Gordon Brown ‘seeks Lib-Lab coalition’
Posted on Thursday 31 May, 2007
Filed Under New Labour
Sky News political editor Adam Boulton – writing in this week’s New Statesman – reckons that the prime minister in waiting could be about to spring a de facto Lib-Lab coalition government on Britain, partly to punish to those nasty lefties who tried and failed to get a second candidate onto the Labour leadership ballot paper:
There is one “known unknown”, however, that could be the biggest surprise of all. Something the Chancellor mentioned at his proleptically victorious campaign launch. Just what did he mean by wanting to form a “government of all the talents”? Some of his loyal assistants, the sort who already regard the prospect of Blairites in a Brown government as a gesture too far, have been quick to play down the plans. They suggest that Brown simply means consulting more widely and appointing the likes of the Tory lords Sebastian Coe and Chris Patten to public positions.
But, intriguingly, there are others at the heart of Project Gordon who think an all-embracing government could go a lot further than that. “Will we offer jobs to Liberal Democrats?” mused one. “I’d say it’s more a question of when. Now, from a position of strength; in the run-up to the general election when we may need to; or afterwards, when we may have to.” …
Brown could claim to be completing the plans for “a progressive century” of centre-left government, abandoned by Blair when his landslide meant he didn’t need Liberal Democrat votes in parliament after all. Things have got a lot tighter in the division lobbies since then. Rebellions are habit-forming, and a decent quota of Lib Dems would at least cancel out the “John McDonnell” faction.
Far-fetched? Silly, even? Possibly. But food for thought to those that hope against hope that Brown is some kind of closet Old Labourite.
And remember how Sarkozy surprised many recently with the appointment of Bernard Kouchner – one of the most popular politicians in the Socialist Party – to the foreign minister portfolio. Brown would not be above taking a page from the French president’s playbook.
In addition, one factor that Boulton doesn’t mention is that such a move would be a good way of neutralising ludicrous Tory claims of a ‘lurch to the left’.
And if we are talking about reviving ‘The Project’ of the mid-nineties, suggestions of severing ties with the unions could be about to join The Police in staging a comeback tour.
That may well crop up on the agenda anyway after Sir Hayden Phillips finally publishes his report on party funding.
Sure, it’s all speculation. But I’m still convinced that the political action for the left in the period ahead will be inside the Labour Party, and not outside it.
<<Go back
Comments
53 Responses to “Gordon Brown ‘seeks Lib-Lab coalition’”
In what way would this be a move away from the Left?
Well, if he were to mirror Sarkosy then we’d see Tories in the cabinet, not just LibDems… but this really seems unlikely – at least Sarkosy had prepared people for his extraordinary approach – no matter what this article says I don’t think Brown will be extending a seat at the table to those outside of the Labour Party.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=457904&in_page_id=1770
Cruddas Targeted in Labour Dirty Tricks
The Mail on Sunday today contains a puff piece on Hazel Blears and a piece on Jon Cruddas which he will find very embarrassing. I am sure there is no link between the two!
The Cruddas story accuses him of buying a second home in Notting Hill to enable his child to be educated there. It was clearly leaked by one of the rival deputy leadership camps.
I have no idea which campaign is responsible, but the man with most to gain from damaging Cruddas is Peter Hain, who has lost no time in slagging off Alan Johnson and repudiating much of the government policy he has got collective responsibility for.
Cruddas has sewn up a lot of the left of centre vote which Hain is targeting. Hain knows he cannot win unless much of Cruddas’s support transfers to him, and he’s willing to do what it takes.
It’s turning nasty.
Talking of comeback tours – The Only Ones are on in Manchester on Friday. Can’t wait.
So is it Peter Perrett, the Stockport Beer and Cider Festival or staying in with HIGNFY? Probably not the last one. There’s no peace for the wicked…
I’m still convinced that the political action for the left in the period ahead will be inside the Labour Party, and not outside it.
