tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58917947373434689032024-03-20T02:06:36.611-07:00REDSTART
The blogger formerly known as Doctordunc, with news, views, gossip and scoops from a Labour Party activistDuncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-89595669312472807762019-07-18T06:48:00.002-07:002019-07-18T07:08:12.810-07:00Ending Labour's "Culture War"Almost everyone in the Labour Party agrees about antisemitism. You wouldn't think that from the news or newspapers, from arguments on Twitter or elsewhere on social media, from disagreements in meetings or events in the capital. But it's true. There is only a tiny and irrelevant minority that disagrees with the view that antisemitism is abhorrent, completely unacceptable and a genuine problem in society that should be taken very seriously. That tiny minority is made up of a small number of racists who have snuck into the party from somewhere, and a small number of people who consider the issue so trivial that they are prepared to weaponise it for their own factional advantage.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the vast majority essentially agree. That is not to say that they all get everything right, that nobody makes mistakes, that everyone's perception and interpretation of events is correct: that is clearly not the case. But if we accept that they all find antisemitism abhorrent and serious, then we have to look elsewhere to understand the depths of the division and disagreements currently occurring in the party.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, a word or two about prejudice and discrimination. While I don't think I've ever encountered a committed antisemite - someone who consciously hates Jews (though such people undoubtedly exist and walk among us) - I have encountered antisemitism. I have heard people make sweeping generalisations about Jewish people. We find it shocking when we encounter it, but on one level we should not be shocked. After all we hear people make similar sweeping and negative generalisations about Muslims, "Asians", gay people, etc. all the time. And while I'm sure it's true to say we hear such comments more outside the Labour Party than in it, it would be dangerously complacent to suggest the party was free of such discrimination: it is not. So the Labour Party, like any organisation, needs to address prejudice and discrimination. Perhaps more so than other organisations, due to our principles and historic mission. So the question is not <i>whether</i> to tackle discrimination and prejudice. It is <i>how</i>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's look at some cases from the last few years: [<i>Edit: A reader has suggested this next section was "whataboutery". It certainly wasn't written in that spirit. It is simply meant to be a list of high-profile examples of why - as a party - we need to address prejudice and discrimination. The fact that some readers won't agree with the inclusion of each of these names is addressed afterwards, so please don't stop reading in anger.]</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2007 and Margaret Hodge pandered to racist mythology with outrageous and inaccurate comments about housing policy, drawing widespread condemnation. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/may/27/letters.politics">https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/may/27/letters.politics</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Notoriously Phil Woolas, in 2010, distributed blatantly racist and Islamophobic leaflets ( <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/05/full-judgment-phil-woolas">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/05/full-judgment-phil-woolas</a> ). Many of Woolas' colleagues came to his defence, such as Tom Watson (who had earlier run Liam Byrne's 2004 campaign which stoked fears and a moral panic about asylum seekers).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Tom Harris, MP, in 2013, engaging in blatant discrimination against people from Eastern Europe. No subtle tropes, or careless language here, but straightforward and unapologetic stereotyping: <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10477858/Object-to-mass-immigration-from-the-EU-Join-the-Romaphobe-club.html">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10477858/Object-to-mass-immigration-from-the-EU-Join-the-Romaphobe-club.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A less extreme, but also less political, example: Toby Perkins, MP in 2018 made a homophobic remark to Owen Jones and George Eaton (quipping "you make a lovely couple"). At least Toby made a half-hearted apology.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These are just a few high-profile examples. We could all point to cases - some less high profile than others - of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, did the Labour Party react appropriately in any of these cases? Woolas was suspended, after a court threw him out of parliament (although prior to the court decision he had been appointed to the Shadow Cabinet) but otherwise: I don't know. And the reason I don't know is that, if any action were taken it was presumably done in a confidential manner.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And indeed, for the most part, that is the proper way to deal with such things. No doubt many people are reading this blog and fuming, because they think that one or more of the names above have been wrongly included in such a list. And that's fine too: there is usually more than one side to a story. None of these people should have been instantly auto-excluded, or not be allowed to defend themselves or be defended by others.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But fundamentally, these are issues that should be dealt with not in terms of punishing individuals - unless they are engaged in abuse or bullying - but in terms of education and development. I've written about this <a href="http://redstartblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/beyond-zero-tolerance-fixing-labours.html" target="_blank">before</a>, and Clive Lewis has <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-antisemitism-crisis-education-jewish-israel-palestine-bbc-panorama-a9006666.html" target="_blank">recently commented</a> helpfully on this too. Ultimately, it should be possible for a mature party to disagree civilly over the interpretation of words by Margaret Hodge or Jackie Walker, while expelling people who send threatening or abusive messages or behave in a threatening or intimidating manner, and - as a group - educating each other about the sort of prejudice were are discussing. The disciplinary procedures should police behaviours and clear rule breaches. Political education should ensure that we are all more respectful of differences, and are reflective about our own prejudices and limitations. A positive and collective approach to improve our political culture should ensure that we can do that reflection without seeing everything through the prism of factionalism. The latter is only possible in an open and educative culture which allows people - whichever internal faction they may align to, if any - to make mistakes and learn from them. Where there are disciplinary proceedings, everyone should be confident in them; it must be possible for them to find in the accused's favour as well as against them, depending on the evidence and rules and a fair hearing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So why isn't this what's happening? There are a few clear reasons for this, but the most notable is that the whole thing has become distorted by an unrelated argument about the future political direction of the Labour Party and the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Through this prism, arguments are distorted. These are arguments that would be difficult and intemperate in any case. People are naturally and rightly angry if they perceive a comment or communication to be antisemitic. People are naturally ultra-defensive if they feel they are being accused of racism. Throw factionalism into the mix and the whole thing blows up: one faction piles in on the accused, another piles in on the accuser, neither reflects on the real offence, or on the real explanations. "It's endemic of the hard left"; "it's a weaponised slur". Nothing can really be achieved in this sort of situation. And everything is made worse by drops of poison added by that tiny minority I mentioned at the start. So real racists will "defend" the accused with appalling, unacceptable comments which add to the initial charge sheet. And people who don't give a damn about antisemitism will play to the gallery, building a narrative where the only end to this infernal and eternal fight is for <a href="https://talkradio.co.uk/news/robert-winston-corbyn-can-resign-prove-hes-not-antisemitic-19071731631" target="_blank">their faction to regain control of the party</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How do we move on? The vast majority in the party - the good will actors, regardless of faction or political tradition - should come together to support a mass equalities training programme. This training should be for everyone - not just those who stand accused of some particular wrongdoing - and there should be a careful review of complaints and compliance to ensure that processes and procedures are confidential, robust and command confidence. But more than anything else, the factionalism must be taken out of this argument and the minority who only seek to damage the party and care nothing for the victims of prejudice and discrimination should be marginalised and eradicated, whether they are a keyboard warrior at home, or a former minister plotting their comeback.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-73668078382591601792019-03-03T10:24:00.001-08:002019-03-04T08:18:26.228-08:00Beyond Zero Tolerance: Fixing Labour's Political CultureSince 2015, the Labour Party's membership has more than doubled, bringing a whole new array of people into the party, with a wide variety of experience and previous political activity. This is overwhelmingly a positive thing. However, at the same time the political culture today is often disappointingly divisive and ill-tempered.<br />
<br />
Much of this is inevitable. First, many of the new members joined in a particular political circumstance - around the leadership elections of 2015 and 2016 - and were met with a very negative reaction from many MPs, officials and the mass media. In these circumstances, a culture emerged at an early stage of new members (and old members on the left) being under attack and all engagement with activism and the rest of the movement was in the context of factional division.<br />
<br />
At some point, concerns began to be expressed about the presence of antisemitism in some discourse within the party (and outside the party in the broader left). These concerns were not entirely new - there were controversies surrounding both Ken Livingstone and George Galloway from before this period, and some of Nick Cohen's argument in his polemic <i>What's Left </i>related to these issues too. For the most part, at this time, it was in relation to the language of pro-Palestinian activism, and also the presence or tolerance of individuals within pro-Palestinian activism who held antisemitic views. With the new influx of party members came another source of potential antisemitism - online conspiracy theory discourse, much of which focuses on mythology about "Rothschild bankers", etc.<br />
<br />
The active and established left must take some responsibility for this: this is a discourse that crept back into radical, anti-establishment politics because of an absence of political education. Essentially, we left a vacuum for this stuff to blossom.<br />
<br />
Of course, these are not the only negative aspects of the party and movement's political culture. As well as a minority of members using or sharing antisemitic discourse, a minority uses other forms of racist language and assumptions, there is homophobia and sexism. Indeed, we need to look at all of this with a broader view: the labour movement is in need of equalities training, just like any other organisation. We like to think we're better - because we should be better - but actually any organisation, and particularly a large organisation with a fast-changing membership, requires learning and development as a group.<br />
<br />
And this is really where our political culture is a problem: not that we are "institutionally antisemitic" (we're not) but that we have a political culture that does not support learning and development. And we have a complaints and discipline process that is hard to make work fairly and justly, because of the extraordinary way in which it is made public.<br />
<br />
Anyone who has delivered equalities training will tell you that one of the first things that you say in such training is "it's okay to make mistakes". The way to encourage learning and development on equalities issues is to welcome discussion - yes, to challenge but also to listen and to try to understand. At the moment, it isn't okay to make mistakes in the Labour Party. There is no such thing as a mistake. If someone uses language that someone else considers antisemitic, that person is an antisemite and if they are not expelled from the Labour Party that is evidence of institutional antisemitism. That is not a way to resolve the problem or to progress. And (fortunately!) it is not how we respond to other equalities issues.<br />
<br />
Anyone who has worked as a union rep and helped individuals who are facing allegations and are subject to disciplinary proceedings know that this should be a confidential process (after all, the investigation may find in the accused's favour) and that outcomes could include verbal warnings that would be confidential and would not follow that person for the rest of their life. And remember, that the sorts of allegations that might be made within an organisation in the Labour Party does not just impact their political futures but could impact their reputation beyond politics and their ability to get a job, and the allegations can continue to have that impact whatever the outcome.<br />
<br />
Not at all in a spirit of whataboutery, I will illustrate this with some real examples and some hypothetical situations in relation to other types of discrimination or prejudice.<br />
