dave wrote:

"As the Daily Telegraph reported this morning, much of the motivation in all of this is to reassert the faction position of the Tory hard right – and with it Davis’s long-term leadership ambitions - against the Cameroons."

this surely is the point? his position in the Tory party motivates much of his action

given that he wouldn't have a particularly senior position in any new Tory government then Davies might want to go out in a blaze of glory, and at least to the ill informed he can argue that he is done it for the sake of principle (and we know different)

if he loses, he goes back into business, reputation enhanced and more directorships than you can shake a stick at (companies will want to hedge their bets with the potential of a future Tory government)

and if he wins he guarantees a higher position in the pecking order of any future Tory government

all politics eh?

dave wrote:

For the first time since rejoining the party 18 months ago, I am seriously questioning whether I did the right thing.

How long before the second time?

It's a clever political move. As Dave says it is without risk but also, sort of, principled.

The last time I recall anyone resigning to fight a bye-election was a few Labour GLC cllrs who resigned (and the won again) their seats campaigning about the Government's abolition of that council - has any MP done this again in the intervening period? Put themselves at (slender) risk for a principle - doesn't sound very likely, does it?

It also suggests to me that the Tories are moving into a different league campaign wise. I thought their mayoral campaign, PR wise, lapped Livingstone's as well. I think parties loses elections, not win them but I think the Tories are starting to be able to do both - but more because Labour are so disliked.

Labour's PR never did little - it coasted to victory on a dislike of the Tories and has been living of that ever since. Although if Labour do manage to pull round perception of them and Brown, I will genuinely accept they do have a mastery of the dark arts and be happy to nominate them for a PR Week award.

Check out all the bluster coming from New Labour (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450683.stm). I find it far more embarrassing than the actual resignation itself, personally.

"The Conservatives have collapsed into total disarray on what is their first big policy test since they have come under greater scrutiny." - Jacqi Smith

"The Tories are plainly in disarray and confusion over the serious issue of national security." -Hazel Blears

"I think this is a waste of public money." - Caroline Flint

These bastards are more right-wing than a lot of Tories but their sole purpose in life seems to be keeping the Tories out of office at all costs, incl. outflanking them from the right. It's Orwellian: power for power's sake.

DB is correct. There really is no worthwhile difference between Labour, the Tories, LibDems etc- although Labour is worst on this topic.

The quotes she gives sums up Labour succinctly - I look forward to a public statement by Dave that he has resigned form Labour.

off topic:

Dave don't resign from the LP, you'll only end up in the Greens ( or worse) :(

As the Daily Telegraph reported this morning, much of the motivation in all of this is to reassert the factional position of the Tory hard right – and with it Davis’s long-term leadership ambitions - against the Cameroons.

Some of Davis's internal opponents like Michael Gove are pretty right-wing in their own way.

Perhaps this is what the Americans would call a paleocon-neocon split.

"A courageous high risk strategy" ? Well not too many Labour MPs, including a chunk of the hard left - Dennis Skinner for goodness sake - would recognise that. Its called standing up for a principle dating back to 1215 rather than settling for a tawdry deal.

"A gesture it remains, and a deeply opportunistic one at that." No, an opportunistic gesture is voting to abolish a right dating back to 1215 simply to make Gordon Brown look better in the morning.

Every single Tory MP except Anne Widdicombe voted against extension to 42 days. It was principled opposition, theres precious few votes going begging where they need for them for the Tories in opposing 42 days, or ID cards for that matter. Labour should hang their head in shame for extinguishing idealism on Tiesday night and granting a sizeable part of the moral high ground on civil liberties to a character like David Davis.

Did aany of us in our wildest nightmares think on 1 May 1997 that 11 and a bit years later it would really come to this?

Mark P

I did - it was bloody obvious. Just been scratching my head for ten years trying to work out how the eurocommunists managed to persuade so many of all the third way guff.

Oh grow up.

