A Death Of Party Democracy

Peter Hain, Chair of Labour's National Policy Forum and Guru of "Refounding Labour". Architect of this death of Labour Party Democracy. At one time he claimed he was a "libertarian socialist", but is now neither. And to think that some 5 years ago, I argued that he should stand for the leadership of the Labour Party. Well even at my age, you can live and learn.

Mass Changes Made To The Rules Of The Labour Party.

I was not present at the Labour Party Conference, but it seems to have carried out a mass of changes to its rules on the basis of only one card vote which was carried with a Yes vote of 93.9% (88.3% of CLPs and 99.5% of affiliates). Given the wide ranging complexity of the changes concerned (even though many were mundane), these are percentage votes which are normally associated with totalitarian or whipped structures.

My understanding is that the amendments were made on the back of a last minute report entitled “Refounding Labour to win – a party for the new generation”. This was a 39 page report which appeared in a pack containing a total of some 100 pages which delegates were only first able to collect on the opening day of Conference, when the rule changes were themselves about to be voted upon.

The rule changes were based upon 40 sets of recommendations made in the above “Refounding Labour to win” document. On a rough count, there were no less than 138 separate points contained in the 40 sets of recommendations.

A further key 100 page book entitled “Labour Party rule book – including Refounding Labour amendments” was also made available on the day and in the run up to the vote. Between a fifth and a quarter of what are now the old rules of the Labour Party appeared in red with lines through them. It was being proposed that these should be replaced by lengthy sections which appeared in purple. Perhaps the colouring had an ideological significance. I doubt whether many delegates had the opportunity to digest the relevant documents which had just been made available to them. As they covered some 200 pages, how could anyone engage in an assessment of what was being proposed when they needed also to be in the Conference itself to keep an eye on developments?

Ignoring what seem to me to be minor and repeat changes, I give below a bare-bones summary of the main changes in this new rule book. I have truncated these into 22 items and may well have missed matters of importance – yet unlike delegates needing to vote, I have spent a few days looking at the key documents. At the close of my summary, I also add a three point NEC Statement which was issued to clarify or adjust what was put to the delegates.

It should be noted that (1) although many changes were given justification on the grounds that they arose from a consultation procedure within the Party about “Refounding Labour”, many of the proposals had never appeared in the earlier consultative documents relating to this process and the ordinary membership of the Labour Party had had no means of knowing they were on the cards, (2) as a matter of natural justice and internal party democracy, all the proposed rule changes should have been circulated well in advance of Conference to CLPs and affiliated bodies to enable them to mandate their Conference delegates, and (3) the matters placed before Conference were so huge that they should have been put off to a special Conference; this could also have allowed amendments to the rules changes to have been considered.

I don't object to losing a vote, but I do object to being disenfranchised. It is even worse when I am disenfranchised as part of a procedure that seems to help guarantee my future disenfranchisement.

It should also be noted that we are not at the end of the above “Refounding Labour” procedure. The NEC Statement given at the close of my summary, states that these consultations will now continue until March 2012. We need to push for democratic procedures this time round; including the clearing up of what happened at this Conference. For a start, we need to know exactly what ideas were submitted to the supposed consultation by the much maligned rank and file. For the style of the claims in “Refounding Labour to win” are merely that earlier consultations had given “widespread support” to x, “throughout the submissions” y was clear and “an extensive number of the submissions highlighted” z. Yet none of the x,y and z's came out of any of the six consultative, Party and Labour Discussion Group meetings I attended. So excuse my scepticism. It would be appropriate for us to be provided with hard evidence of what came out of such meetings.

I will not pass judgement at this stage on the nature of the changes which are summarized below. But I do contest their democratic legitimacy. My case is that non-democratic procedures were followed and the rights of the membership were violated.

Addition 21 October : Ann Black of the NEC states " Policy-making seems to have moved not only beyond the NEC but beyond the national policy forum and conference." See the rest of her revealing report here.