<br />
I dislike the "gotcha" element of identifying those who "make mistakes" so I point out that my real examples are chosen not because I think the people in question should have been suspended or expelled, but because it was right that they weren't. Let's start with MP, Toby Perkins.<br />
<br />
Toby responded to tweets by journalists George Eaton and Owen Jones agreeing with each other with "you make a lovely couple". The tweet was rightly called out as being homophobic and he tweeted a brief apology "yeah, probably not my finest moment, sorry..." But I wonder how Toby would have responded if he'd been suspended from the party and investigated and referred to as "a homophobe" rather than having said something homophobic? Obviously we don't know, but most people would become very defensive and feel they were being unfairly treated, pointing out how the criticisms might be politically-motivated and part of an agenda. And then how might those who might be considered to be part of the same political faction as Toby react if people further suggested that this was typical of their views? And that they should apologise for it?<br />
<br />
Imagine we were canvassing and a voter blamed economic problems on "Eastern European immigrants". Would a sensible response be to call the voter a racist and say we hope they didn't vote for us? And then maybe to expose them on social media as a racist? Of course we wouldn't, whether they were a Labour Party member or not. We might want to discuss their views and try and persuade them of a different perspective.<br />
<br />
It is not that we were wrong to say there should be zero tolerance. But what does it actually mean? There should be zero tolerance of discriminatory abuse - absolutely. Anyone engaging in that sort of thing has no place in the Labour Party. There should also be zero tolerance of discriminatory language, discourse and behaviour that is not in itself abusive, but here it is the language, discourse and behaviour for which there should be zero tolerance, not necessarily the person who uses it. Because it has to be okay to make mistakes and to learn from them.<br />
<br />
So here's an alternative approach. And it's one that everyone needs to come on board with. First off, we need to begin with an assumption of good faith on all sides. Of course, starting from such a position, sometimes we will be disappointed. But if we can't at least start with that assumption, there's not much point to any of the rest of this. Next, we need to row back from a culture where people seek to catch people out. We roll out and promote equalities training for all members, but we stop seeing language and error (e.g. use of tropes and conspiratorial thinking) as disciplinary matters and instead see them as education and training matters, so that disciplinary processes can focus on abusive and clearly discriminatory behaviour. That the labour movement as a whole works to take the factionalism out of all of this and instead seeks to to ensure a) that victims are protected, and b) that everyone learns and develops together because we all have a lot to learn about each other if we are genuinely to do politics better.Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-18889391171291975162018-09-24T23:48:00.003-07:002018-09-24T23:52:12.495-07:00The People's Vote: the risks and how to avoid them<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX2ZkNDDCnnMjGpweDO3R3KFdhNbrojObqPutvCWNlxVj2RRwZZbT51zBc7j-0QqV04hDTt-zKHNFN48RhYcT6xEgP-VXBfhmO7C-vj_psQD-s8N7OlQNb53EEAUiqjjPXJ8Wyl07thlhv/s1600/Screen+Shot+2018-09-25+at+07.10.49.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1034" data-original-width="1030" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX2ZkNDDCnnMjGpweDO3R3KFdhNbrojObqPutvCWNlxVj2RRwZZbT51zBc7j-0QqV04hDTt-zKHNFN48RhYcT6xEgP-VXBfhmO7C-vj_psQD-s8N7OlQNb53EEAUiqjjPXJ8Wyl07thlhv/s320/Screen+Shot+2018-09-25+at+07.10.49.png" width="318" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
"It's time for a real referendum on Europe" pledged Nick Clegg. An army of committed Europhiles were supremely confident that the public would see how intelligent, moderate people were certain about the benefits of EU membership and would vote "the right way". Most opinion polls agreed with them.<br />
<br />
In fact, a Europhile government, led by europhiles - Cameron and Osborne - created Brexit out of nowhere. There was no prospect of UKIP ever forming a government, however much difficulty they might cause the Tories, and no other party were interested in leaving the EU.<br />
<br />
Presumably, most of those confident centre-right men would, in private at least, now regret their confidence before the referendum, and appreciate that Brexit was really their doing: there was no need to hold a referendum, it was one of choice. And yet many of the same people have been campaigning vigorously over recent months for what they call a "People's Vote" (a referendum by any other name). While most have described this as a vote on the deal, their reaction to the description of Labour's stance on a vote "on the deal" suggests that they really intended a simple re-run of the original referendum. Again, the confidence is impressive. The polls are with them. People realise that they had a moment of stupidity in 2016 and now they're back to believing and following their superiors... History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Because, let's face it, what the referendum did not give a government was a mandate for a specific deal, nor a mandate to leave with no deal. And the 2017 election did not give a government that either, as no party won a majority. The one thing that could give a government that mandate is another referendum. Cue the "sensible, moderate" turkeys to push for another vote for Christmas.<br />
<br />
If May's "deal" (if there is one) is defeated in parliament, she will be faced with three clear options. 1) To crash out with no deal (except that would clearly be defeated in parliament too); 2) to call a general election; 3) to call another referendum on her deal. The options in a May referendum would almost certainly be for her deal or no deal.<br />
<br />
If people want to avoid a bad deal or no deal, the obvious position to push for is a general election and a Labour victory. In such a scenario it is unthinkable that the Labour Party negotiating team, led by Keir Starmer, would not push for article 50 to be delayed and for negotiations to start again in a wholly more constructive way, without the belligerence and hostility of the last two years and where crashing out with no deal would not be anywhere "on the table".<br />
<br />
That way, avoiding "no deal" or a "bad deal" is guaranteed. That way, we are more-or-less guaranteed some sort of "soft Brexit" which, that morning in 2016, most on the "remain" side of the argument would have seen as the best possible outcome. If May has a vote on her deal, then you have more-or-less guaranteed a dog's dinner or a hard Brexit. It's not rocket science. Indeed, those who wish to have no Brexit at all would also have their best chance in the general election scenario, as the date would be pushed back, the risk of no deal would be gone and there would be time for events to play out and alternative outcomes to arise.<br />
<br />
And so to Labour policy. I didn't back having this so-called "people's vote" but I am above all a supporter of party democracy and recognise that I'm in a minority on this. But if we are going to pursue such a policy, we need to ensure that we minimise the risk. Remember, we are currently talking about an alternative to a general election: the Tories writing the question, hoping to get their preferred outcome.<br />
<br />
What could the questions be? The most likely May question is:<br />
<br />
May's deal (some variation on Chequers if she eventually gets something agreed) vs no deal.<br />
<br />
Much less likely, I think:<br />
<br />
No deal vs remain<br />
<br />
The chances of some sort of three-way referendum are almost none. You couldn't fairly have a referendum where the vote could be split (e.g. remain vs. bad deal vs no deal) and I can't see any prospect of the Tories calling some sort of complex preferential vote, with AV or SV, for instance.<br />
<br />
In the first scenario: I would anticipate low levels of interest and turnout: nobody is terribly enthusiastic about any sort of deal May might muster, as such I think it highly likely that "no deal" would win.<br />
<br />
No deal vs remain is of course likely to be much closer, and so I can see why some "remainiacs" (for want of a better word) might see this as their best chance. But again, campaigning for such a vote is creating the conditions for no deal in a scenario when such a chance is not required. It is Nick Clegg 2015 re-loaded. Those who say that "no deal" would be a disaster (and each day brings a new more alarming headline about the possible consequences of such a decision) would not be wise to call a public vote on it.<br />
<br />
Instead, if we must have another vote (and I would prefer a general election) the question that Labour should campaign for, and vote for in parliament (while voting against other alternatives) is the vote between May's deal (whatever that turns out to be) and re-starting negotiations (which could only reasonably be done by a new government).<br />
<br />
If Labour can unite around that strategy at this stage, regardless of whether they were Remain or Leave in 2016, perhaps it can also lead a similar coming together among the public and we can finally move beyond the division that Clegg, Cameron and Osborne brought with their hubris.<br />
<br />
<br />Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-60104832731211894882016-08-23T01:52:00.001-07:002016-08-23T01:52:33.714-07:00Why Membership Matters<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A common
criticism of “Corbynism” and recent developments in the Labour Party is that
members don’t matter, what matters is the electorate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On one very basic level of course this is
true: winning general elections requires the votes of many more people than
will ever join the Labour Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But our
party’s history shows that on another level this is a false dichotomy of epic
proportions. And the Corbyn project – of turning the party back into a
mass-membership movement – has some surprising historical supporters.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Labour now
has more members than it has had since the 70s and has reversed a trend that
has been seen in major political parties of all ideological persuasions across
Europe: one of membership decline. It’s hard to get a precise membership figure
but it topped half a million in early July.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>History tells us that this should be an encouraging development:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">While in
the mid-1930s membership briefly exceeded 400,000 at a time of slow rebuilding
for the party after the splits of 1931, membership really got going in the
early 1940s, reaching a peak of over a million in 1950/51.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This period obviously includes Labour’s landslide
victory of 1945 and also the 1951 election which saw Labour lose despite
getting its highest ever popular vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Of course we cannot prove causality, but there was undoubtedly a
correlation between mass membership and a high popular vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After some decline, membership increased
again in the early 1960s (topping 800,000), heralding the 1964 election result
and remained reasonably buoyant (over 600,000) until 1979 when the membership
took its sharpest and longest ever fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It remained at a much lower level through the 1980s (though still higher
than we came to accept as normal after 2000) – between 250 and 300
thousand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">What
happens next is fascinating: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown conclude that mass
membership is a huge key to election success: it is a massive ingredient of the
New Labour project.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Particularly from
1994 there is a membership surge, peaking at over 400,000 in 1997.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From then there is another decline to our
lowest membership levels since we have clear records (1928).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is slow, it is steady but it is a decline
nevertheless, dropping below 200,000 by 2005 and staying in those depths
(despite a barely-perceptible increase in 2010, presumably from people wanting
a vote in the leadership election) until 2015 when we get a rapid surge in
labour membership figures, challenged only in our history by 1944/5, and one
that is still continuing, has taken us past the early/mid-90s surge and back to
numbers we haven’t seen since the 1970s and possibly the early 1960s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">There is no escaping the
statistics: Labour gets far more votes in general elections when it has a
larger membership.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Falls in party
membership pre-empt electoral failure (apart from in 1939 when more significant
factors might have been at work).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t
just take my word for it; there is plenty of academic work to back this
up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seyd and Whiteley – in a number of
articles in the 1990s – concluded that mass membership was an essential
ingredient of winning and that, for Labour to win again, it needed new
members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Against an academic orthodoxy
of a few years earlier, they concluded that a mass membership made a party <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">more</i> representative of the public.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their theory was put to an early test, where
New Labour saw a significant influx of new members and Labour won the 1997
General Election (and of course won it by a very large margin).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This mirrored the thinking of Tony Blair (</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt;">“This mass membership – extending