Before Miles distracted me, I was going to comment on this. Could you explain? You’re talking about changes that would not only neuter the Labour Left in Parliament (which is probably its strongest base now, ironically enough) but prevent any leftward pressure from the unions, as muted and ineffectual as that pressure has been in the last decade. You’re entitled to believe that action outside the Labour Party is doomed, always has been doomed and always will be doomed, but – under those conditions – what imaginable action can you foresee inside the party?
‘Far-fetched?’
I don’t read the New Statesman, but the idea seems a bit far fetched to me. Or premature perhaps. How could Brown pull it off exactly?
If he announced a coalition before the next general election, it would cause a serious split in the party. Imagine the resentment of all the wanabee ministers on the Labour benches at being bypassed by Liberals! He can’t be that stupid can he?
The only other way it could happen would be as a result of a very narrow majority, which is what Blair was hoping for in 1997. New Labour simply being an internal version of the failed SDP split.
Perhaps the logic would be that the Liberals should be allowed in to swamp the Labour left and be a tame radical sounding opposition, on the basis that they actually outflank the Labour party on many issues from the left.
If that happened it would be a good argument for dropping all bans and prescriptions and allowing *everyone* back in!
BTW As you’re fairly non-sectarian to the non Labour Socialist Left and the Socialist Unity blog are fairly un-sectarian to the LP left, why don’t you merge your sites?
I hope that comment didn’t make anyone choke, other than Last of the Blairites, of course.
It’s not far-fetched at all, surely? I seem to remember everyone on the left in my CLP in 1997 going on about how the Blairites (a species, admittedly, notable by their absence in that particular constituency – apart from the MP) wanted a coalition with the Libdems and were well and truely gutted by the large majority as that was the last thing they wanted.
Whenever Dave makes such a concrete prediction as he does in the above post I immediately think of his past predictions. With the result that I now know for certain that “political action for the left in the period ahead will” NOT “be inside the Labour Party”.
I think there are a few flaws in this – not least that nobody seems to have asked the Lib Dems if they are interested.
In many ways a coalition government with the Lib Dems in 97 might have been a more radical one – on Europe, on electoral reform.
But Labour members, including me, are tribalists and we hate the Lib Dems (mainly, if not always, for good reasons).
A lot of Lib Dems are hard core economic liberals and there are very few in that party who would claim, these days, to be social democrats or even influenced by social democracy.
There’s no doubt that Brown would do a MacDonald if need dictated, the main difference being that this time most, if not all, of his party would follow him.
Whenever Dave makes such a concrete prediction as he does in the above post I immediately think of his past predictions. With the result that I now know for certain that “political action for the left in the period ahead will” NOT “be inside the Labour Party”.
Oh really? So where will it be, Mike? On your blog?
By the way, I noticed you described John as “McNonentity” on that arrogant vitriolic rant that you pass off as a blog. Which Blairite did you nick that insult off, exactly?
Mike, are you perchance the far left version of a right-wing UNISON apparatchik who I won’t give oxygen to. Your “analysis” is about as profound.He, too, revels in less than witty tags on people’s names
And nice to see you write off the labour movement as “elderly white male dullards and white coller (sic) workers.”
An neither male, elderly, nor (I hope) stupid.
However, your blog is utterly inane.
Ah, just the people.
What will you lot do if Brown puts these rumours into practice? Still stick around and talk of ‘reclaiming’ a party that has never been effectively socialist?
“What will you lot do if Brown puts these rumours into practice? Still stick around and talk of ‘reclaiming’ a party that has never been effectively socialist?”
No, Igor. I suppose we’ll sack off a party with a strong base in the working class, both electorally and through the union link, and throw in our lot with one of the 875 baseless sects outside the Labour party and spend the rest of our lives arguing about whether to have a popular militia or a workers militia and discussing whether the International Bolshevik Tendency has the correct line on Angola.
Good to see the level of debate is being sustained.
I just wated to comment on Owen and Susan slagging off Mike.
