lord of the blog

« House of Lords | Main | Responses »

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Parliamentary Labour Party

At the PLP meeting yesterday I warned that if we didn't get our act together a 'stable and orderly' transition of power would come about from a Labour government to a Tory government. To avoid this fate we need Gordon and Tony to make an agreement and stick to it.

Last nights meeting did help but it is not sufficient to get us out of our self inflicted mess. Most of our policy issues can be sorted fairly easily as there is not much between the possible leadership contenders. Only Tony and Gordon can sort out the key problem about their respective future plans and call in their various acolytes who constantly brief the press. If we don't do this the bitter internecine strife that characterised the Labour Party in the past will return.

I have argued on a number of occasions that the logic is for Tony to step down in the Autumn of next year but there are other possible dates which would work quite well. What matters is that they agree the change and get back to working together.

I totally agree, although commentators in the media (like Robert Harris in today's Guardian) are not helping matters!

Why is it assumed that the transition is a matter for Tony and Gordon's private agreements and not the democratic vote of the Labour party membership? If Gordon Brown assumes the leadership without an election, his position could become untenable as he will be seen as lacking any democratic mandate from the membership. There are plenty of party members who do not consider themselves Blairite or Brownite (whatever "Brownite" means in actual policy terms - probably very little in my mind), so why not give them a choice?

This whole chaos over succession would not have happened had Tony Blair not said there would be a change of leadership in the third term of office. It is arrogant of him to believe that he is the one to determine when he leaves office. In fact, some Blairites might want him to continue into a fourth term, in the event of another Labour election victory - I am sure this is Ingrid's position. Talking of a "stable and orderly transition" before the 2005 election was a massive error of judgement on his part and has led to this crisis. You can't blame "Old Labour" or "the usual suspects" or the Campaign Group for this problem.

This whole succession issue is about deceit and back-stabbing by members of the PLP - not the left-wing of the party, but the careerists seeking to position themselves after the succession. It is not democratic behaviour, it is not fair on an embattled membership that feels increasingly isolated and demoralised and it is disastrous for the future of the Labour party. At a time when the party needs to rebuild its mass membership base and re-energise, the last thing it needs is lingering uncertainty and civil war within the PLP.

If this drags on until autumn 2007, as Clive is suggesting, then I would be surprised if the Labour party will be in existence by the next general election.

Save the Labour Party posted its views on party renewal, funding and succession on 25 April. Clive - you will note we don't speculate about when, but ask that the National Executive Committee takes back full control of the Party from No. 10 including succession planning. Personally, I was encouraged by Gordon Brown's remarks on the BBC AM programme on Sunday about rebuilding membership. I was also struck by the form of words he used about succession. "This is a matter between the Prime Minister and the Labour Party."

The NEC needs to take an urgent view about the Party's prospects at its meeting on 23 May. Its work has not been helped by the letter sent by the Prime Minister to his newly appointed Party Chair without discussion or agreement from the NEC.

This method of doing business is unsustainable in a democratic socialist party. We now have to persuade a majority of the PLP, and CLPs that there is a better way - a democratic socialist way.

Must dash to get the papers out for the Executive Committee of Cities of London and Westminster CLP, and draft motions to crystallise thinking about the state of the party and what is to be done. Some excellent ideas being floated around like campaigning for a living wage - an opportunity to join with TU colleagues and encourage affiliation/full individual membership. Then there is the adding up of expenses incurred during the campaign for personal grooming by candidates/spouses/partners and inviting a well-known person to contribute to a fund to defray the costs! So much to do. Pity about the absence of encouragement for members and membership from the current Leader, the helter-skelter dash to fleece the taxpayer, and the pretence that the Party's future hangs on the development of a Labour Supporters' Network. What we can all be certain of is that accountability is over if we accept that approach.

We are looking forward to early publication for Members of the Labour Party's submission of latest membership figures and the Statement of Account to the Electoral Commission, which ought to be tabled for approval at the next NEC on 23 May.

The party needs to unite against the Tories, who are currently heading for a huge win at the next election.
Also, we need to wake up to the fact that Cameron is being aided by the Countryside Alliance, who will be pulling out all the stops to get him elected-so they can resume their barbaric bloodsports.

Mike: I couldn't care less about a few foxes. Perhaps endangered species such as dairy farmers deserve more attention. But that's beside the point. What exactly does Labour rally behind? After nine years in power, demonising Tories won't really work - especially as the sleaze under Major was nothing compared to that of ministers under Blair. If Labour doesn't get its act together with a new pact between the TUs, the grassroots membership and the PLP, Labour deserves to lose. All power to Peter Kenyon, who has more patience than I have with the crooks and spindoctors running the party. But I think that unless something comes up pretty soon - I'm talking of more than yet another secret pact between Tony and Gordon - Labour will be doomed. The 2006 conference will be make or break for Labour.

It's not about New versus Old Labour. The party has moved beyond this and no-one seriously wants a return to that era. It's about re-establishing the Labour grassroots and listening to what they have to say about the ground realities.

It looks like the Labour leadership is more than prepared to run roughshod over the Labour party membership, but when it comes to facing the media it buckles at the knees. One of the great achievements of the Blair administration - the Human Rights Act - is about to be watered down following a patch of bad press regarding prisoner releases.

I wonder whether Clive would agree with me that the motive behind the press campaign against human rights is because the tabloids fear the Act gives ordinary citizens a measure of privacy that they cannot infringe. I know that Clive has always been in favour of privacy legislation, so I wonder whether he will oppose the watering down or scrapping of the Human Rights Act. I also want to know whether Clive - a former probation officer - agrees that the Human Rights Act is not at fault, but the wrongful application of the act by the judiciary in deciding on parole, deportation and other matters.

It shouldn't really be a matter between Tony and Gordon, but between Tony and the PLP / NEC / Labour party, surely?