Nobody seriously expected the Tory Shadow Home Secrertary backed by the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party, minus Anne Widdicombe, would be to the left of a Labour Government 11 years down the line when Blair's 'left' rival, Brown propised detention without trial fpr 42 days.

And if you did then I suggest you give up politics and invest your time backing the gee-gees because a small fortune awaits with foresight like that.

As for 'Eurocommunnists' being at fault. Give it a rest, this disaster of a government is the product of card-carrying Labour Party members, nobody else. Every single major Eurocommunist thinker and writer from the eighties when we were a bit in vogue has been an inveterate critic of this shoddy shower.

Maybe I'm a little naive, but I just assumed that his was a put-up stunt to test the waters and win a 'resounding' victory in a safe Tory seat and use that to embarrass NuLabour. I immediately thought that Camaron must have been in on the idea. But as I say, maybe I am too long in the tooth to believe that Tories have principles, apart from making as much money as possible and screwing the working class. Incidentally, I was reading the Independent this morning, and Steve Richards was arguing that the whole 42-day thing was unnecessary as laws already exist on the statute book for the judiciary to extend police investigatative time. It just shows Brown's complete lack of touch and direction.

Hehehe, nooo.

Davis has cleverly played this so the media are reporting his resignation as a response to the authoritarianism of New Labour. It is nothing of the sort. It can't be. He's an opposition frontbencher. He's *supposed* to lose all the votes in Parliament, he can't resign from a government he's not part of.

What he's doing is increasing his popularity in the Tory party itself. He's msking sure that in the next government he's Cameron's uncontested Number 2. If we're lucky, he might score a policy concession. He's going to turn a Cameron parliamentary defeat into a personal - if utterly meaningless - by-election victory. He may also be worried that next election there will be a significant Lab>Lib swing in his constituency or that his own numbers may fall a touch short, which might leave him vulmerable; he needs a solid constituency in order to focus on being a frontbencher.

Maybe I am too long on the tooth too to believe that Labour MPs might have principles too, like defending a civil liberty that dates back to 1215 rather than dump it for a tawdry deal or to make Brown look a tad better. On the other hand the every Conservative MP, minus Anne Widdicombe voted against 42 days.

It really has come to something when the Tories have the moral high ground on civil liberties. But theres no point pretending they haven't achieved precisely that and the fault lies entirely with the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs who voted for this sorry measure. Shame on you.

Mark P

Perhaps those wanting to beatify Davis might look at this

"“so-called hate laws which stifle debate”"

in his statement.

Be careful what you get into supporting here.

As for MarkP's point about Magna Carta and 1215.

Davis voted for 28 days.

Mark.
1215 - Did that go last night or on 28 days.Or 14 days.

I'll make it clear, I detest the New Labour project, and I oppose 42 day detention. But... for people to be posting drivel like... There really is no worthwhile difference between Labour, the Tories, LibDems is absolute ignorance.

Working class people in my constituency may care a bit about 42 day detention, but they care a bloody lot more about jobs, education, health and all of those issues where there is a chasm between Labour and David Davis' Party.

Take one statistic alone: In the last year of the John Major Government the capital programme for spending on schools in the borough where I live (one of the most deprived in the country) was less than half a million pounds. Under the latest plans announced this year we will be spending £370 million pounds refurbishing or new build for every secondary school in the Borough.

That will make the difference to the life chances and aspirations of thousands of working class kids.

That's the difference.

Bob Piper is absolutely right. We were talking in the pub after our Trades Council Meeting on Wednesday about the local Liberal-Tory Junta, who have ground this town into the ground (one of the few places, if not the only place where Labour won seats in the Council election). The senior Labour councillor explained in some detail about what a bunch of right-wing nutters the Tories here are. For example, how they were (and this is bleeding true) hate the fact that we have still a munipcally owned bus service. One Tory said publicly that she had not travelled on a bus since the mid-seventies. Or, I chimed in, that in trying to close the Caribbean Centre (International Centre) their new community centre in Saint Lawrence's will 'keep the riff-raff out'. That's the kind of people that David Davis comes from.