You see you have missed the point, Mike is not inane at all. He is admitedly annoying and rude, but his function is to act as the “Ghost of MarXmas Past”, and is no diplomat. He does however point out how far we have travelled from what was considered marxist orthodoxy 25 or 30 years ago. I am quite happy with that, becasue my politics have changed and I am happy to be reminded what i used to beieve, and try to account for the changes. That is much healthier than drifting from one political position to another without critical self examination, and Mike actually does a good job at pointing out shifts in political positions that are opportunist.
It is fair to point out – for example – that the change in Dave Osler’s political position relating to the Labour party has not been theoretically explained apart from being based in pessimism.
And although the point could be made more politely than describing JOhn as McNonentity, a lot of commentators on the left have been too polite to point out that McDonnell had a very low profile outside London (I know London is the known univerese for many of you, but out here on Planet Earth, lots of the socialist left did not have mcD on their radar)
Owen what kind of fantasy world do you live in? The idea that the Labour Party has “a strong base in the working class, both electorally and through the union link” is idiocy. The truth of the matter is that many local labour Pparties are almost totally inactive and find difficulty in locating enough members to stand a full slate of candidates in elections let alone carry out canvassing as haoppened in almost every constituency a generation ago. As for the link with the unions that too is much eroded in cmpparison with past generations and only has meaning for the small minnority of union activists leaving the majority of members totally uninvolved.
Do try to be honest with yourself, just a little, and recognise that regardless of their merits individuals such as McDonnell are almost totally unknown outside very limited circles. The same is true of such union leaders as (insert fave left union leader here) outside similarly limited circles of commited activists. The truth of the matter is that large sections of the Labour movement are for most of the time almost moribund rarely showing any sing of life at all.
Which joking aside is why I consider Daves predictions – he does have a long record of getting things totally wrong as can be confirmed by reading his articles in What Next? – to be utterly misguided. Certainly the Labour Left may revive a little but it lacks any meaningful penetration in the unions and appeals only to that layer who are already confirmed believers in Labourite ideology and that ideology, on the whole,no longer has a grip on the consciousness of the majority of the working classes as it had even a generation ago. Any revival then basd on old shopworn ideas will be extremely limited and parrtial.
That said I see very little to be positive about with regard to the sects outside the Labour Party. Any way forward must lie in a consistent orientation on the working class, principally at the point of production, and not via intermediaries given the decline in Labourite ideology and organisation. Sadly I see few on the left with even the slightest realisation of this prefering, as they do, to grasp at rotten old schemas which have already failed not once but many times.
“And although the point could be made more politely than describing JOhn as McNonentity, a lot of commentators on the left have been too polite to point out that McDonnell had a very low profile outside London (I know London is the known univerese for many of you, but out here on Planet Earth, lots of the socialist left did not have mcD on their radar)”
I’m from Stockport and Susan is from Calder Valley, so I doubt that strongly. The most active John4Leader groups were in Manchester, Sheffield and Scotland. Our strongest base in unions such as Amicus was in the North West. If you look at John’s endorsements page, you will see the predominance of support from North of the M25: http://www.john4leader.org.uk/endorsements.html Or, for example, check out those who signed his letter in the Guardian: http://www.john4leader.org.uk/letter.html John had support of all the union broad lefts – which, in unions such as Amicus and the T&G, are the dominant political forces; and which are strongest in the North.
Despite the total absence of media coverage, polls revealed that John had the support of about 1 in 10 members of the Labour party. It was higher among trade unionists. I strongly believe that, if the PLP had not denied us the right to a contest, John could have expected to get an extremely significant share of the vote. Brown’s cabal knew this and hence did all they could (successfully) to prevent John getting on the ballot paper.
Whether you like it or not, John McDonnell is now the most high-profile and popularly supported leftwing politician in this country (unless you include George Galloway which I have opted not to do). If you don’t think that’s a very big profile or very much support, then that’s less to do with John’s failings than with the weakness of the left overall.