the membership of the party – that’s not a glorified recruitment drive to me,
it’s about transforming the way the Labour party works and it operates and it
thinks... We are changing the whole culture of the party and the way it works”)
and Gordon Brown (“for this army of supporters now waiting in the wings,
individual membership should be inexpensive to buy and attractive to hold”.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt;">Now we need to be clear
that Blair and Brown’s thinking was a little different from that of “the
Corbynistas” but the difference is interesting in itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They believed that a mass membership would be
naturally more <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moderate</i> than
activists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They felt that the officers
in CLPs and members of GCs tended to be politically-radical, partisan, old
Bennites and the like, whereas a broader membership would reflect the floating
voters who populated the new reality of the electorate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I remember being the left-wing equivalent
of a “bitterite” at the time, annoyed at these new members who’d probably voted
Tory or Lib Dem at the last election and weren’t interested in proper meetings
and just wanted discos and barbeques…<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt;">And part of what Blair,
Brown and their academic supporters hoped for didn’t happen: there was not a
significant increase in activism and, disappointingly, membership levels
slumped.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s some evidence to
suggest that Blair became less interested in mass membership (after members did
annoying things like vote for Ken Livingstone in London) and saw the idea of
registered supporters as a way of bringing less political people into
politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, this has not turned out
as he might have imagined.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt;">But the truth is that
wanting to join a political party (as a member or a supporter) is not
necessarily “normal”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The biggest
political parties are still going to be made up of people who are more <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">political</i> than the general public, and
that was true in the 1940s and 50s as well as today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite this, mass membership unquestionably
goes in tandem with electoral success.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Members, as Blair suggested, are two-way ambassadors for the party who
embed the party into communities. For that to work, of course, the party and
its members must be on much better terms and there needs to be effective
political education to ensure that members’ conversations with other voters are
constructive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There also needs to be
great care that we are not seeing a temporary membership surge and that new
members are made welcome and encouraged to become activists.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
<o:PixelsPerInch>96</o:PixelsPerInch>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="380">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Level 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt;">Whatever happens in the
leadership election, we need to embrace mass membership party politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is Labour’s best chance of finding a route
to success and is the party’s one significant advantage in the current
political climate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If people are
inclined to insult or dismiss new members, they are insulting and dismissing
Labour’s future electoral success.<o:p></o:p></span>Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-52195710716064106372016-08-01T02:24:00.001-07:002016-08-01T02:24:24.174-07:00A Response to Owen JonesOwen, I read your recent article, about the questions we Jeremy Corbyn supporters need to answer, with a great deal of interest. I think, in some ways, the questions are even bigger than you acknowledge as most are questions that all Labour supporters need to answer, regardless of their position on the current leadership question. But some are clearly focused on the left. While I am a little confused by the timing of the article, in the middle of a leadership contest, I take the article as questions from a critical friend and will attempt a response in the same spirit.<br />
<br />
<b>1. How can the disastrous polling be turned around?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
As with all the questions, the answers are not only in the gift of one section of Labour supporters, but we do - of course - need to improve our position in the opinion polls. It is worth bearing in mind that, while Labour's polling is a long way from where we need it to be, the current very low rating has happened quite specifically following three events: the Brexit vote, the arrival of Theresa May and the "coup" attempt.<br />
<br />
May will of course go up and down in the polls as people get to know her more and we can't read too much into her initial popularity. Callaghan got a huge boost in the polls when he replaced Wilson, the same was true of Major and Brown: none of these went on to be hugely successful leaders (although Major did, of course, win the next election).<br />
<br />
The referendum was never going to be good for Labour electorally, whatever the result. A strong Remain result would have been presented as very much David Cameron's victory; absurdly the narrow Leave result was presented as Labour's loss, despite polling evidence showing that Labour voters predominantly voted Remain and however people voted in the referendum, how Westminster politicians implored them to vote was unlikely to make much difference (except perhaps a negative one). The "Corbyn lost the referendum" narrative was one created entirely to help lay the foundations of the "coup" and therefore must be added to that pile.<br />
<br />
The factor that was in Labour's power to avoid was the "coup". As I know you agree, it was wholly unnecessary and appallingly timed and has made it much harder for us to answer your questions because, at a time when we need to be speaking to the country, we've been forced into speaking to each other in a pointless leadership election.<br />
<br />
But let us just remind ourselves of the impact of the coup. On the 25 June Labour and Conservatives were tied. I totally accept that that isn't good enough in the context of the Tories-at-war scenario that had been played out, although not entirely surprising bearing in mind the (yes, anticipated) relentless media storm against Corbyn and Labour. The nosedive in the polls has all occurred since then, although it's worth bearing in mind that it has primarily been a boost in the polls for the Tories rather than a significant reduction for Labour, and this might partly be down to UKIP voters returning to the Tory fold in the context of Brexit, which should perhaps not be all that surprising. I think we have to be healthily sceptical of polls in such a volatile political climate, but it's worth bearing in mind that the ICM poll that had everybody deeply miserable in July did ask what people's voting intentions would be like if Eagle or Smith were Labour leader rather than Corbyn and the Tory vote stayed the same and the Labour vote fell further. Take that with a healthy pinch of salt; Smith in particular was not well-known to voters, but it does suggest that it was May bringing the Tories up rather than Corbyn particularly bringing Labour down. It's worth adding to that that in early April Corbyn's personal approval ratings were higher than Cameron's. Again, in the context of the media attacks - and no small amount of friendly fire - that is no mean feat in itself.<br />
<br />
There is an oft-repeated slogan on social media that Labour had its worst local government election performance since 1983. Actually it was the worst since 2015... In the leadership elections, there was a doom and gloom prediction that Labour would lose 500 council seats if Jeremy were to win the leadership election (based on an assessment of how Labour would perform if we remained where we were in terms of popularity following the 2015 General Election) rather than the 18 we actually lost. No complacency - we should be winning council seats - but not the predicted crisis either. The same is true of the by-election and mayoral results too.<br />
<br />
But to improve them?<br />
- <i>Divided parties are unpopular parties</i>; we are where we are but we must somehow neutralise the division in the party when this pointless leadership election is over and we must continue to operate an effective opposition as best we can while it continues. The latter is happening; despite the twin handicaps of an unnecessary leadership election and mass front bench resignations, the government is still being held accountable on issues like education, housing, the economy and the environment. We need to get those messages out loud and clear so that the only noise people are hearing from Labour isn't leadership nonsense. The former is much harder because it isn't only in the gift of Corbyn supporters. After all, there was a massive effort to be collegiate in September. I supported it then, I'm not so sure now. If everyone on the left and centre left had been given plum jobs maybe that was a parliamentary coalition we could have held together rather than trying to keep on board people who were never going to be anything but hostile? Some MPs (and particularly some "supporters" outside) are threatening to simply reload the coup or, worse, split or create some sort of partial split. Unlike <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/02/labour-party-may-divide-before-conquer" target="_blank">you</a>, I've never thought a split to be an appealing idea. I think Labour has to be able to work as a broad church. But I think those that would not welcome a Corbyn government - regardless of whether they think it electable or not - would be best dealt with as a backbench awkward squad rather than an internal enemy. Those who are broadly supportive of the direction of travel but are concerned about electability or have concerns about leadership styles, etc need to be embraced and brought back on board.<br />
<br />
- <i>Play to our strengths</i>. There are a number of strengths we can focus on. The UK is just as anti-politics and anti-establishment as it was two months ago and one outlet of that is potentially in a worse state than Labour (although nobody is paying much attention): UKIP. So if we can retain the sense of popular insurgency - of being the outsiders at the top table - that is something we can certainly tap into (although it's important in the mean time not to lose the votes of people who are more deferential to traditional political structures). Jeremy himself is a strength. It's not popular to say it at the moment, but when people see Jeremy himself, unspun and unmediated, they are usually impressed. He's likeable, honest, thoughtful. Also, he's actually rather nuanced and unorthodox in some of his political thinking (a million miles from the cartoon that is often presented). The very fact that Jeremy doesn't look like a polished presenter who has spent his life preparing for power is a strength; an appealing factor.<br />
<br />
Most of the responses to how we improve in the polls relate to your other questions and I don't want this article to be a book, so I'll move on!<br />
<br />
<b>2. Where is the clear vision?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I think, when you see the huge crowds at Corbyn rallies (that you rather surprisingly compare with Foot rallies; an unnecessary echoing of other media criticism) clearly a lot of people see a clear vision. I think we could all see a clear vision in September, and we can see it today too - there was a bit of fogging in the middle, I would agree. The trouble is, Jeremy is a democrat and does not believe that by winning the leadership election on a particular set of policies that they automatically become Labour policy. And he also tried very hard to be collegiate and bring in people from all corners of the party, which inevitably muddied the water a little in terms of policy and vision (and I know policy is a separate question so I'll try and keep the answers separate).<br />
<br />
So, the vision? To transform Britain into a significantly fairer, more equal and kinder society where nobody is left behind and where our role in the world is to lead ethically and to be a force for peace and progress. A bit general? (Visions often are). But okay; to ensure that middle and lower earners, workers and small business owners, get a fairer share of the proceeds of economic growth; to devolve power from Westminster and the centre to give people wherever they are in the UK more say over how they are governed and the services they can access; to re-cast government as an active force for good, that will plan and intervene in the interest of the long-term development of an economy that will deliver this. A government focused on making lives better, for parents, children, workers, pensioners. A government that will protect and improve the best of British, what people really value - like the NHS - and will bring us new sources of pride, in the form of a National Education Service (free lifelong education and training), improved, democratised public transport and a new era of municipal entrepreneurialism.<br />
<br />
As Jeremy says: "a society where nobody and no community is left behind and where we only achieve things by working together." Seems like a pretty good vision to me.<br />
<br />
<b>3. How are the policies significantly different from the last general election?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