Ceci dit, there are some pretty dodgy new labour types still around. One used to be the PA to the Islington Council Labour Leader. She is close mates with Steven Twigg, though she claims she had nothing to do with their campaign against Liz Davis - bloody poor liar I would say. She has just got elected for Bridge Ward - very poor, though she herself lives in a very posh gaff near Christchurch Mansion. She replaced a black councillor who is a lefty - on the equal opportunities principle that privileged wealthy toffs who went to Oxford, have been at the Ecole Normale Superiere (her French is pretty non-existent but there you go) have two cars, and happen to be women have to replace working class black blokes.

So I can't say I hold much hope for Labour being a left party.

Obviously someone who is for the death penalty, against gay rights and who supported the first extension of detention without charge can hardly become a liberal icon all of a sudden. But the fact that someone of his background is so opposed to 42 days really does show just how far New Labour has plummeted. I do agree that it doesn't show that Labour are worse than the Tories, but it does show how important it is that some consistently liberal and social democratic voices are heard.

And Bob, more money is indeed being spent by New Labour on education. But much is sheer waste, going on PFI projects to replace perfectly viable schools and on pet projects that will do very little to improve the lot of working people.

One of the people writing drivel above is Labour Councillor Bob Piper.

No-one is saying there aren’t differences between the Tories, LibDems and Labour. If a council turns LibDem from Tory then there may be some, I don’t know, new climbing frames for kids in the parks.

But there is no fundamental difference between the bastards – they are all right-wing parties.

I was reading the other day in some Tory council newsletter about how they were increasing their spending on something, I daresay they were and probably cutting something else or making use of some increased funds but this is all penny ante stuff, like fobbing off someone ill with a few anadin.

At best the councillor is just a well meaning fool. At worst he is a mendacious party of those who rule over us.

Take his statistic about schools. Although there has doubtless been a big increase in the school capital programme in his borough, Sandwell, he’s comparing one year’s expenditure under the Tories (£500,000) with, I don’t know, probably a lot of years to complete the “refurbishing or new build for every secondary school in the Borough.” as I would guess £370M would be in the ball park of being Sandwell’s total budget (for all council services) per year. Another bit of Old Labour spin.

Socialists would argue for total class sizes to be twenty, all schools to have large playing fields, an on site theatre for school performances, music etc - which is only the facilities that any public school will provide its students - and we would obtain the means to pay for this.

At the top of the councillor’s blog it says ‘For a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families.’

Labour has never done that – certainly not the ‘power’ bit and any movement on the wealth bit has been more than corrected the other way by the current Labour government

‘For a fundamental shift in the balance of wealth in favour of the rich’ might be his more accurate slogan now because under Labour the poor have got poorer and the rich richer!

Any socialist in Labour needs to rip up their membership card (or is it a branded loyalty credit card these days? I wouldn't know) and help build a left alternative

Change the bloody record, SPP.

Who knows? You might even be right about us wasting our time in the Labour Party.

But I'm not going to be convinced of it by the old soak in the corner of the pub repeating the same tedious political 'wisdom' in my face over and over and over again while spraying peanuts and spit over me and stinking of crap lager.

Especially when that comes accompanied with insults as well.

What has the Labour Party ever done for us?

Luckily all the hours/lives spent organising far Left parties have delivered real concrete gains for working people.

The music will keep playing Rory as it's the only record in town - indeed you appear to be thinking about getting up from your Labour induced stupor and having a bit of a dance yourself ("You might even be right about us wasting our time in the Labour Party").

It might annoying having the bouncer yelling 'Fire' in your face constantly but I suggest you see beyond that, awake yourself and move fast - or see your coat shortly set ablaze.

Tom P, you have the petty Little Britain view of many a Labourite. "All the hours/lives spent organising far Left parties" did pay dividends - in the Soviet Union but could do so anywhere else; millions have supported Far Left parties.