As for Mike calling John “McNonentity” – well, it’s just unfortunate that this abuse has come from a person who is an actual Class A non-entity. John McDonnell has dedicated his entire political career to fighting for workers’ rights, peace and civil liberties – both in the GLC and in Parliament.
What have you done, Mike? Other than be very rude to people, obviously?
Mike
Genuine question . You criticise those on the left , both in and out of the LP, for their tactics . What do you suggest the left should do ?
“Owen what kind of fantasy world do you live in? The idea that the Labour Party has “a strong base in the working class, both electorally and through the union link” is idiocy.”
Are you suggesting that a majority of working-class people who vote don’t vote for the Labour party? If not, then the working class in this country is virtually non-existent, isn’t it?
“The truth of the matter is that many local labour Pparties are almost totally inactive and find difficulty in locating enough members to stand a full slate of candidates in elections let alone carry out canvassing as haoppened in almost every constituency a generation ago.”
There’s no denying that the Labour party is, in many areas, in total collapse – but that’s not to refute the electoral support – passive as it may be – that it still wins from working class people, is it? And indeed the total collapse of membership makes it rather easy for socialists to have influence if they actually participated in the party itself, does it not?
“As for the link with the unions that too is much eroded in cmpparison with past generations and only has meaning for the small minnority of union activists leaving the majority of members totally uninvolved.”
Has it? Is it really that simple? Thirty years ago trade unionists didn’t even have a vote for the leadership of the party!
The main problem isn’t the weakness of the link so much as the lack of willingness of the trade union leaderships to actually use it. That is, to send trade union reps to each GC to vote for union policies; to select progressive MPs; to deselect Blairite MPs; to get progressive representatives on the NEC; to push for certain policies at party Conference etc. The fight should be to get the union leaderships to actually use their influence rather than doing all they can to avoid upsetting the New Labour clique because of the fear of being somehow frozen out (as if this is different from the current situation).
I strongly believe that, if the PLP had not denied us the right to a contest, John could have expected to get an extremely significant share of the vote. Brown’s cabal knew this and hence did all they could (successfully) to prevent John getting on the ballot paper.
Absolutely.
Even if John had got only 10% that would have been significant and a base to build on, but he may have achieved better than 10%. Thats far too dangerous, so democracy was curtailed.
As you may have gleaned from my blogspot, Calder Valley is in West Yorkshire! Well said, Owen.
BTW paid regional officers from the Labour Party in my area have been ringing up CLPs asking them to nominate Brown. Is that contravening the rules???????? Just wondered…… ( and don’t worry, the answer was “no”)
Stroppy – Mike has said what he thinks the Left should do, at least in broad outline (and his detractors here would be the first to mock if he had gone into detail – heads you lose…) The trouble is, it’s not something that one person can do on their own. In the absence of any organisation committed to doing it, individuals are left with the choice of joining an organisation that’s committed to doing something else or remaining isolated. Mike’s chosen the latter, and given the alternatives I don’t think that’s a dishonourable choice.
As for the “McNonentity” jibe, Owen, I’m in Manchester and reasonably clued-in, as burnt-out armchair activists go – I once voted for a Democratic Socialist Alliance council candidate *and* knew what I was voting for – and I’d honestly never heard of McDonnell before this blog and SU started talking about him.
Owen/Susan
We are not going to get anywhere if you are in denial about the basic facts.
John McD, outside of the small ranks of the labour left and political train-spotters had a very low profile BEFORE the campaign started, he was almost unknown outside London. I have been an activist since 1974, and was in the Labour party through the Bennite years & I even was only vaguely aware of him.
Naturally he poisked up support round the country through the course of the campaign, but he did have a relatively low media profile. I don’t know why you bother denying it.