First of all, I think Labour had some really good policies at the last election, coupled with some really bad messaging. I don't think there being some overlap of policy is a bad thing, especially when put in the context of the fact that there has been little opportunity to <i>formally and democratically</i> change policy since the manifesto upon which the current MPs were elected. That said, there is inevitably some disconnect between what we might describe as Corbyn policy and Party policy. And of course Jeremy gave portfolios to people who were not necessarily signed up to the policy documents that he put out during the leadership election and, correctly, gave them space and opportunity to develop their own initiatives. So a glib answer might be: the policies are still very similar to the last general election because Labour hasn't developed its next manifesto yet (and neither have any other parties). But that is glib: there are clear, distinct policies being developed that are significantly different from those offered at the last election:<br />
<br />
- National Investment Bank and network of regional banks<br />
- Public ownership of rail and mail<br />
- Restoration of the NHS<br />
- Abolition of university tuition fees<br />
- Restore collective bargaining and repeal anti-union legislation<br />
- Restore the Migrants Impact Fund<br />
<br />
There is more of course, and we have to see this in the context of a sudden and massive change for the UK - Brexit - which is changing policy thinking in all parties, and in the context of some areas of policy where there are clear differences that are still being played out (e.g. nuclear weapons).<br />
<br />
<b>4. What's the Media Strategy?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Good question. This is one where I think we would all appreciate your assistance with some answers as well as a question... It's bloody difficult isn't it? As we all knew it would be. The bulk of the mainstream media is absolutely against Labour and even some Labour-supporting media is largely against Corbyn. Better or more timely press releases isn't really going to reverse that. So yes, social media ends up having to be a huge part of it. I know you weren't impressed but the "we are his media" stuff is one approach. And you can dismiss it, of course, but the social media reach is huge and will only become more significant. Of course there are significant sections of society that it doesn't reach. But people like Jeremy and John - and also Cat, Clive, etc, too - are making regular media appearances and tend to get a lot of very positive responses to them. There is a problem that, however positive and constructive those appearances are, a minor controversy is identified therein and that becomes the news. But that would be true of whoever was Labour leader. After all we had five years of a leader whose approach to a bacon sandwich and his father's alleged lack of patriotism were considered newsworthy. Whatever the strategy, Labour is not going to get an easy ride in the media, whoever is leader and (almost) whatever the policy trajectory. One useful change could be if our critical friends focused a little more on the friendship and just a touch less on the criticism (as, to be candid, the criticism is not in short supply).<br />
<br />
<b>5. What's the strategy to win over the over-44s?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
There's a double-edge to this question as firstly, it is hugely important to appeal to older voters, even if the psephology did not demand it, but secondly the psephological analysis you point to could also be partially dealt with by mobilising more of the younger voters to actually vote. So you'll forgive me if I try and address both?<br />
<br />
This might be a slightly controversial point, but part of this is about class politics. In the UK today there is some truth in the idea that wealth and assets is generational as well as social: that a significant proportion of the older generation have wealth and assets denied to the generations that followed, particularly through home ownership. Therefore, to a certain extent, it might be expected that a low tax, low spend, keep-things-more-or-less-as-they-are agenda would appeal more to this relatively prosperous section of society than any call for radical change. Of course the so-called "grey vote" is not homogenous and Labour could, as Jeremy replied to your question, focus on an agenda based around respect, pensioner poverty, protecting pensions and supporting and improving social care (and especially improving its funding). But only some of that will appeal to the more prosperous older voters, and of course there is a major overlap there with your question about appealing to Conservative voters.<br />
<br />
It is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of older voters do care about their children and grand-children and do worry about them. And policies that are aimed primarily at those voters can be "packaged" for older voters too. Tuition fees, for example.<br />
<br />
But also, I think our massive increase in membership has lots of potential in terms of getting more people to vote. But I guess that relates to a later question...<br />
<br />
<b>6. Whats the strategy to win over Scotland?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Yes, this - like the last one really - is one of those questions that the whole Labour Party needs to think about, not just Corbyn supporters. It's really hard, isn't it, because an awful lot of Scottish voters don't want to be won over. I speak to plenty of Scottish voters who are broadly supportive of Corbyn; would be far more likely to vote for a Labour Party led by him than by any likely alternative, but think of Labour as an English party. From their perspective, they've moved on. I don't have the answers. I know that Labour moving away from the left, putting up some identikit "Better Together" type would be absolutely the worst thing to do. I think Labour consistently pointing out where the SNP are cutting, privatising and generally going against the rhetoric they use will bring some voters back our way in the long run if we persist. But I genuinely think it's going to take years, not months, to make any significant inroads in Scotland. It was not just a protest vote, but something more fundamental. And let's be candid; that something more fundamental could easily happen in the north of England too. Is anywhere really a safe seat anymore? Again, the real risk would be if we could arrive once again at a place where some populist party - left or right - can go to voters in Sunderland and Doncaster and say "they're all the same" and receive a sympathetic hearing.<br />
<br />
<b>7. What's the strategy to win over Conservative voters?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Persuade them. I mean, what other strategy is there? Neither of us have any time for the triangulation strategies of the past. That ship has long sailed. Yes, we can look at the language we use and vary our messaging. But ultimately we have to win the arguments. Like with any block vote there is a part of it that is ideologically committed, who we could never persuade to vote for any Labour Party, and there is another part that is at various levels of volatility, who could be persuaded. And yes, sometimes it's possible to do that persuading by being seen to be more competent on the big issues of the day, or because leaders dress nicely or speak well. But I think politics is changing fast and I'm not sure how much credit to give that any more. It's not just a question of having a better line, a better message, a better soundbite. It's about having policies that you and your supporters really believe in and then explaining why they're right and trying to persuade people. Obviously that all comes together with the vision and the media strategy, but it's what we should be doing. Now. Instead of having this conversation really.<br />
<br />
<b>8. How would we deal with people's concerns about immigration?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Interestingly, during the referendum campaign, Jeremy was the only leading politician I heard taking these concerns remotely seriously. Every other leading politician lied about immigration. From UKIP and right-wing Tories pretending they wanted to significantly reduce immigration (when really they want fewer regulations so they could better exploit workers from wherever they might come from) to Labour politicians suggesting that perhaps they could control immigration from within the EU or the single market.<br />
<br />
Jeremy, instead, took the question seriously, although he was reported sparingly and badly, so you had to see the actual interviews rather than read anything that was published by anybody in the media. Of course, post-Brexit, some of his ideas are now not achievable: like leading the charge for a Europe-wide cost-of-living-indexed enforceable minimum wage. But it was a really good idea. Other ideas are still within our power: collective bargaining, trade union rights, agency staff rights, a higher, better-enforced living wage. And the restoration of the Migrant Impacts Fund. It's important to have this discussion seriously and not lie to people or patronise them or pretend to agree with them if we don't.<br />
<br />
Nationally - there is little evidence of immigration leading to wage suppression. Of course, in individual industries or in some local areas it might have done. But that is the impact of bad bosses and inadequate regulation, not of immigration itself which, as we know, has innumerable benefits for the UK. We can make that argument and win it. Not with everyone, because some people are anti-immigration because they don't like foreigners. But listening to people and taking them seriously is not the same as pretending to agree with them, making completely unachievable pledges and then blaming somebody else when they're not achieved. That's the Tory way. We can pursue a better approach: I hear you; I don't entirely agree with you; here's why; here is my alternative solution to the same problems; what do you think?<br />
<br />
<b>9. How can Labour's mass membership be mobilised?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The first thing that must be done. Now. Is for Labour MPs to stop insulting new members. I've never seen anything quite like this. There has never been a time when new members have been made less welcome and at a time when there have never been so many new members. So that's the first thing: MPs must stop calling new members trots, rabble, dogs, scum, entryists, etc. Of course where new members have behaved badly - just as with old members (and even the occasional MP!) - that must be dealt with in the appropriate ways. But most new members are keen, committed, doing something that they perhaps never thought they would and actually pretty excited about what will happen. And then what happens? They're insulted by MPs. They're not allowed to vote in the leadership election unless they pay another £25. They're told there'll be no more meetings (to protect MPs from the likes of them) and then some meetings are organised for leadership nominations but they're not allowed to come, so aren't invited.<br />
<br />
So that's the surest way NOT to mobilise the new members. Actually to mobilise them? I think we saw it in Oldham and London and to great effect. New members want to get involved, they want to do things. We need local campaigns on issues; more politics in Labour meetings; we need to encourage them, get them on the Execs and GCs; book bigger rooms. We need to improve our political education - lots of these new members are new to politics and don't know the history of the Labour Party or understand what someone is going on about when they start tweeting them about Militant or George Lansbury. They need to be met with enthusiasm, support and some assistance; not with mockery, derision and name-calling.<br />
<br />
More than anything else, they need Labour to be looking outward so they too can be mobilised outward. And we can only do that if we can go 9 months without a leadership election and 9 days without displays of self-indulgence on the back benches. I want a year in Labour's life when criticisms on the back benches are reserved for significant policy differences and, beyond that, we pull together.<br />
<br />
There is SO much potential. We are the biggest left-of-centre party in Europe. We could do things that we couldn't dream of a year ago. But only if the Labour Party as a whole acknowledges that that is who we are now. That these people are new Labour Party members and they're really excited, really proud, really want to get stuck in. And yes, some of them might not have voted Labour at the last election. Some of them may say something really daft. We can tear ourselves apart and mock and deride or we can actually fulfil the potential that there is here.<br />
<br />
One thing I hope we can agree on, Owen, is that the worst possible answer to most of your 9 questions, would be for Jeremy to lose this unnecessary, distracting and divisive leadership election. Because then 1) we'd be even more divided; 2) our vision would be back to being muddled and muddied; 3) who knows where we would be on policy as most of Smith's supporters presumably do not support his proposed policy agenda; 6) our strategy would seem to be to abandon Scotland for ever; 7) our strategy would be to triangulate towards Conservative voters in the way that has led to a collapse of social democracy across Europe; 8) we'd be right back to immigration mugs; and 9) our new members would feel utterly betrayed and demoralised. (PS: I did write something for 4 and 5 but deleted them in the interests of party unity).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-2472178765671277722015-11-17T06:28:00.001-08:002015-11-17T06:44:53.595-08:00After ParisLike everybody else, I watched the news unfold with horror, anger, deep sadness, helplessness: all the emotions that we go through as we empathise with those suffering at the hands of such indiscriminate, apparently mindless, violence. Like everybody else, I couldn't escape the logic that "something" had to be done against such wanton hatred. It was, as so many have said, an attack on all of us.<br />
<br />
But "do something"; well, what? <br />
<br />
The so-called "War on Terror" has been going on for 14 years, longer than the First World War, Second World War and Boer Wars put together. In that time the number of terrorist atrocities worldwide has increased at a significant rate, as have the number of annual deaths at the hands of terrorists. If we add the other deaths from this wide-ranging, many-fronted war, we see that what has really been happening for a decade and a half is a war <em>of</em> terror and, despite regime changes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, terrorism has increased.<br />