Yours is also an ahistorical view. I could imagine, your metaphorical great grandfather, late in the 19th century - "All the hours/lives spent organising trade unions. Have they ever have delivered real concrete gains for working people? Look what happened to the Tolpuddle Martyrs" - this all said just before the explosive growth of trade unions.

As Bob Piper says:

"Working class people ... care a bloody lot more about jobs,

Take one statistic alone: "

According to Goldman Sachs, overvaluing the pound by around 12% to prop up the status of London as a major finnaical centre has cost 100000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland since labour came to power, and one million manufacturing jobs in Wales and the English regions outside the South East.

Labour's economic policy has been to systematicaly undermine the real economy in favour of a casino economy of financial speculation, consumer debt and exagerated house prices.

To paraphrase Bob : "That DID make the difference to the life chances and aspirations of thousands of working class kids."

Meanwhile, under labour - levels of depression and mental distress rise year on year, especially among the young. As labour criminalises young people with the so-called Respect agenda, and creates a continual sense of crisis around failing schools.

Ed Ball's Childrens' Plan recognises that inadequate housing is one of the key determiniants of poverty and stress among children - and concludes that the government has no power to do anything about it.

There is an epidemic of obessity among children - 75% of three year olds recognise the mcDinalds symbol, but less than half know their own surname. Labour's solution? No regulation of fast food, no restrictions on fast-food advertising.

Experts agree that pester power from advertising aimed at children causes unhappiness and financial distress for working class families. labour's rssponse no regulation - let the market describe.

Britain has the highest incarceration rates for young people in Europe, and rising levels of youth suicides and self harm in prison. During the Crewe and nantwitch by election,, labour produced a leaflet mocking "hoodies".

More than fifty fathers in the British army have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving more than eighty children orphaned.

Don't you dare say you are doing anything for the aspirations of young people.

You have utterly, utterely failed a generation. a generation that you have criminalised with ASBOs, priced out of lesiure centres and clubs through inadequate funding and provatisation, that you have demonised with your Respoect agenda, who you have sunk into debt with student tuition fees.

Labour used to stand for a new jeruslem, and you have given us consumerism and shopping channels, .

Andy,
Have a look at your childrens Primary School now,and compare it with a decade ago.
Instead you want regulation of shopping channels while you work for a bent DJ.

the more I think about this and more it becomes apparent that the Left should stand against David Davis

the Convention of the Left should put up a reason the articulate candidate and concentrate on the issues of another Tory government, how Labour has made that a real possibility, anti-authoritarianism, need to defend the Welfare state

there will be plenty of free publicity, obviously there's not a hope in hell's chance of winning or gaining sizeable vote, but that's not the point

the point is publicity and showing opposition to the Tories, solid opposition

so the Left should get its finger out, quickly find a reasonable candidate (not a glory boy or media honcho, but a solid trade unionist would do) and put the hat in the ring

less talking shop and a bit more action will raise the profile of the Left which will be needed for fighting another Tory government

No, southpawpunch, it is you that misses the point.... although £370 million is only a third of Sandwell's REVENUE budget, i.e. the one that provides the services you talk about. School building is CAPITAL programme, and that is what will build and refurbish the new schools. Yes, it is over a number of years (7 I think) but work out how many years it would have taken under the Tories at half a million quid a year.

Poor old Andy Newman tries to think of all the ills of society and as a typical 'nanny stater' wants to blame the government. So, was it Gordon Brown or Tony Blair that gave you the shopping channels? Andy thinks Gordon Brown is responsible for capital moving to China and India because of the value of the pound, instead of the cheap wages on offer.

His solution is to say what? We should have more laws regulating what people can eat - and when maybe. Get a bloody grip man!

For those living in working class areas where feral gangs (obviously the direct result of the New Labour Government which spends their evening hours organising the gangs) go on the rampage, asbos are not a solution, but they really don't want to hug-a-thug to make them more respectful.

It is possible to oppose 42 day detentions, the war in Iraq and PFI but still recognise there is a gulf between the Labour Party and its commitment to the less well off in society and the Conservatives who believe if we make the rich better off some wealth will trickle down to the poor.

