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.

Ealing Southall: a bequest - no comments

A number (set to grow) of bloggers have circulated Ann Black's report from the NEC meeting of 24th June. It's good that she performs this service, though I did find one section rather odd:

Finally some members suggested reopening our decision that Ealing Southall should select its next parliamentary candidate from an all-women shortlist [AWS], following the sad death of sitting MP Piara Khabra. Traditionally, by-election candidates are chosen from open lists, a process which has overwhelmingly favoured men. However in this case, with the normal selection procedure imminent, and Piara Khabra’s own expressed wish that he should be succeeded by an ethnic minority woman, I hope that the NEC will keep its nerve or that we will at least have a chance to discuss any change.

We discussed AWS back here. A popular idea that nobody came close to convincing me of, was that if selected candidates were 'overwhelmingly' male (in aggregate, not specifically in individual seats), the approach most likely to reflect society (if you agree that this is a priority) was to institute AWS, rather than to maintain open lists but investigate the selection process to determine if discrimination was actually taking place.

I don't have evidence wither way, but if the local CLP had indeed got itself into the kind of state where this was happening, or likely to happen, or else its officers came from patriarchal backgrounds and were unable to adhere to their party's commitment to equal-treatment, then this would surely have to be tackled. Better that discrimination be rooted-out than it be allowed to persist, whatever the eventual candidate looks like.

I'd be happy to see an ethnic minority woman selected if she was the best candidate going. Either way, it must be from a free and open process, not some kind of 'gift' bestowed upon one section of the electorate in honour of a much-missed local MP.

Collectivism? - 1 comment

Via Stumbling and Mumbling, wherein you will find (as usual) a fine selection of recent posts, I discovered an interesting article from Potlatch, a blog I don't think I've happened upon more than once or twice.

Apparently, Soundings magazine is currently hosting an online debate called Left Futures, organised around a series of article-blogposts. Sounds great. Potlatch's contribution is entitled What does free market collectivism mean for the left?, challenging the collectivist left to explain the appeal of individualism, and to justify the idea that collectivism can be judged (how?, when?) superior to individualism, without some particular, stated ethical or political goal.

Political discussion certainly would be more interesting, and less divisive, if we all thought about fracturing 'left' and 'right' into, at the very least, and for example:

• Free-market/Non-free-market
• Capitalist/Anti-capitalist
• Individualist/Collectivist

Just imagine if we were free to choose societies on the basis of those eight different combinations, rather than just from one side of the line. A good many of the most irritating ideologues could be bypassed, for one thing, and you can be sure that there are blogs covering each possibility.

I wonder: is the contemporary 'collectivism' of 'shared national vision' any substitute for the collectivism of the pre-industrial village, the terraced street, or the pre-Thatcher trade union? Building communities from scratch is hard: is it possible to construct them (without extensive individual rights) outside of deprivation or oppression? Are nationalism and regionalism the communities of last resort? How comfortable can the political left be on this territory, and how much more careful should it be to protect the individual rights of those who have, throughout the ages, been terrorised within groups they cannot escape because of their difference, or refusal to conform? And if the left of 2007 has moved on from the left of 1967, can collectivism be any more than a buzzword?

Harriet on Iraq - 6 comments

I only made two choices in the deputy leadership election, neither of which were for (my former MP) Harriet Harman. The idea that having a male-female duo at the helm is something a political party should aspire to, rather than happen upon - by which Harriet seems to be convinced - seems a ridiculous one. And yet I have a funny feeling the public are suckers for this kind of thing (luckily I'm not in charge of election strategy). Now she's in place, I'll wish her all the best and wait to see what kind of job she can do.

I notice that Harriet's come in for some hostile criticism regarding her - on the face of it - mystifying backtracking 'on Iraq' (the coded phrase into which the deep and wide issues being played out in Iraq can be distilled). Apparently now:

She said she had not been referring to the need for an apology, but agreeing with the need for reconciliation with the public.

"I have not said I will press for a public apology from the government or the Labour Party," she said.

Good. The idea that the British people, who have suffered so little, have a grievance that should be addressed as a priority strikes me as pretty sinister. The government can legitimately be blamed for its mishandling of the legitimate case for intervention against Saddam Hussein, and can take some blame for the mishandling of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq - lessons must be learnt - but to propose giving the kind of apology that would imply:

• That there wasn't a legitimate case for intervention.
  
• That the smallest fraction of Iraq's woes can be blamed upon the British government.
  
• That the British people have a legitimate grievance, above all others.
  
• And that the priority of Labour members should be to win that apology, rather than, say, direct their energies to supporting peaceful and democratic forces across the Middle East and elsewhere.