<br />
We need to "do something", but what most people identify as the "something" in question is what is already being done. The US, with several coalition partners including from the region, has been launching airstrikes against Daesh in Syria since September 2014. They have claimed some success, including killing high-profile and leading members. Although France's largest airstrikes in the war have been since Friday's shocking atrocity, they too have already been doing "something", with airstrikes against Daesh, and the aircraft carrier they have sent to the region is returning there, having been deployed there previously. The current increase in terrorist atrocities in different parts of the world has not occurred in the context of a world doing nothing, but has happened despite many months of "doing something".<br />
<br />
Of course it is essential that Daesh is defeated, not because it would prevent another Paris - I'm afraid the evidence of the War on Terror is that it would not - but because of their barbarism and lack of humanity towards the people living in the territory they have occupied. So when we talk about "doing something" we are talking about two separate things: one, to defeat Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and the other to defeat the terrible threat of international terrorism more generally. But perhaps we need to reconsider both the "somethings" that we're doing. I underline that I do not claim to have the answers or that any of this is easy. This has been the hardest article I've tried to write in quite a long time.<br />
<br />
But Daesh is still managing to sell oil, have money and buy (or receive) weapons. It has received upwards of $40 million in donations from wealthy individuals in the last two years. These donors are in states who theoretically support the coalition against Daesh, but it is hard to believe that these states could not intervene to choke off this supply, nor that the donors are unidentifiable. The same goes for when weapons are smuggled out of states, or exactly how the illegal oil trade is being organised. Daesh is the wealthiest terror organisation in history. Choking off their finances would not prevent another Paris, as the funds to launch domestic terrorism need not come from Syria or Iraq, but it would massively weaken Daesh in their territory.<br />
<br />
We need to speak to our allies, not least our NATO ally, Turkey. After evidence was found detailing extensive links between Turkey and Daesh, including a porous border for the smuggling of oil, weapons and fighters, Turkey has, ostensibly at least, joined the coalition and indeed has been the victim of terror attacks itself. But far from concentrating its fire on Daesh, Turkey has primarily been bombing Kurdish rebels: Daesh's most effective enemy. Surely Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar need to cut all ties with Daesh and other terrorist organisations and fully disclose everything they are able to about their funding and their trading. Surely this is a more important aspect of their joining an international consensus than airstrikes. Furthermore, surely the west needs to stop arming regimes whose fundamental ideology is almost identical to that of Daesh.<br />
<br />
It is something of a cliche to say that all wars end in a political settlement, and it is hard to imagine what sort of acceptable political settlement could ever be reached with Daesh, a terrifyingly violent crime syndicate, soaked in extremist propaganda. But at the same time people must ask themselves, before entering into further violence and killing, "what outcome am I seeking, and will this bring it about? Is there anything else we could do?"<br />
<br />
As for the associated crisis of terror attacks in European and American cities, we need to try and properly understand what is happening. Because these things happened before Daesh, and I fear they will happen after them, and - indeed - they sometimes happen in the name of other quite different politics, or not justified by politics or religion at all. Young, marginalised, disaffected, seriously messed-up young people very occasionally do absolutely horrific things. Sometimes they do it alone or with a very small group of like-minded people - like mass shootings in the US, or far-right atrocities like Breivik or McVeigh. Such people may well have been radicalised by others, but not necessarily with the express aim of them reaching the end they reached. Others might be more directly manipulated by people who have a clearer agenda. While people like the 7/7 bombers and the Paris attackers may well have received support and training in Afghanistan or Syria respectively, there will always be another war-zone or "failed state" where such things can occur. There will always be people to make the Youtube videos that fire people up. Sometimes it won't even be deliberate. I saw a video doing the rounds of young Asian students this week. It was actually the footage that many of us will have seen of the child victims of a chemical weapon attack in the Syrian Civil War from 2013. While some of those sharing and commenting on the video understood what it was and commented appropriately, by the bottom of the comment thread a growing number of people believed this to be the result of Western bombing and that it was terrible double standards that only Paris was reported and not this terrible attack. People were radicalising themselves. The images they were seeing were deeply shocking - their anger and bewilderment just as justified as everybody's over the Paris attacks. Their lack of understanding of what they were seeing is the important point. We need to be open, thoughtful, critical, understanding; inclusive, interventionist, sensitive. Simplistic exhortations to "British values" and crudely-applied Home Office strategies are not enough. This is fundamentally the responsibility of my sector - education - rather than entirely a matter of security and defence.<br />
<br />
After 14 years of thinking we can bomb the bombers to end terrorism, while continuing to remain on good terms with the oil-rich dictatorships where the terrorists find their inspiration and their patrons; 14 years that have seen great victories celebrated in the West despite an ever-increasing list of victims of terror; however difficult it is, surely we now have to say: "yes, we must do something, but we can't just do the same thing".Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-78925833210277114812015-10-13T05:25:00.002-07:002015-10-13T05:25:32.572-07:00The Irish Question and the British Left
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">In 1916, James Connolly was executed by
British forces, as a ringleader of the Easter Uprising.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Along with the other leaders he was shot at
Kilmainham Gaol.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was so injured from
the fighting he had to be propped up against a chair as he faced the firing
squad.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgywj3ZFR3hBwfqt9H_mdM8vSlPjqHqltBr4biSfatM5HgJjjVjxvrfiA4rXoJ1Cg7fl_njAFUuRTx5DLW1_aFHxTNkOKMYcHjBljF0sUap8wrR2JNounE0bLsAVlC-da7Nn9F4GUIEF97o/s400/quote-don-t-be-practical-in-politics-to-be-practical-in-that-sense-means-that-you-have-schooled-james-connolly-110-30-95.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">It should not be surprising that a trade union
leader being executed in such a way should lead to strong feelings among the
British labour movement as well as the Irish, especially in the context that
most on the left supported Irish Home Rule on the same grounds that they
supported Indian Home Rule and national self-determination around the Empire more
generally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This should not be mistaken
for support for armed insurrection, although of course there were those who supported it in
Ireland, Russia and elsewhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even
confirmed pacifists like George Lansbury’s sympathies were uncompromisingly on
the side of the Irish republicans. This was in no way hypocritical. At a time
when British gunboats were in the Liffey firing into central Dublin, and rebels
were being lined up and shot, only the truly naïve could have considered that
choosing sides in such a conflict was about choosing between violence and peace.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">And of course those that thought the only
route to peace was Irish independence considered themselves vindicated by the dreadful violence
of the following decade.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One did not
have to be supportive of the IRA’s guerrilla tactics to be horrified by and uncompromisingly
opposed to the Black and Tans firing into sports crowds and burning down whole
neighbourhoods.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A British left that did
not condemn such things would not be worthy of the name. People who wanted a
British government to pursue a path of peace and social justice concluded that
such a path necessarily meant getting out of Ireland.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Years later, following partition, the focus
of the Irish Question switched to the north.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the sectarian politics of Northern Ireland, the catholic minority
found themselves marginalised in a way that was unthinkable in the rest of the
UK by the 1960s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Voting in local
government elections was restricted to ratepayers which disenfranchised many
Catholics and gave some protestants multiple votes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Council house allocation was biased against Catholics,
and resources were allocated in a sectarian way too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>British governments had attempted to
circumvent this inequality, ensuring that the new Welfare State and other
reforms could bypass the sectarian Northern Irish government, but there was no
denying the grossly sectarian and unequal reality of Northern Ireland in the
1960s. Again many on the British left reacted as one would expect they would to
UK citizens being denied basic civil rights and therefore were broadly
supportive of the civil rights protests of the 1960s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such they supported the rights of the
protesters against their suppression by Ulster police.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the time of the Battle of the Bogside in
1969, violence was back in Northern Irish politics, in the form of paramilitary
organisations in both communities as well as the heavy-handed RUC
policing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While Labour governments tried
to bring in reforms to protect the Catholic minority, loyalist violence
increased with Catholic homes burned down in the rioting and violence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the British army were originally
deployed it was in no small part to protect the
Catholic minority from loyalist gangs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So the support for Irish self-determination
common on the British left was not out of some odd anti-patriotic, anti-British
sentiment, nor perverse support for violence and terrorism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was born of a socialist analysis of this
difficult and violent context. It is in this context that people should understand the Labour Committee on Ireland. Yes, people like Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott were deeply involved. So was Peter Hain, who was appointed by Tony Blair to be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 2005. I do not recall similar hysteria from the conservative media at the time of that appointment. Politics in Northern Ireland has moved on and the focus should have shifted from issues of sovereignty and sect to issues of public services, liberty and ending poverty, regardless of religion or community. We should not sweep this history under the carpet, but we must avoid simplification and cartoon when discussing such a delicate part of our shared recent history. </span></span></div>
</div>
Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-79136428808320502462014-10-13T04:05:00.002-07:002014-10-13T04:05:40.399-07:00Labour's UKIP Problem<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<div align="left">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGV9yIya3MicJnDuD8gnLnZ-aeTzg8_w23fPVJIcRAaNSCuzBV0EEqWNILSAO9l5WBX88GjSPKFoeVB0DjQdPwTVml4nRYVpBukvCTOStHLQHDDxM1_Wn5pSyYi77jcitH0sRhrMN6w1Vg/s1600/keep-calm-and-no-more-racism.png" height="320" width="274" /></div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
Of course some potential Labour voters, and others in areas that have traditionally voted Labour are considering voting UKIP. Some have always voted Tory (and UKIP present themselves - somehow - as a less-toxic Tory Party in defiantly non-Tory areas). Some have, in previous years, voted for the BNP or the National Front. We live in very difficult times in which people have found themselves poorer and poorer and the only explanatory narrative that finds public utterance is that this is caused by a combination of immigration, welfare and Labour's record of public spending.</div>
<div align="left">
<br />It is of course extraordinary double-think. The only thing keeping many people even vaguely afloat is access to some benefit payments and access to services paid-for by public spending and both require the taxes of a working-age population, increasingly dependent on immigration in the context of an aging population.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
But people are not hearing an alternative explanation anywhere. It was once the job of the labour movement to provide that explanation; to be active on the ground, to mobilise, to inform and to challenge. But the Labour Party has become increasingly reticent on the issue of causes of low pay, insecurity and marginalisation. And they are becoming increasingly likely to validate the ludicrous UKIP explanation - by echoing it in awkward, embarrassed liberal terms - than they are to confront it.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
