Grantham and Stamford go Labour - 6 comments
Quentin Davies MP's defection to Labour is a great publicity coup for what we should now be calling the new Brown/Harman team. If they can continue to appear fresh, dynamic, cunning, and also lucky, then the sooner the vacuous Cameron effect will be neutralised, and perhaps the sooner the media will convince us that policy differences are worth the public's while again.
But amidst the celebrations on our side, not all bloggers are sure the new recruit is worthy of our wholehearted support. Owen at Labour's Fightback is quite right to remind us that Davies is not a social liberal in the manner we have come to expect of Labour MPs since the elimination of the old Right in the 1970s and 80s (Tory Alan Duncan says so much himself). Davies' record on homosexual rights can be seen here - green (on the right-hand side) is good, and there isn't any. And yet he would not be alone amongst Labour MPs, so it would hardly be consistent to disbar him and not others, who have a mandate both from the electorate and their own party members.
Davies is unlikely to change his views at this stage in his life/career, and can't live down a lifetime of opposition to the reasonable left; as his switching party neither helps nor harms the social liberal consensus, it can only really be enjoyed for its pretty devastating criticism of the Cameronite Conservative party, extracts of which can be found here, here, and everywhere else beside. There's very little to disagree with, apart perhaps from the tone. Sure, there's some evidence that the Tories were making progress, but thinking back to last year, when I feared they might make a pitch that could sweep up wavering Blairites en masse, I can't help but feel now that the strategy has completely failed. The battered red squares hold; the slowed, demoralised, blue cavalry forced to skirt around the edges.
*
I'm curious: do MPs switching to Labour face mandatory re-selection for the next General Election? I don't know. There must be a tremendously strong case for having such a rule if it doesn't already exist.
Labels: Alan Duncan, Conservatives, David Cameron, defection, homosexuality, Labour Party, Quentin Davies
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
6 comments so far...
Of course, a snap election would make it a moot point. Don't you have to have been a party member for a certain amount of time to even be considered as a candidate?
Always assuming Quentin has actually got round to joining the party.
This is where it gets intesting and complicated. If you are a party member and stand for election against Labour, you get kicked out immediately - maybe to rejoin a lot later (like Ken) - but someone who stands against the party but is not a member can join the party the very next day if they want to apparently.
I'm not sure the rules will ever be able to cope with that anomaly.
Hmm, I don't know. Surely with all the factors that a candidate would need to demonstrate to a selection panel, simply being a member for a certain amount of time probably doesn't count for much in itself.
These defectors often have characteristics you wouldn't normally expect in Labour candidates (like, say, being a senior manager in a merchant bank), so I guess a panel would have to weigh things like that, plus recognisability, against the the kind of equalities they'd normally look for, and that the existing candidate would have fulfilled. I suspect it's quite a difficult situation to find oneself in.
Well it's big tent politics - that's Gordon's game. That was Blair's game too until he himself became too stinky. Now, as if to prove satire is dead, Blair's off to be "peacemaker" in the Middle East.
Instead of the two dominant Westminster parties being so similar that someone like Quentin Davies can hop beween, I would prefer it if folk were given clear and wider choices in General Elections on the basis of equal votes.
The Westminster two party stystem stinks of easy, cosy practices - the place needs a shake up and an injection of competition, with a fully elected Lords - to be fair on Quentin, at least he voted for that.
If you are a party member and stand for election against Labour, you get kicked out immediately - maybe to rejoin a lot later (like Ken) - but someone who stands against the party but is not a member can join the party the very next day if they want to apparently.
I'm not sure the rules will ever be able to cope with that anomaly.
Anomaly? I think its called recruitment, old boy. I think the aim of the game is to recuit folk from wherever. It doesn't help matters if some spiv from Labour HQ is required to conduct a political vetting process before accepting the person as a new member.
Of course New Labour was so jumpy about Ken Livingstone back in 1999/2000 that they conducted interviews with him, which Livingstone described as "Leninist".
Ideologically, though, I do think its rather odd that Davies thinks Labour is for him. Or perhaps its not so surprising.
As regards selection, there is a possibilty of someone becoming a member and standing as a Labour candidate in 'exceptional circumstances' at short notice.I know, because we did it locally.I believe the rules state you must be a party member for 12 months before being considered as a candidate in normal circumstances, a daft rule in my opinion.
Defectors as senior merchant bankers? Surely not freudian rhyming slang?
As for Davies, I don't think he can naturally hop between Labour and the Tories as suggested.He's anything but a natural member of the Labour Party, he knows it, we know it. However, he's stuck a mud pie in Cameron's face and that's what the defection was all about.
Digby Jones, former head of the CBI, is to made a minister in the Brown regime. Apparently he will have to join the Labour Party to become a minister, but he's a supporter of the Conservatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home