Moan if you want Andy, but I can only assume you are too young to remember Britain under Thatcher.

Remind me again what's happened to the gap between rich and poor since 1997, Bob?

Those "living in working class areas" will not be feeling that helped-out by your government when their mortgages go tits up and there's no council housing to fall back on. Of course, if they were chief executives of a bank then your government would move heaven and earth to help them out...

"Tom P, you have the petty Little Britain view of many a Labourite."

It's funny posting on sites like these how often you get these kind of sneering replies from non-Labour lefties. The arrogance that stems from the belief that you "know" the one true path to socialism is never far from the surface is it?

"Remind me again what's happened to the gap between rich and poor since 1997, Bob?"

It's got worse obviously. But it's not as bad as it would have been without a Labour government, as the IFS has suggested for instance. Remind me again what the non-Labour Left has done to address the gap between rich and poor since 1997?

We do not have the choice betweeb 'good' and 'very good' options. We have the choice between 'not bad' and 'worse'. There are simply not enough people in this country who want a radical socialist government to make it electorally viable. Therefore Labour governments will always be a compromise.

A compromise, maybe, but not a complete sell out, how can you support a party where scumbags like James Purnell are again, warning the unemployed' and disabled people that 'life is about to get tougher for them' with more cuts harrassment, etc.

I am not on the far left, but for me any party which attacks the most vulnerable is beyond the pale

A compromise, maybe, but not a complete sell out, how can you support a party where scumbags like James Purnell are again, warning the unemployed' and disabled people that 'life is about to get tougher for them' with more cuts harrassment, etc.

I am not on the far left, but for me any party which attacks the most vulnerable is beyond the pale

(To explain first for those who don’t know (I do)- in a school, for example, you use ‘capital’ money to refurbish, etc, ‘revenue’ money to pay teachers etc.)

Well Bob, you have some front, I’ll give you that.

I mean half a million to 370 million, doesn’t sound credible does it?

Well of course not, BECAUSE IT’S A PFI SCHEME!!!

Do you really think you can come onto a Left(ish) site and fool us with such - even some Tories have seen through PFI.

http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/education-and-learning/schools/building-schools-for-the-future/frequently-asked-questions/

There we learn “Academies are publicly funded independent schools and a key part of our BSF (i.e. PFI) plans The BSF scheme has the backing of all the major political parties at present.”

“School sites are sometimes owned by the Council or held in trust by foundations or governing bodies. The same public body that holds the site now will continue to hold it under a PFI deal, but they will grant a lease to the PFI contractor who will build, finance, and manage the new school buildings for around 25 years.”

And as Unison states - www.unison.org.uk/file/A2941.doc - “(under BFS) Local authorities will be expected to establish local education partnership companies which would be 80% private, 10% PfS and 10% local authority controlled and which could take over services provided by the local education authority.”

“The creation of the LEP model will tie LAs into committing the core business of delivering education to a financially untested and highly complex corporate structure. It is a scheme of semi compulsory privatisation of education services. It removes accountability for the delivery of services away from the democratically elected LA into the hands of multi-national corporations whose primary interest is the creation of profits and the interests of their shareholders. “

And that’s just from tame Unison bureaucrats.

So when Sandwell council writes “The traditional capital programme funded by Sandwell Council is still available, but it is very small in comparison to the investment opportunity that BSF offers.” Translated by Southpawpunch that means - if we want to spend money on our schools, our Labour government gives us practically no alternative. We have to hand over the running of our schools, on very long contracts, to these parasites who will wiggle out of every obligation they have, try and hit us for ‘extra-contractual’ money all the time and deliver as little as they can get away with. A lot of this spurious ‘extra millions’ is in fact supposed investment from our private sector partners but they don’t do it for free - instead we will pay through the nose for many years to make them rich, look at the London tube deals for the sort of bonanzas, at the public expenses that PFI means for these companies.

Bob, Have you thought of asking to work at Labour HQ – they could do with some expert spinners.