There are two possible reasons for this reticence. One is that the leading lights of the labour movement are genuinely unclear as to why we see such problems in our society. By abandoning a socialist analysis in the 80s and 90s they can no longer make a diagnosis. The other is that they see this as a purely psephological problem: "how do we keep these voters?" rather than "how do we end low pay and insecurity?" If the latter is true then it is because they are so removed from the problem: the low paid are now an "other" to be dealt with rather than the heart of the movement. If this is true, then that is the real heart of Labour's UKIP problem. UKIP will never be a workers' party - they are a more-Tory-than-the-Tories Thatcherite party - but they are able to temporarily exploit the absence of any workers' party, as fascist movements have done before them elsewhere in the world.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
The elephant in the room is capitalism. Capitalism causes low pay, insecurity and marginalisation and no party is more committed to its unfettered future success than UKIP. They want fewer regulations on pay, working conditions and job security. They want more cuts and privatisation. They are the party that is 100% committed to making life worse for the least well-off in the United Kingdom. That this party gets a single vote in an inner-city constituency is the worst kind of indictment of Labour's failure to engage with its base. Tony Blair's "Clause IV" moment was more significant than many (even he) gave it credit at the time. We fought it hard, but we knew no Labour government had ever sought "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" so it wasn't the end or the final defeat. But by deleting that historic commitment and instead embracing a "dynamic market economy" and "the rigours of competition" the Labour Party lost the intellectual ability to challenge the economic dogma that creates UKIP's disingenuous explanation for social problems; an explanation echoed in the popular press and from the government.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
The reason that every newspaper blames immigration, benefit claimants and the Labour Party for all social ills is that they are utterly and uncompromisingly committed to their real cause. We can (and should) blame bad employers paying rock-bottom wages and slum landlords charging sky-high rents but it's more than that. It is a system whose very logic dictates that employers should pay as little as they can get away with and landlords should charge as much as they can get away with, all of it bailed out by a state which increasingly sees its role as clearing the way for the pursuit of capital rather than to support a decent standard of living for its population.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
Farage is disingenuous in his rhetoric on immigration. Farage's problem is not really immigration (indeed he says this himself when trying to sound reasonable) it is a way of focusing opposition to Europe (and his opposition to Europe is really an opposition to regulation). He does not want to replace European regulation with UK regulation, not in terms of working conditions but not in terms of migration either. After all, that same system that creates social ills contains within it the logic for employers in the UK to seek their employees wherever they see fit in order to find workers who will work longer and longer for less and less. Farage's real problem with EU immigration is that it prevents the expansion of non-EU immigration and his supporters' ability to find workers even more easily exploited. That Farage has not been more easily taken down can only be explained by the conclusion that the establishment wishes to keep him exactly where he is.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
The only approach that Labour can and should take to this is to face down and expose UKIP and to attack the real causes of low pay, insecurity and marginalisation. Echoing Farage's rhetoric on immigration only validates UKIP's argument and pushes more voters into their arms, while alienating a host of other voters. It is also morally, politically and intellectually bankrupt.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
It must be possible - it <em>is</em> possible - to face down UKIP without seeming to patronise or insult people who have been attracted to their rarely-challenged rhetoric. But Labour has to be brave to do this, because in facing down UKIP they are effectively facing down the full forces of the UK establishment who have found Farage's simple prescriptions the easiest way to detract attention from their beloved economic polity and the misery it creates.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-71361590787693622462014-09-22T02:24:00.001-07:002014-09-22T02:27:17.083-07:00The North Must Unite to Prevent an English Parliament<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW2_SxtwtEO_AjXk1g5D6Jj554Qe6x8NF3tf1zkowIxTghGdskYKRb60gYcN1q7JSAjD5y_6ZkIMpuFIpEXp9RbtF4gD6Yz19AxATe3HUaeLDMO2zRquJigbj8Ld6LNfSMUcTBFsGYcXt-/s1600/nengland.jpg" height="320" width="312" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">Why was power devolved to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London in the 1990s? If it was simply about <em>nationalism</em>, then there is some case for an English Parliament or English Votes on English Laws (though it would no doubt be challenged in the future by a growing dissatisfied regionalism). But that wasn't really what it was about. It was about <em>representation</em> and <em>accountability</em>. Scotland kept getting governments it didn't vote for, and the Westminster parliament was - in social and economic terms, rather than national terms - unrepresentative. Of course, this has always been true of some of the regions of England too. In this article I refer to the north, but it is not exclusively a north/south issue.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">But while parts of England are poorly represented by the legislature in Westminster, that parliament is far more representative of the North - in socio-economic terms - than it would be if the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs were absent. Essentially - in practical, material ways, rather than in matters of national identity - the north of England is more like the UK than it is like England.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">It is essential that Scotland gets its Devo Max, but the regions of England need to be very wary of what is termed "the English question".</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">The first proposal, as we have heard from David Cameron, is English Votes for English Laws. It is, superficially, simple. It provides an answer to the West Lothian Question, though it raises many new questions of its own. First, it is not absolutely straight-forward which votes Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would be excluded from. Each piece of legislation would need to be examined in terms of jurisdiction before certain MPs were barred from participating. To be logical and consistent there would even be laws that London MPs would be excluded from, if it was on a matter that - for their constituents - was one for the Mayor. There would be other laws that would be just English MPs, others where the Welsh and the Northern Irish could vote, but not the Scots. In the context of Devo Max, suddenly it would seem that there would be very little legislation that Scottish MPs would be required for. This raises questions about their precise role, their levels of pay and their potential role in the executive. No, English Votes for English Laws is an unworkable proposal designed purely for Conservative political advantage and to embarrass the Labour Party. It is not a serious constitutional proposal.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">Some ask for an English Parliament. On the face of it, this is more logical and coherent. But before we even consider the Northern Question (a question that will not go away with any "English solution") it is a bizarre notion. England makes up the bulk of the UK. A devolved English parliament and executive would be a hugely powerful body, with an English First Minister challenging the authority of a UK Prime Minister. Imagine the scenario of coalition Prime Minister Ed Miliband, trying to deal with First Minister Boris Johnson... If the English executive had the same devolved powers as the Scottish one, just what would be the role of the "federal government" in Whitehall?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">The only answer to the question that actually makes any sense is a regional one, but we cannot escape the reality that there is more appetite for this in the north (and perhaps the far south west) than elsewhere in the country. While the internet might be full of calls for "Home Rule for Yorkshire" it is not full of calls for "Home Rule for the South East (Excluding London)."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">For that reason, the "easier" answers based on devolution <em>to</em> England, rather than devolution <em>in </em>England might well be the ones to gather momentum. This must be resisted. An English answer to this constitutional puzzle will be one that sees a worse deal for provincial England. If Westminster is socially unrepresentative of the UK (and it is) an English Parliament can only intensify this. The easy answers to "the English question" only raise "the Northern question". There will be a wide range of views on regional devolution, from those seeking regional assemblies and executives akin to the national ones in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to those seeking to empower "city regions" and local councils. I know which approach I would prefer, but those debates are for the years to come. What is most important now is to resist this rich man's parliament that the Tories are trying to create.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">So let's join together and speak with one voice, whether it's to David Cameron or to Miliband's constitutional convention: <strong>the north of England wants no part of an English Parliament and, in the absence of regional devolution, would prefer to be represented by all UK MPs than just by English ones.</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-67788530100008491412014-06-15T14:29:00.001-07:002014-06-15T14:57:56.402-07:00In his haste to rescue his legacy, Blair has deserted the final refuge of the pro-war case<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_AH_GVV1-6HvAU36gb3-8h0ipvqkCcZKFbDr5jlgroIZ0rxSp42J480A95ZMbj6bOqQzdIgyBv35Vmx73tr3dyDou7wnlAtOXK4UzoxN-RPLWSsVnRCG8a5W6YP0LJRpQjM_UleAzEm5L/s1600/o-TONY-BLAIR-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_AH_GVV1-6HvAU36gb3-8h0ipvqkCcZKFbDr5jlgroIZ0rxSp42J480A95ZMbj6bOqQzdIgyBv35Vmx73tr3dyDou7wnlAtOXK4UzoxN-RPLWSsVnRCG8a5W6YP0LJRpQjM_UleAzEm5L/s1600/o-TONY-BLAIR-facebook.jpg" height="160" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Tony Blair will forever be remembered for Iraq.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not for peace in Northern Ireland or the
minimum wage, nor the Human Rights Act or devolution to Scotland and Wales. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Blair does little to help this: he rarely
comments on political developments in the UK, but always does the rounds of the
television studios when questions of UK military intervention are raised.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">And Tony Blair’s Iraq legacy is a dreadful one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is rightly remembered as one of the worst
foreign policy disasters in British history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Millions who marched against the war understood the situation far better
than the Prime Minister and those close to him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It was a disaster that cost at least 100,000 lives, two thirds of whom
were civilians.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The arguments that Blair made in 2002 and 2003, along with
his colleagues in Washington, collapsed one by one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were no weapons of mass destruction and
there was no link between the Iraqi regime and 9/11 or Al Qaeda.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The last argument – one that was not central
to the case for war at the time – was the need to remove Saddam Hussain, a
brutal dictator. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anti-war voices rightly
pointed to the dictators and repressive regimes that Bush and Blair not only
tolerated but even actively supported.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But the defence against that was that this was “whataboutery” – it wasn’t
an argument against removing Saddam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So
the final refuge of the dinted and damaged pro-war case was that, but for the
intervention, Saddam would have remained in power.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Tony Blair’s latest written intervention in the Iraq crisis
unwittingly erodes that case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
current crisis in Iraq sees a jihadist group (ISIS), battle-hardened in the Syrian
civil war, approaching Baghdad, taking northern cities and the Iraq army
deserting its posts and its US and UK-funded equipment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are very disturbing reports of
massacres.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Blair thinks it “bizarre” and
“wilful” that people should blame the 2003 invasion for this situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He correctly identifies other sources of the
crisis (the Syrian crisis and al-Maliki’s sectarianism) though he chooses to
ignore any western culpability in either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But he also chooses to point out that Iraq would be no more stable today had
they not intervened in 2003 and therefore the current crisis might still have
happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is dangerous to indulge in
counter-factuals, but I suspect he is probably right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He correctly points to the extraordinary
events of the Arab Spring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in doing