Would be not only a pointless gesture, but a misdirection, and a morally unpleasant one. I hate to think Labour members would have been motivated by such a thing during the recent voting, when others were voting on the basis of who could best reorganise the party and make it a better campaigning force. Nonetheless, though I can't explain Harriet's argument and wouldn't condone anything underhand, I have to say that I'm glad that pro-apology voters have been stymied. Can we now move on?

Deputy Leadership voting - 2 comments

Hello again!

I'm sure you've all seen the breakdown of the deputy leadership voting figures, but for the record, LabourMark has round-by-round totals, and Luke Akehurst has a breakdown of the totals across the membership, MP, and trade union sections.

Deputy Leadership thoughts - 11 comments

I mentioned earlier that I hadn't been enthused by the deputy leadership election/campaigns, and was wondering if there was any way at all I could use my vote positively.

For a time, I convinced myself that Jon Cruddas was the way to go:

• He gives the impression of wanting the job most.
  
• Introducing Jon will allow his deputy leadership rivals to concentrate on their existing ministerial briefs: International Development is too important for Hilary Benn to be shifted onto party business.

But there were problems, too:

• His apparent support for BME shortlists for parliamentary selections (discussed to death here).
• His position over Iraq:

  "I saw the case for removing a tyrant who was a threat because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction and who had already used them against his own people. [...] I now state unequivocally that I was wrong, not only over the original premise but also on account of the consequences since [...]"

• His support for Venezuelan President Chávez's shutting-down of a politically hostile TV station.

Perhaps these are his own personal views, that wouldn't affect his commitment to rebuilding our broad Labour Party, but as other people seem to be happy to back him on the basis of those same views, I think I'm entitled to say: (a) that I don't agree; and (b) that they don't indicate a sufficiently consistent (for me) commitment to democratic and pluralist principles.

A common premise is that the decline in Labour's vote/membership/campaign ability is a consequence of unpopular policies. If so, our new deputy leader must presumably either (a) have the ability to use his knowledge and influence to alter those policy outputs; (b) to motivate members and voters, persuading them that the policies are sound (or, perhaps, to hang on long enough for them change more dramatically) - 'reinvigorating' them, if you will; or else (c) to instigate some kind of organisational/managerial reform to make the figures look better with much the same policies. I don't know what the answer is, but if a deputy leader is to make a difference, they can hardly come in with very high hopes of single-handedly fixing (a).

And yet my brief recruitment experience reminded me that I have been more attracted to candidates who were keen and had their own ideas, however different, than to those who appeared reputable, however decent. While not setting specific criteria for success in the deputy leadership role, Cruddas seems happy to have his performance judged. Coming from outside the Cabinet the chances of him 'going native' or disappearing into the system are reduced.

The Cogwriter then popped-up with this thoughtful post:

[...] I shan't even be voting for the candidate who most closely addresses the issues I am worried out - in particular, civil liberties, terrorism and climate change: that is to say, I shan't be voting for the person who has suddenly and - for me, quite surprisingly - almost become my political soul mate.

No. In a world where truth has been magically bent by wordsmiths as artful as any Beckham, I shall simply be voting for the candidate I think can make the Labour Party work as a campaigning machine again.

For if we get that right, everything else will fall into place.

Not through the big bucks or the dirty donations of recent times, but through the volunteering activities of good men and woman.

So whoever you think can do that - vote for them!

So, on the proviso that:

• Jon Cruddas's strategy does not consist of trying to recast Labour around some kind of off-the-shelf 'left-of-Blair' position that it is perceived will cause supporters to flood back.
• His strategy recognises that MPs and councillors have a mandate that goes beyond party members.
• This vote isn't taken to be a referendum or a proxy for any other issue; and most importantly of all:
• Compass and Ken Livingstone stop sending me gushing emails on Jon's behalf.

My vote will be as follows:

1. Cruddas
2. Johnson

And best of luck to the winner!

Rating Peace - 1 comment

You could read this, from the Economist: Give peace a rating: An index of pacifism. Nice try, but rather misses the point.

Alternatively, you could read Norm's 2007 Manchester Peace Lecture, a slightly amended version of which was presented at the Euston Manifesto conference:

From what I've said here I think it's clear enough that our world is still a very long way from those conditions of peace spelled out 30 years ago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn: that the limits of state violence be set at the threshold where the need to defend society's members ceases; that we outlaw from the human condition the very idea that some are permitted to use violence regardless of justice, law and mutual agreements.

Where there is state lawlessness there is no peace, and the victims of such lawlessness are entitled to seek what help or escape they may, and others to provide it. That is why the tasks of a global peace movement go beyond the prevention of aggressive war.