained a council seat in Hyndburn, a Tory parliamentary seat in the '80s and part of an electorally very important belt of heavily owner-occupied seats on either side of the Pennines.

On www.vote-2006.co.uk someone has commented:

" Since 1st Jan 2006 the Conservatives have only gained 4 seats from Labour in council by-elections:
9.3.06 South Kesteven, Market and West Deeping (Con unopposed)
4.5.06 Suffolk, Pakefield (Con majority 241 over Lab)
18.5.06 Wyre, Park (Con majority 104 over Lab)
25.5.06 North Kesteven, Branston and Mere (Con majority 130 over Ind, Lab to 3rd)

The three contested losses for Labour all happened in the aftermath of the Home Office prisoner scandal.In the same period, Labour have gained 3 seats from the Conservatives:
16.3.06 Dacorum, Warners End (Lab majority 113 over Con)
5.10.06 Ellesmere Port and Neston, Little Neston (Lab majority 34 over Con)
2.11.06 Hyndburn, Rishton (Lab majority 266 over Con)"

Is the Cameron effect actually making any difference on the ground?

You read it here first

On Sunday I wrote this urging Hazel Blears to run for Deputy Leader ... which was picked up by Iain Dale.

Now the Sun says Hazel is the favourite, politicalbetting reports that the odds on her winning have fallen from 50-1 to 7-1 and Alex Hilton's Second Guess site currently has her as most likely to win: http://hamm.co.uk/sgdl/

Rather stupidly I didn't place a bet at 50-1.

Speech of the debate

There were some pretty dire speeches on both sides in last night's debate on Iraq.

However, one that deserves praise was Wrexham Labour MP Ian Lucas' contribution.

Ian voted against the war in 2003 and was one of the signatories of the letter in September calling on Blair to stand down. But last night he made a really well argued case for voting against the Plaid/SNP motion.

Describing his vote against the war, he said "On that day, I had already made my decision. I remember coming to the debate and hearing what the Prime Minister had to say. He made his case very eloquently and powerfully. However, I had already met him to discuss the position. I met him eyeball to eyeball and asked him about weapons of mass destruction. I take the view, as I always have, that his honest belief was that those weapons existed in Iraq. I resent the constant assertions by Opposition Members that the Prime Minister in some way misled the House. I do not believe that he did; I believe that he made an honest and genuine mistake. I still believe that it was a mistake—I wish that the decision had never been made—but I cannot support the opportunistic, cynical motion that is before the House today."

And speaking about the current situation in Iraq he said:
"Opposition Members are using the motion to obsess about the past at a time when Iraq is in a position of crisis. Last week, many of my colleagues and I heard the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Barham Salih, address members of the parliamentary Labour party. I am sure that he addressed Opposition Members too. He said that he needs our help and that we must not “cut and run”. I opposed the war in Iraq because I believed that it was wrong, but I believe that we have a moral obligation to support the people of Iraq. We created the difficulty in Iraq and we cannot leave until that position is resolved."

Ian's contribution was honest and thoughtful and considered - unlike the chicanery from the Tories or the hot air and bluster from the Nats.

You can read it all here.

Miliband vs Cruddas

I'm not sure the Torygraph is a very reliable source of Labour gossip but it claims No10 wants a "dream ticket" of Brown for Leader & David Miliband for Deputy Leader - with the aim of keeping Jon Cruddas out of the Deputy Leadership.

I'm relaxed about and can see the merits of the eventual result of the election being something that can be labelled up as a Blairite/Brownite dream ticket but I don't think a pre-result campaign as a "ticket" is appropriate - there are a range of good candidates and Brown - or for that matter any other leadership candidate or the current PM - should stand back from the Deputy race and let them all fight it out and let Party members have a genuine pluralistic choice. There shouldn't be a "line" on who to back for deputy from No10 or No11 and if there was it would probably backfire and hurt the annointed candidate(s).

If there was a "dream ticket" result I don't think the Blairite half of that ticket should be Miliband.

In the unlikely event that it did come down to a choice between Miliband and Cruddas I would definitely vote for Cruddas.

I think that's mainly a cultural thing.

I hear only good things about Miliband from people that know him (I've not met him) and he is clearly very able, but I worry that he is too much an "inside the beltway" Whitehall figure who went straight from No10 to Parliament. Yes Cruddas did too, but he had a pre-history before going to No10 in the party and the unions and just comes across as a more gritty, grounded character. I find Miliband too academic and theoretical and his speech to Spring Conference this year was very bland.

If Brown is leader - a hugely able and academically gifted man but not really having a "common touch" - we will need a more down-to-earth populist Deputy to balance that.

Up against smooth upper-class Tories like Cameron and Osborne we shouldn't try to copy them - we should be trying to contrast Labour with them as being led by people who have more in common with the average voter.

That's why I expressed support for Blears a couple of days ago, and why in casting second or lower preferences I will be giving them to candidates who I perceive to have the ability to connect with ordinary voters rather than splitting hairs over their exact position within the sensible end of the Labour Party - hence under the Torygraph's scenario I'd go for Cruddas over Miliband.

At 41, Miliband has a lot of time to play with as a politician and may well develop into a strong enough player to go for a top job in the not-so-distant future - but for the moment I think it's premature for him to take a run at deputy.