so, Blair raises the question of whether Saddam could have been removed by the
Iraqi people, without intervention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At
the very least it undermines the argument that the only way there could have
been change in the Iraqi regime was the path taken in 2003.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">More problematic, it is no longer at all clear which side
Blair would have chosen in such a situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>His position on the Arab Spring is, at best, ambiguous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While last summer, Blair backed air strikes
against the Syrian regime, he now appears to back air strikes against elements
of the Syrian opposition and, back in April, proposed a Syrian settlement that
would leave Assad in power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore,
in the same speech he gave full support to the military coup in Egypt. While
conceding that he “strongly disagreed” with the mass death sentences handed out
to members of the Muslim Brotherhood, he urged people to “show sensitivity” to
the regime.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In the light of this, it is darkly ironic that Blair
(correctly) notes the “inconsistency” of recent UK policy towards the Middle
East.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is hard to escape the
conclusion that – in any given situation – Blair would have made his decisions
about the future of Saddam’s regime in terms of his impression of British (or,
more accurately, western capitalist) geopolitical interest, not on the basis of
the rights of the Iraqi people or even a democratic mandate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Saddam was president today, it is entirely believable
that Blair would be calling for western intervention to protect his
regime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the last nail in the
coffin of the “regime change” case for war.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Where I am sure we all agree with Blair is that what happens
now is more important than “differences of the past”, but unless we can learn
from the mistakes of the past we will get it wrong again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tony Blair seems incapable of learning from
the past, he simply wants to try and rewrite it in order to recast himself as
hero rather than villain. Discussions about what is happening in Iraq are urgently needed but a period of silence from Tony Blair would be welcome.</span></div>
Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-79300790060761708852014-03-16T13:21:00.003-07:002014-03-16T14:59:46.927-07:00Tony Benn - a personal tribute<div align="left">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheqx6ft0IaLtyJDmfx3KrB8XtNSogmH5OzuV84g5V0gcmxA0AvLeW1p3TMnEzbcJnR9XeO0VCLVUMDlKf6yMT5lOUWslE1YyRgKiyBpVSMyyvZlI0JbWUxpC9H_ZilGAROhkE4RlXWmU5C/s1600/image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheqx6ft0IaLtyJDmfx3KrB8XtNSogmH5OzuV84g5V0gcmxA0AvLeW1p3TMnEzbcJnR9XeO0VCLVUMDlKf6yMT5lOUWslE1YyRgKiyBpVSMyyvZlI0JbWUxpC9H_ZilGAROhkE4RlXWmU5C/s1600/image.jpg" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
I only met Tony Benn a few times, but he had a profound impact on my life and my politics, as he had on so many other people. His death this week has inspired a lot of words (some of them a tad hypocritical and some of them downright rude and disrespectful). This short article is not an appreciation of Benn's incredible life and career (that will come in a future article) but is instead a collection of memories. Please excuse the personal nature of this.</div>
<br />
Tony had always been there, on the television and the radio and in the newspapers when I was a child. I was a left-leaning youth, inspired by a combination of intensely disliking Margaret Thatcher's government policies, straight-forward morality and common sense. Like most of my friends who thought about such things, I was anti-nuclear, pro-Labour, concerned about the environment and an opponent of elitism and privilege. Tony Benn had always been there, but one day I started listening properly and realised here was an incredibly eloquent and serious politician saying things that other politicians didn't say. I quickly realised that radicalism did not have to go hand in hand with cynicism; that there was a real alternative, although it was a difficult one. I assume I was in my mid teens at the time.<br />
<br />
In the first year of my A Levels I saw an advertisement that Tony Benn was going to be speaking at a bookshop in Leeds and signing copies of the newly-released edition of his Diaries (<em>End of an Era</em>, 1980-1990). I persuaded a friend from school to go with me. I later learned that friends with whom I was later to work closely in student politics were also present that evening.<br />
<br />
Tony spoke passionately and without any notes and took questions, all of which he answered directly and at some length. The friend who I went with said that he agreed with every word, but wondered whether an orator of similar skills might not have persuaded him of a completely different case. That was not how I felt. I was hugely impressed by the way Tony spoke, but what I was really interested in was what he said. It was content, not form, that really impressed me. His analysis of the 1980s and the Thatcher era, that had only recently come to an end, made complete sense to me. It seemed so obviously right that I found it hard to understand how anybody could hear the arguments and reach a different conclusion.<br />
<br />
I bought the diary, and Tony signed it "For Duncan, In Unity, Tony Benn". He smiled and said "good night, God bless" and I went home a Bennite. I read the book in a couple of nights, spell-bound by it. I then read everything else I could find about the politics of the 1980s (particularly early 80s Labour difficulties) to see how Tony's view fitted in with other "versions" of the story. I then bought all the other volumes of the diaries and, as a result, certainly knew more about the detailed debates of Labour cabinets in the 1960s and 70s than any of my school friends! It also changed how I reacted to the news and current affairs. A vague, moral, natural and instinctive egalitarianism and radicalism had been augmented - if not replaced - by an analysis. I started reading Marx. When I passed the people selling left-wing newspapers on roadsides, I started buying them, reading them, realising that I agreed with some of them and strongly disagreed with others.<br />
<br />
I was furious about the pit closures. I had a more complex and equivocal reaction to overwhelming events in Eastern Europe than the news suggested I should have. I began to question things I had once taken for granted, including elements of my religious beliefs (beliefs that had no doubt contributed to my pre-Bennite, nascent ethical socialism). During this time I corresponded with Tony and he sent me articles of interest, or petitions to take around the school and send back to him. It was an unusual kind of early political activism, but I had not realised I could join the Labour Party before I was 18. I joined on my 18th birthday, only to discover I could have joined years earlier.<br />
<br />
By this time we had already lost the 1992 election - something I took badly. My analysis was at odds with the mainstream Labour analysis, as it was to remain so! For me it was that Kinnock didn't offer a radical enough alternative to Major.<br />
<br />
When I first joined the Labour Party, Tony Benn was a marginalised figure, but not a marginal figure. He was on the National Executive Committee, and he always spoke at conferences. As such, I joined the Labour Party as a rebel, a "lefty"; a Bennite. I had few if any illusions in it and, as such, can honestly say I have never been disillusioned by the Labour Party despite profound disagreements over the years.<br />
<br />
When I got to York University, I immediately joined the Labour club and became very active. My correspondence with Tony continued and included, at this time, fairly regular invitations for him to come and speak at the university. In my second year, I was elected External Secretary (along with my great mate and comrade Neil Ormerod) and I kept writing "that" letter (along with similar ones to people like Dennis Skinner and Alan Simpson). Alan Simpson came along and spoke to us about Clause IV and later came again to address an anti-racism festival. Dennis Skinner didn't come but called me at home to explain why. I was out and my (non-political) friend, H, answered the phone and was not entirely convinced it was Dennis Skinner on the phone. He took the message anyway ("I see Parliament as a full-time job...") Tony always replied that he would like to come and speak to us, had a very busy diary and would try and fit us in. All through the same time (and I think for a year longer than me) another mate, Jago Parker (who became Internal Secretary when we became External Secretary - we were far too anarchic to have a Chair) had also been writing to Tony and, when he was elected President of the student union, he asked him to come and speak to the first Union General Meeting of his presidency, and Tony agreed.<br />
<br />
So it was October 1995 when he came to York. Jago met him and Neil and I went to see him in Jago's room in the halls of residence. Oddly we were both pessimistic, I recall, and were worried that something would have occurred to mean that he couldn't come. As we got to Jago's door we heard that unmistakable voice from inside saying "well, I'm a vegetarian too". We had to run into the stairwell and calm down! I remember us all talking for quite some time before the first meeting. I had a carrier bag full of diaries, books and videos which Tony signed for me. I was worried that this might have made me seem a bit of a "fan boy" but I was not alone, and he was characteristically charming about it. I tried out the only joke I knew that involved socialism and tea and he said he hadn't heard it before. He laughed politely, but it never made it into his speeches! (Why do Marxists drink herbal tea? Because proper-tea is theft). <br />
<br />
Other friends joined us for that chat and I remember my mate Mike - a Biology student - raising some scientific issue and being amazed that Tony knew about the topic in such great detail. He was clearly so very interested in the world that if something caught his interest he would find out everything he could about it. People have commented in recent days about how certain he seemed about various issues, despite expressing occasional doubts in his diaries. I don't think he reached his positions rashly at all, but he certainly approached most as moral questions and as such there was a right position and a wrong one. I think that was one of the things that appealed to me, and one of the things that might alienate those that see politics more in terms of negotiations than morality.<br />
<br />
We took Tony across to the Labour meeting. It was the best attended meeting we ever had (and we were a popular political society with quite well-attended meetings most weeks). It was certainly the only time the Vice Chancellor came to a Labour meeting! It was a great meeting - an inspirational and encouraging speech, followed by the usual lively questions. <br />
<br />
Neil and I had to phone Tony a taxi and the taxi firm took a lot of persuading that we weren't joking when we said we were booking it in the name of Tony Benn...<br />
<br />
So many of my university friends talk about the union general meeting from that evening. It was a landmark evening in so many of our lives. When the news of Tony's death came through, my Facebook news feed was full of recollections of that evening. We counted 900 people at the meeting - the University Central Hall was the fullest I ever saw it. Tony had to get a train at a particular time and I remember being frustrated that many of the union's executive officers all gave long wordy reports before his speech (presumably pleased to have the chance to talk to a big audience)! Walking with Tony after the meeting he spoke with great approval of these speeches that had so irked me! He also quietly suggested we should stop trying to call the union building the Tony Benn Building.<br />
<br />
As we walked with Tony out of the hall, some tory came across and asked some rude question which Tony answered with the sort of polite put-down that many a stand-up comedian could do with perfecting.<br />
<br />
Tony was worried he might miss his train and the taxi wasn't there when we got to the place we'd asked for it to come. Somebody offered him a lift and he accepted gratefully, asking me and Neil to wait and explain to the taxi driver. I confess that, while we waited for a few minutes, we were impatient to return to the meeting and in the end thought "who's going to believe Tony Benn wanted a taxi from York uni!" It was only later we discovered that Tony had got a taxi up from the station with the same firm, so there's probably a taxi driver somewhere in York who ended up believing all the tabloid demonization of Benn. Sorry.<br />
<br />
As we packed up, I finished Tony's flask of tea (now cold). It was really milky and sweet.<br />
<br />