Also, there is not doubt that at a local level the union-Labour link is mainly atrophied. I was on a course last week and worked out that of 50 stewards in my GMB branch there is not a single LP member. What is more, when we were discussing it, there was huge hostility to labour (from the left), and these are not politicos, but ordinary stewards in factories, on the bins & in hospitals. My branch disaffiliated from the LP (i was the only one in favour of keeping the link), on the basis that no-one was eligible to be a delegate, and when we had previoulsy sent a delegate to GC they were patronised and abused.
I know from speaking to union colleagues elsewhere this is not unusual.
I am not interstd in trying to disauade you from your strategy, after al the left outside the LPP have been no more succesful, but surely we can try to develop a constructive consensus about what the facts are.
And Owen: Thirty years ago trade unionists didn’t even have a vote for the leadership of the party!
I would point out that in 2007 as a trade unionist I still don’t have a vote for the leader of the party.
Why? becasue the right wing changed the rules and raised the hurdle among the PLP to high for the left to get over it.
My argument for some years has been that the rule changes that the right have enacted are irreversible, partly because they are self sustaining. For example, a leadership context could have revived the left, so they chaned the rules to make it harder to have a contest.
McD’s failure ot make the ballot can only be understood in terms of the long term (and I would argue irreversible but good luck trying to change it) victory of the right in the party.
So we have to look elsewhere if we want to find active relevance of the union-labour link.
From the POV of the unions, why should they encourage people to attend GC meetings, etc (BTW, branches are typically encouraged to do so, but activists can’t be arsed), if the CLPs have no direct infleunce on policy?
Could we get warwick implemented by sending delegates to GCs. You know we couldn’t.
Could we get a trade Union freedom bill by sending delegates to GCs. You know we couldn’t.
Phil:
“In the absence of any organisation committed to doing it, individuals are left with the choice of joining an organisation that’s committed to doing something else or remaining isolated. Mike’s chosen the latter, and given the alternatives I don’t think that’s a dishonourable choice.”
You’re right, what a strategy. Total non-activity combined with a bit of armchair internet sniping at the sidelines aimed at activists who are actually, like, doing something to build the left. Very honourable.
“As for the “McNonentity” jibe, Owen, I’m in Manchester and reasonably clued-in, as burnt-out armchair activists go – I once voted for a Democratic Socialist Alliance council candidate *and* knew what I was voting for – and I’d honestly never heard of McDonnell before this blog and SU started talking about him.”
Well all I’d say is that hundreds of people in Manchester who are supposedly far less clued in than you knew who John McDonnell is. Indeed, two hundred people attended the launch of his campaign in Manchester last September.
Then Andy:
Andy, I’ve never denied that John had a low media profile. Our campaign experienced a near-total media blackout. My point was that, despite this media blackout, he managed to pick up considerable support. This suggested that, were there a proper contest in which he actually had a platform, he’d have been in a very strong position to get a good vote.
Owen, I really must ask you to take a couple of deep breaths and think about your debating style. At the moment it seems to consist mainly of sarcasm, random abuse and arbitrary misrepresentation of other people’s points.
Manchester’s solid Labour and has been for decades, with a party membership consistently to the Left of the leadership. It’s also a big place. There are thousands of left-wingers in Manchester more politically active than me; I never suggested otherwise.
And I repeat, if a leftist believes that there’s no prospect of building the Left in the Labour Party, then for that person to decline to join the Labour Party – and even encourage other people to leave it – is not a dishonourable choice. I think that’s just a statement of fact.
Obviously you think it is possible to build the Left in the Labour Party; fair enough. But if you can’t deal with challenges to that belief without resorting to abuse and distortion, you’re not going to find many people wanting to debate with you.
i may have missed something, but scrolling up, where is owen being abusive or distorting arguments? the non-LP crowd are claiming that susan and owen live in a fantasy world and calling their candidate “mcnonentity” or whatever. i can’t see what equivalent abuse is being dealt back?!
fair enough i only pop in here occasionally but mike seems one of the rudest people imaginable – i’m just surprised people aren’t being more aggressive wit him!