Free Tibet

Last night's ITN News led with the horrific video footage of Chinese border guards shooting dead 2 unarmed Tibetans - one a 17 year-old Buddhist nun - as they attempted to flee the country - and herding off dozens of other Tibetans, including children, with no word given yet of their fate.

It seemed like a good time to post another link to the Free Tibet campaign: http://www.freetibet.org/

ITN reported the Chinese Foreign Ministry as talking about a "fight to the death with the Dalai Lama". On one side the world's largest armed forces. On the other pacifist nuns and monks.

Quite apart from the horrendous human rights abuses perpetrated inside China - documented by Amnesty here - http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-chn/index - Tibet has been an occupied country since the 1950s and effectively subject to cultural cleansing as ethnic Chinese settlers are moved in and Tibetan indigenous culture repressed.

There is only a very narrow window in which the West can effectively put pressure on China to clean up its human rights act before it becomes too powerful militarily and economically for our protests to have any effect.

Stats for October

During the course of October the site had exactly 5500 page views (up from 4897 in Sept) and 1335 different visitors (up from 1112 in Sept).

Top 10 referring sites sending people here:
www.google.com and variants - 17% of visitors
www.bloggers4labour.org - 9% of visitors
www.blogger.com - 6% of visitors
www.iaindale.blogspot.com - 5% of visitors
www.tom-watson.co.uk - 4% of visitors
www.lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com -2% of visitors
http://thedaily.wordpress.com - 2% of visitors
www.davespartblog.blogspot.com -2% of visitors
www.thecrazyworldofpolitics.blogspot.com - 2% of visitors
www.ribblevalleyred.blogspot.com -1% of visitors

Visitor locations:
UK 67% (+7% from Sept)
USA 12% (+1%)

Heaviest days of traffic: Oct 30 (thanks to a link from Iain Dale's site to my post on Hazel Blears)

Most read posts: this and this

Strangest google seach terms leading to this site:
"Gill George Respect"
"universal hint system ciao bella"
"bob casey ceo hipp"
"luke i am your father spoof"
"lawson lucas and mendelson"
"what does the name luke mean"
"alicia kennedy general secretary labour party"

Compass and Iraq

The current thread running on the Compass website here really does expose the leaders of that organisation for the sanctimonious, humbug-ridden, pompous, "me-too"ist bandwagon jumpers they are.

Read it for the trite, a-historical drivel and self-indulgent path-of-least-resistance hand-wringing by the Compassites - whose argument seems to consist of little other than "War is bad, America bad, Blair evil, Israel evil. dictatorships in far away countries are none of our business, Iraqi democrats are bad by association 'cos they are backed by the UK and USA".

And read it for the demolition job done on their arguments by Stan Rosenthal and "Seasider".
Coming soon to a branch party near you - the Compass 12 clause resolution on Iraq. Though this is unlikely in most branches as the number of these people who are actually Labour Party activists - as opposed to armchair ranters - is minimal.

And what gems it contains - "full and free elections cannot be held in a country under enemy occupation" - erm... tell that to the Germans or Japanese who held perfectly democratic elections whilst occupied.

Their own worst enemies

Sometimes there is no need to attack the Hard Left because they do it for you themselves.

Hence the surreal spectacle of a 3-way split in the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs over the coming Labour leadership election - the ultras backing McDonnell, Alan Simpson and others seeking to maximise the left performance rather than just fly the flag by backing Meacher, and a couple of key people like Skinner and Ann Cryer looking like they will vote for Brown.

It's all been recorded in great detail here - http://reclaimlabour.blogspot.com/ and here http://davespartblog.blogspot.com/.

The lack of self-awareness is amazing - why is no one on the left pointing out the obvious - that neither McDonnell nor Meacher is a credible candidate who has any personal base of support in the Party or any qualification to lead it?

It doesn't really matter which of them runs because in both cases they are incapable of reaching out beyond the oppositionalist fringe.

What the squabbling between McDonnell and Meacher exposes is the fundamental crisis of both the Hard Left and the Soft Left in the Labour Party - they are effectively leaderless and have been for some time. The Tribunite tradition threw up some figures of great stature: Bevan, Wilson, Castle, Foot, Kinnock (who came from that tradition even if he didn't stay in it), Cook. With the death of Cook that "soft left" tradition has no leader of national stature or profile, hence Compass et al are attempting to influence Brown, a potential leader from the Atlanticist right of the Party, rather than run their own candidate.

The Hard Left is in even more of a mess - Tony Benn really dominated their emergence as a separate strand of organisation divorced from the old Tribune Group to such an extent that he made everyone around him look like mere acolytes. The more talented of his followers long ago either sold out to become government ministers or, like Diane Abbott, resorted to becoming media pundits or court jesters. The one Campaign Grouper who did have the charisma and appeal to be a credible leader for them - Ken Livingstone - never felt at home in the Commons and was never trusted by his colleagues so has quit the parliamentary stage to go back to running London.

Much as I detest these people's politics I don't think it will be healthy for the Labour Party if they fail to get a leadership candidate on the ballot paper. We need a contested election so that party members get to choose Brown rather than him just emerging, and because a contest will show the public more about Brown's qualities and more about our internal democracy; and we need to have publicly tested and exposed - as by Benn and Heffer's 1988 challenge - how marginal the Hard Left is.

Get your act together comrades!