Years later, when the <em>Free at Last</em> diaries were released, I asked Tony what he had recorded in his diary on that day (as it wasn't included in the published edition). He very kindly sent me the typescript of the day and it's a treasured memento. I transcribed it and shared it with other friends who remembered that evening.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEincufZshdtkdjr8J_06kL_sB1m3WXnxvTD310K0A0GtF17VaeoCqDoeEWv8p9z2AVDofRwChaoZXMcVm_KTOXJ-6yaBc2WxyDTlAnuANGJFLBRjkiM5uWSNI4gMO7GgK60cyFluR9ukjeN/s1600/Tony-Benn-2-6831230.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEincufZshdtkdjr8J_06kL_sB1m3WXnxvTD310K0A0GtF17VaeoCqDoeEWv8p9z2AVDofRwChaoZXMcVm_KTOXJ-6yaBc2WxyDTlAnuANGJFLBRjkiM5uWSNI4gMO7GgK60cyFluR9ukjeN/s1600/Tony-Benn-2-6831230.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a>I met Tony on several other occasions, at public meetings, conferences, protests and demonstrations, at an educational conference and even briefly at a folk festival. He helped me with research questions, and offered support and words of encouragement during campaigns. But I never had another chance to ask all the questions I had, to discuss the causes we had in common or his thoughts on the future of the Labour Party. I wish I had, but I don't think Tony Benn would want those people who he encouraged and inspired to spend long mourning. He would want us to learn from him and keep the flames of confidence and hope burning. It is ironic that one of the most memorable and enduring messages of Tony's was that what matters in politics is policies and issues, not personalities. He was, of course, one of very few great personalities in the politics of the second half of the 20th century. But he was absolutely right. Just as the free-market, neo-liberal, right-wing politics of Margaret Thatcher were not buried with the personality last year, neither has the alternative been buried this week. The best memorial that we can give Tony Benn is to keep fighting, keep questioning, keep putting people before profit. For me, Tony Benn developed the idea of democratic socialism more than anybody else in Britain. Let us use his words, his ideas, his spirit and his encouragement to make that idea a reality.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Gh6ej7knVls%2FUyXsrHoPjTI%2FAAAAAAAAAcI%2Fijc7AayJPCw%2Fs1600%2Fimage.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheqx6ft0IaLtyJDmfx3KrB8XtNSogmH5OzuV84g5V0gcmxA0AvLeW1p3TMnEzbcJnR9XeO0VCLVUMDlKf6yMT5lOUWslE1YyRgKiyBpVSMyyvZlI0JbWUxpC9H_ZilGAROhkE4RlXWmU5C/s1600/image.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheqx6ft0IaLtyJDmfx3KrB8XtNSogmH5OzuV84g5V0gcmxA0AvLeW1p3TMnEzbcJnR9XeO0VCLVUMDlKf6yMT5lOUWslE1YyRgKiyBpVSMyyvZlI0JbWUxpC9H_ZilGAROhkE4RlXWmU5C/s1600/image.jpg" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheqx6ft0IaLtyJDmfx3KrB8XtNSogmH5OzuV84g5V0gcmxA0AvLeW1p3TMnEzbcJnR9XeO0VCLVUMDlKf6yMT5lOUWslE1YyRgKiyBpVSMyyvZlI0JbWUxpC9H_ZilGAROhkE4RlXWmU5C/s1600/image.jpg" -->Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-40424632978698765982013-12-05T12:40:00.002-08:002013-12-05T12:40:36.530-08:00Time to drop the "One Nation"?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGEYt5rltElP0SQfD4A73YrTs7hrH_i6V5WEBTgnSK0d5-DJN4HlWiIKm3f2jo76dwsoAZj07ndcgmWp_HMjXAVZ7T0lD2Es5uyIgl2c6YtkdNjkKE1_Y_PFrwKlpcWiQWVhpJC2WP2Mx5/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGEYt5rltElP0SQfD4A73YrTs7hrH_i6V5WEBTgnSK0d5-DJN4HlWiIKm3f2jo76dwsoAZj07ndcgmWp_HMjXAVZ7T0lD2Es5uyIgl2c6YtkdNjkKE1_Y_PFrwKlpcWiQWVhpJC2WP2Mx5/s320/images.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Somebody needs to tell Ed Miliband that his "One Nation" slogan doesn't work. It's not awful; it doesn't offend. It just doesn't work. In that sense it's a bit like "the big society". It's quite a clever piece of political wordplay, that pleases or annoys those who are very interested in political ideas. It doesn't convey much meaning to most people.<br />
<br />
I couldn't stand New Labour. I hated what it signified. But it did signify something. People heard "New Labour" or "New Labour, New Britain" and took some sort of meaning from it, whether they liked it or not. I watched Labour's viral video about Osborne's pre-budget statement and thought that it was pretty good. The shoe-horning of "One Nation" into it added nothing, though. The worry is whether it subtracted something. There's a clear line of attack for Labour here. A recovery for who? Just for the rich! But it's not quite a "one nation" line of attack.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ikqD0-X9FvA" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
A party doesn't necessarily need a defining idea crystalized into a two-word slogan to win an election. But there's an argument to suggest that not having one is better than having an ineffective one; one that lacks clarity.<br />
<br />
I don't think it needs any fanfare. Nobody need make a fuss. I just think between now and the election we should slowly hear "One Nation" less and less until we don't hear it any more. I'm not sure how many people would notice.Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-28648600313533873212013-12-02T14:52:00.000-08:002013-12-02T14:52:07.298-08:00Cameron, Clegg and Osborne have one answer: spend more and borrow more!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8HctoULd4zqYcbAKfcfP4jhom3nlpFiempMHylCD9qDuvi_xjtnjrHXJ_fH0wanyp6WASW5bTN-iRIXnGY3WQTYY-uLTjTlK7O1U2LCPFccQ1jACU1ypWqx8FLYMWsBJVoVsfVELy-ucy/s1600/Big-six-energy-companies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8HctoULd4zqYcbAKfcfP4jhom3nlpFiempMHylCD9qDuvi_xjtnjrHXJ_fH0wanyp6WASW5bTN-iRIXnGY3WQTYY-uLTjTlK7O1U2LCPFccQ1jACU1ypWqx8FLYMWsBJVoVsfVELy-ucy/s320/Big-six-energy-companies.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The irony can't be lost on many that Cameron - who always says that Labour's answer to everything is "spend more and borrow more" can come up with no other solution to the cost of living crisis in relation to the big 6 energy companies.<br />
<br />
He's happy to intervene in markets in many ways - he's had to abandon his neo-liberal instincts in the face of the overwhelming evidence that free market politics have failed - but he just can't bring himself to stand up to wealthy and powerful people. Whether they're energy bosses or the Chinese or Saudi governments, he's attracted to them and in awe of them. He'd much rather we pay - through taxation - than for successful companies to have obligations, despite the huge profits they make at the expense of the British people.<br />
<br />Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-37885048106856857812013-12-02T14:44:00.002-08:002013-12-02T14:44:59.970-08:00Student Loans Sell-Off - the shape of things to come?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil6afKA5l19uUDQuTmUkimsZTOoVPsIcCMpn97gJDAHAAJDHVRtUH6BgZqmZtI67zK6OsqU7lFtTVmn45-mwD3QOSW1ltREPw_8-QsbN2XejQJe2te9nBBkQFTDaDu4IiYCnBLEJjLZ1uc/s1600/Gove.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil6afKA5l19uUDQuTmUkimsZTOoVPsIcCMpn97gJDAHAAJDHVRtUH6BgZqmZtI67zK6OsqU7lFtTVmn45-mwD3QOSW1ltREPw_8-QsbN2XejQJe2te9nBBkQFTDaDu4IiYCnBLEJjLZ1uc/s400/Gove.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The government has sold off £900 million worth of student debt to a private debt collection company for the sum of £160 million. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of higher education being paid for through loans for a moment (but we will return to that very shortly) this exposes the accounting trick at the heart of student loans. Over-simplifying this somewhat (obviously there was interest on these loans, and they are all from before 1998) nearly £900 million pounds of government expenditure was labelled as loans, therefore not impacting on the Public Spending Borrowing Requirement or with the convergence criteria for joining that single currency with which we were once trying to converge. But in the end the government has got merely £160 million pounds of that back - less than 20%.
David Willetts justified this sale by insisting that the private sector was best placed to collect the debt. If that is true of these early loans, why (in the ideologically-driven philosophy of this ConDem government) would it not also be true of loans since 1998, including those loans that people are taking out today?
<br />
<br />
People have repeatedly pointed out that most of the loans being taken out today will never be paid back in their entirety. This news shows the extent to which the current government is not interested in that. Paying for universities via student loans has <i>never</i> been about saving tax-payers' money, or about making students more responsible for the "privilege" of having a degree. It has always been about turning public debt into private debt in order to fiddle the books.
If it can help a few private companies make some more profit, that's a bonus.<br />
<br />
On a broader level, George Osborne's entire economic policy is one of turning public debt into private debt. Rather than the taxpayer being liable for the national debt, individuals should be made responsible by being driven into debt. This makes sense as a policy from a Tory perspective because private debt - unlike tax - costs the rich less and the poor more. Parents of children at Eton cannot wait for them to get to university, when fees will "only" be £9000 a year, while children from middle-income backgrounds, destined for middle-income graduate jobs, will end up paying far more.<br />
<br />
It is time that a major political party came clean about student loans, though. University education is still being paid for out of general taxation. Students are being put in debt with all that means, and will one day be chased by private loans companies who have bought the loans for a fraction of their cost. Labour should take the risk of promising the abolition of tuition fees. It makes no real difference to the deficit or to the tax payer but every difference to a large number of students and their families. It would win votes too!<br />
Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891794737343468903.post-29371260350180826772013-11-18T15:00:00.001-08:002013-11-19T00:57:56.792-08:00Back to the Future: Does Union Bashing Resonate with the Electorate?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjssRTI9rof7788CW_URhzDUjQGGAKdKRbZ6CFieIHwh6QPvDy1wHmB5a52aXK-LRFiNvkHtSp5LDniusYjsBJRZZW6zCrLKRnZE_4FOc5Niyh7iry_LF-RTBtmvLKE15-RYNzTAcYNFvu1/s1600/MargaretThatcher.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjssRTI9rof7788CW_URhzDUjQGGAKdKRbZ6CFieIHwh6QPvDy1wHmB5a52aXK-LRFiNvkHtSp5LDniusYjsBJRZZW6zCrLKRnZE_4FOc5Niyh7iry_LF-RTBtmvLKE15-RYNzTAcYNFvu1/s1600/MargaretThatcher.jpg" /></a></div>
David Cameron has anounced <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24976760" target="_blank">an inquiry</a> into union tactics during industrial disputes and whether Britain needs yet more anti-union legislation. Britain already has a <a href="http://www.tradeunionfreedom.co.uk/" target="_blank">draconian anti-union legislative regime</a>, with the consequential lack of workers' rights. <br />
<br />
What are Cameron's motivations? Probably less ideological than Thatcher's, at least in relation to this specific inquiry. This is about little more than electoral advantage. Cameron, and his press adviser Lynton Crosby, think that union stories are bad for Labour's electoral chances. They hope that drip-feeding a hungry Tory press with stories of "Red" Len McCluskey and union "bullies" will resonate with the public and dissuade them from putting a cross next to Labour candidates in May 2015. They think, it would seem, that the British public share their contempt for trade unionism. <br />
<br />
But the evidence for this is decidedly unclear. <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=94&view=wide" target="_blank">IPSOS-MORI polling</a> shows that, when Thatcher declared war on the unions in 1979 it made electoral sense. 80% of all adults, and nearly 70% of union members thought that the unions had too much power, while two-thirds of adults thought that unions were run by extremists and militants. This marked the success of a media demonization campaign and also shows that the right-wing narrative explaining strikes and industrial conflict in the 1970s was the one that was victorious. This summer, the figures had almost reversed. Only 23% of adults believe unions are led by extremists and militants, and less than a third of adults believe unions hold too much power, in spite of everything that is written about unions and their leadership in the most widely-read newspapers. The vast majority of British adults (whether union members or not) have in fact always seen unions as essential (both in 1979 and today). <br />
<br />
I do not present these figures to give comfort to those of us who are proud of the Labour Party's links to the trade union movement. In many ways these figures are symbolic of the powerlessness of unions in post-Thatcherite Britain. We are no longer perceived as a potent threat to the status quo and as such the public have been fed a far more sparse diet of union bashing and "reds under the bed" misinformation than in the 1970s and 1980s.<br />
<br />
But what <em>is</em> interesting in this situation is whether Lynton Crosby has - once again - misjudged the British public and what impacts on their voting behaviour. I say "once again" because, despite being called "the wizard of Oz", Crosby does not have a good record in British elections.<br />
<br />
Crosby ran the Conservative Party's 2005 election campaign, a campaign characterised by nasty, dog-whistle innuendo. As well as it being a nasty campaign, it was a singularly unsuccessful one. The Iraq War was at the forefront of most minds; Blair was hugely unpopular and kept off all Labour leaflets. The Conservative Party was going through an uncharacteristic period of unity, behind leader Michael Howard. Despite all these advantages, the Conservatives polled poorly and ended up ditching yet another opposition leader. It was the 2005 election in particular that Theresa May was referring to when she talked about the Conservative's image as "the nasty party". Crosby has got back to work with the nastiness as before.<br />
<br />
In 2009, Crosby ran the campaign for Libertas, a Eurosceptic party who won no seats (in an election that saw UKIP and the BNP having successes). Not only did they not win seats, they got fewer votes than "UK First" and "the Jury team" and less than half those of "No2EU" and the Socialist Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Crosby's successes have been with Boris Johnson's campaigns in London in 2008 and 2012. But the reality is that Boris is an unusual politician. He won as much because of a failure of traditional campaign management than because of its success. People do not vote for Boris because of his message or his presentation.<br />
<br />
For the 2015 election, Crosby wants to talk about immigration, welfare, the economy, Ed Miliband and the unions. Increasingly, the sensible Labour response might be: let him. <br />
<br />
What Labour needs to avoid is dancing to Crosby's tune. Miliband's initial over-reaction to the Falkirk issue is not entirely encouraging in that respect. Let the Tories rediscover their "nasty party" roots. Labour should concentrate on its own message and let the Tories hang themselves with permanent austerity, union bashing and "mocking the weak".<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Duncan Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16787646693693466048noreply@blogger.com0