Fuite honestly I’m astounded that anybody could even imagine that a polite quiet spoken chap like myself might be thought of as RUDE! When the fact is all I’ve done here is voice a few home truths as to the terrible state of disorganisation prevailing in the working classes today. In actual fact I pulled more punches than I delivered due to my innate good manners. because the underlying fact is that due to a massive declibne in the level of class consciousness amongst the working classes in this cuntry it has almost dissappeared as a political factor.
Hell owens ‘defence’ of working in the Labour Party confirmed much of what i wrote. For example he said “the Labour party is, in many areas, in total collapse” albeit he then cites the continued electoral support for that party as evidence of its continued base in society. in fact that electoral support is far less and far less significant than it has ever been. Remember large sections of the working classes in this country today lack the right to vote! A democratic scandal almost unmentioned even in the left press to its utter disgrace. As for those who do vote labour it is a tribal vote based on residual class identification and dislike of the alternatives and does not translate into self activity.
So how do we overcome this terrible situation? In my opinion not by building within a party now totally dominated by open advocates of capitalism and inrecuperable by the working class. Although if comrades wish to continue in that party I can see no harm arising from that decision I might add and would argue against those who simply dismiss that party as no longer being a bourgeois workers party. Similarly work in the unions remains mandatory for those able to take part inn such work but increasing nyumbers find themselves unable to do so let us remember. In fact even when the left finds itself in the leadership of a union they sometimes end up acting rather as the right does in selling bad deals to an apathetic membership which they have not fought to mobilse as with the PCS last year when they gave back pension rights. So for me the most important area of activity for socialists is in the workplaces building networks of activists regardless of union or political affiliation but always on the absis of workers autonomy from the boss class.
As for my record and activity it is of no concern to anybody given that I’m not offering myself for office. I have therefore ever right to offer any political criticism I wish on a blog that has just such debate as its purpose. In any case having been a Labour Party activist back in 1974, when i was but an infant, and having been a partisan of the workers cause in the intervening year I’m happy to stand on a record of principle.
Sorry about the mispellings in the post above this. I really need to replace my goggles.
You can borrow mine Mike
“because the underlying fact is that due to a massive declibne in the level of class consciousness amongst the working classes in this cuntry it has almost dissappeared as a political factor.”
In Manchester maybe, people, in my experience, know where they stand, the problem is there is no kernel to organise around any more.
Incidentally, the rules were changed nearly two decades ago after the hard left abused the rules to stage a contest nobody wanted on the premiss that they would challenge every year.
Believe it or not most members of the Labour Party decided that the main purpose of their party was to beat the Tories and not fight internal elections every year.
Is it *really* so unreasonable to suggest that the person seeking to lead the PLP gets the support from 1 in 8 of them? In fact, though, McDonnell couldn’t even get 10%. There was no stitch up – people in the PLP do not like John McDonnell, end of story.
“Last of the Blairites” – how do you know so much about what the PLP is thinking?
1.Big Labour representation in the South of England was dependent on people like McDonnell being marginal.
(sell that Sinn Fein line in Dorset anyone?)
2.Brown and Campbell go back to TV87 stuff. Unlikely to be repeated particularly as Campbell will be replaced by Huhne or Clegg who havent the oppositionist/regional angle from the eighties.
3.In a hung Parliament, everyone on this webiste would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems to the Tories managining it.
4.If Camerons policies continue to fall apart at the rate they have done so far, none of the above may be relevant.
In Manchester maybe
Oi! I’m the one who’s in Manchester. I’ve never met Mike in my life, but I’ve got him down for a Brummie.
First,
Well we know how they voted.
Big Labour representation in the South of England was dependent on people like McDonnell being marginal
And yet Tony Benn was MP for Bristol East, and Dawn Primorola was a trot and very left when first elected, and today David Drew (a fairly consistent left rebel, strong opponent of the war and nominator of McDonnell, although not a leftist of the conventional stamp) is very popular in Stroud with a big personal following, and more likely to keep his (formerly margnal) seat than either of the Swindon MPs to keep their (formerly safe) seats.