And Bob, I remember Britain under Thatcher - student grants, one short war, 7 days detention maximum under the PTA and a few left wing Labour councillors not the reactionary (“feral youth” or your apparent thinking that preventing junk food advertising to kids is wrong – ‘nanny stating’) right wing enemy like you.

-

Tom ever thought of answering the question – why are you a Labour member - or do I detect arrogance there? Maybe ‘The one true path to socialism is though Labour but I can’t be bothered to explain why’

If you read any of my stuff either here e.g. Q: ‘why did the Left List do so badly?’ A; SPP - ‘I don’t know’ or look at my site you will see that I very often state that the answer to many Left questions, such as organisation, is unknown, but that it certainly isn’t Labour.

this election is a golden opportunity for the Left to raise its profile

we should prepare to attack the Tories, and new Labour, on these issues

the Convention of the Left needs to get this sort it out very quickly, put up an interim candidate, unite people in action

there's no chance of winning but it raises the profile of the anti-Tory opposition, that's the key

[Dave, what about a post on the Left vs. David Davis in this election]

I agree with Modernity.

There should be a Left candidate. I'm probably too optimistic in life but in the absence of the main candidates except the Tories, I think they could do well.

One Labour MP has already announced his support for DD and said that he will campaign for him. Nu-Lab is taking the Luke Akehurst line to heart and is looking for a stooge candidate - the name Mark Smeaton is being bandied about, but I have no idea if he is interested.

DD is obviously making a play for the liberal middle class who deserted the Tories under Thatcher and who went into Blair's tent. Nu-Lab is desperate and blowing the dog whistle. The problem is that after ten years of being ignored, no bugger believes them any more.

This is all to wonderful and I am giving up my weekend to blog it through. It is now almost 3.30am and I can't stop chuckling.

Tom - that's just the same old, tired "we're crap but the other side are even crapper so vote for us" line that I am no longer prepared to buy from Labour members. If you can't even think of a positive reason to back your own political party then what are you doing in it?

As for "what have the far left done for the poor", I wouldn't characterise principled critics of this government as being necessarily far left, but my main point would be that it seems a little peculiar to blame parties not in power for... not being in power. The Labour Party, not the Tories or the SWP for, is in government. It is supposed to be a party that reduces the gap between rich and poor. It hasn't even tried to do that but has actually courted the rich. I will never vote for a Blair/Brown style goveernment again, and I don't think it's "far left" to make such a reasonable pledge.

Voltaire's Priest - Like you I would like to see a credible socialist alternative to New Labour. In the absence of one however, the onus is on the people proposing such an alternative to establish what it is and how to achieve it.

In the absence any such ideas the utilitarian logic you are arguing against remains the most convincing argument - labour are better than the tories and no alternative exists, therefor voting labour as a form of damage limitation is the best solution.

Actually I disagree Joe - those within the Labour Party wanting support for it have a duty to offer some reason for doing so. The LP is not automatically entitled to people's votes, even in the absence of a left-wing alternative. Indeed it is Labour politicians taking their own core vote for granted over the decades ("what're they gonna do, vote tory?") that has contributed directly to the rise of the BNP. Ergo, I am no longer sellable on the "but the others are even worse" argument, and I think increasing numbers of people agree with me about that.

A candidate named David Craig has thrown his hat into the ring. He is fighting on a basically libertarian programme, though.

He did a guest posting at my place - obviously a serious candidate, but not likely to win. He is looking for canvassers in the division, if anyone is interested.

"He is fighting on a basically libertarian programme, though."

That's transparently nonsense. He says he's campaigning on "clear annual limits on immigration". That's to the right of all the major parties' policy on immigration!

I'm wary of the trap of getting into a debate about what policies a left candidate has to adopt to be considered left, but to support a candidate attacking David Davis from the left, surely they have to be actually from the left? It seems like the only points on which this candidate can be considered libertarian (ID cards, 42 days) are points he agrees with Davis on. How then can he attack Davis from the left?