And yet Tony Benn was MP for Bristol East, and Dawn Primorola was a trot and very left when first elected, and today David Drew (a fairly consistent left rebel, strong opponent of the war and nominator of McDonnell, although not a leftist of the conventional stamp) is very popular in Stroud with a big personal following, and more likely to keep his (formerly margnal) seat than either of the Swindon MPs to keep their (formerly safe) seats.
And not forgetting John McDonnell himself, MP for Hayes & Harlington – the Tory constituency of uber-rightwing Terry Dicks in 1997. McDonnell now enjoys a majority way, way above the Labour average and swings against him at each election below the national average – all due to his reputation as an extremely hardworking constituency MP.
Yes, Tony Benn was MP for Bristol.
Then lost.
and?
Benn was immensly popular in bristol, he only lost his seat because of boundary changes which split his old Bristol east seat, and Michael Cox got the safe bit.
Your point was that left MPs cannot win in the south, that simply doesn’t match history.
There is of course a problem that labour’s metropolitan middle class trendiness excludes it from fighting effectively in country areas.
Actually Andy,Benn lost the selection battle for the new safer seat to Michael Cocks.
His damage to the party at national level had a lot to do with that.
Even so, Benns behaviour 1980-83 helped guarantee that Bristol East was marginal.
Oi! I’m the one who’s in Manchester. I’ve never met Mike in my life, but I’ve got him down for a Brummie.
He fucking isn’t.
Interesting to note that McDonnell and Drew, the latter no left winger as Andy has pointed out, have won majorities in their respective seats not on the basis of their politics but on the back of being good constituency MP’s. Which speaks to the rot at the grassroots of Labourism.
Neither Manchester nor Birmingham but International Socialism.
Interesting to note that McDonnell and Drew, the latter no left winger as Andy has pointed out, have won majorities in their respective seats not on the basis of their politics but on the back of being good constituency MP’s. Which speaks to the rot at the grassroots of Labourism.
Neither Manchester nor Birmingham but International Socialism.
maybe come back when you actually represent something?
Represent something like you, you mean?
You got something against tossers now? Isn’t it time for a new left, which reaches out beyond its borders in the old labour movement and embraces new communities and oppressed groups, like tossers?
Find it in your heart to love a tosser, man, you’ll find the experience liberating.
“And not forgetting John McDonnell himself, MP for Hayes & Harlington – the Tory constituency of uber-rightwing Terry Dicks in 1997. McDonnell now enjoys a majority way, way above the Labour average and swings against him at each election below the national average – all due to his reputation as an extremely hardworking constituency MP”.
Maybe, but that’s only half the story – Dicks only got in because the Labour vote had been decisively split with the sitting MP going over to the SDP. But Hayes and Harlington is an overwhelmingly Labour and working class area – indeed I was told when I lived there that the constituency had very nearly elected a Communist MP in 1945. Can anyone confirm that?
As I recall Tim actually said Labour’s success was dependent on people like JMcD being “marginal” – not them being non-existent. It’s the Leninists here who need to explain why they think their political opponents on the left need to be shot, not the social democrats.
As to me knowing what members of the PLP think – well, I’ve personally known John McDonnell since the late 80s and I’ve been a member of the Labour Party for a bit longer than that. I talk to people, y’know?
John is not an ogre, but his politics are dismal and he definitely comes from that part of the left that defines the key issues facing the world as why is everyone else not as pure as us. That’s not where the Labour Party is, it’s not where it has ever been.
As for the popularity of Benn in Bristol – sometimes people forget that the bloke elected in 1955 was one of the most rightwing members of the PLP.
Dave – I hope that you will be doing a full piece on the fact that, even in the absence of a contest, support for John McDonnell among party members and trade unionists has doubled in the past month (from 9% to 18% among party members; and from 10% in March to 25% now among trade unionists).
Think how high it could have got if there had been a contest and he’d actually been seen. Sigh…