Summary

p 1. OBJECTIVES - “the party will bring together members and supporters”.

p 2. FINANCIAL SCHEME – this spells out accountancy arrangements for CLPs and others.(See also pp 99-100 below).

p 4. PARTY LEADER – gives the leader additional powers and responsibilities.

p 10. MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIONS – includes reduced rates for new members from affiliated Trade Unions and a minimum allocation to CLPs of £1.50 per member.

p 12. CONFERENCE DELEGATES – 6 added from the Association of Councillors (ALC) and 2 from Young Labour (YL).

p 14. CONTEMPORARY MOTIONS TO CONFERENCE – can now be up to 250 words. Nominating and voting rights are spelt out.

p 17. LEADER OF THE SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY – gives the procedure for his or her election.

p 18. PROCEDURE FOR FILLING NEC VACANCIES – this relates to posts which are appointed by Conference on a two yearly basis.

p 19. NATIONAL POLICY FORUM – additions to its membership.(These changes are minor, yet the “Refounding Labour to win” document devotes four pages to the NPF. It is supportive of its role, whilst wishing to develop it. This gives a hint of the shape of things to come.)

pp 21-22. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ELECTED MEMBERS – a new clause II relates to all elected representatives. The NEC can introduce candidates contracts and there will be a 2% levy on their salaries and on set personal allowances, including all payments resulting from elected office and on salaried positions in the Lords.

p 23 and pp 69-82. SELECTION OF WESTMINISTER PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES – covers new arrangements arising from the current Boundary Commission's proposals for the redrawing of parliamentary boundaries.

p 26. DISCIPLINARY RULES FOR CLPs – relates to those who operate in a CLP which has no Executive Committee.

pp 29-35 and pp 97-98. CHANGES TO THE RULES OF CLPs – These are wide-ranging and allow CLPs to “adopt any method of organisation currently approved by the NEC” whether delegate structures or all member meetings. The changes available include establishment of workplace branches and forums for interest groups. Whilst "The annual meeting should no normally be held before May in any year" and a “team of officers and coordinators, together with the parliamentary candidate and/or member of Parliament and the campaign co-ordinator, shall provide a strategic lead to the development of the Party in the constituency” (p 33).

p 36. ARRANGEMENTS WHERE CONSTITUENCY AND DISTRICT/COUNTY BOUNDARIES ARE COTERMINOUS – these are deleted. (Some of us were looking forward to the convenience of joint CLP and District Meetings in NE Derbyshire which has arisen under the Boundary Commission's proposals, but now these are ruled out.)

p 37. RULES FOR BRANCHES – This includes “to provide an opportunity for members to participate in the activities of the Labour Party within its area with the approval of the Executive Committee of the CLP and in line with the development action plan; to play their part in the Party's policy-making processes; to work together to run effective election and issue-based campaigns; to maximise the Party's engagement with organisations and individuals in the branch area and join with them in working for social justice. Work to meet these objectives shall always have high priority in the branches plans and meetings.”

p 45-46. YOUNG LABOUR - given Regional Representation and additions to its National Committee.

p 47-50. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES – are replaced by “Local Campaign Forums” with the NEC given the role of providing guidance on model structures. The membership of the LCF shall be focused around campaign delivery, the recruitment and selection of candidates and the development of opportunities for wider engagement with council issues.”

p 52. RULES FOR LOCAL LABOUR GROUPS ON PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES - “Members of the Labour Group shall pay an annual levy to the Labour Party of 2% of their total income from the Council and joint body sources....For the purpose of effective and vibrant electoral organisation , members of the Labour Group shall pay an annual contribution of a recommended minimum of 5% of their total income from council and joint body sources.”

p 60. MODEL STANDING ORDERS FOR PARTY UNITS – in certain circumstances people resident in an area but who are not on the electoral register can be delegates. Plans for campaigning on local issues and strengthening links with members, affiliates, supporters and communal groups will be central to all business.

p 83- 89. PROCEDURES FOR THE SELECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CANDIDATES - “The timetable should be set so that, as far as possible, candidates are selected six months in advance of the election (12 months where the council elects on a two or four yearly cycle)” An LCF may apply to the NEC to pilot new or innovative procedures.”

pp 99-100. MINIMUM GUARANTEE OF SUPPORT TO CLPs - “Every CLP will receive a cash payment based on the number of paid up members in that CLP....A minimum payment to every CLP and no national deductions.”

NEC Statement - Refounding Labour.

(A) Electoral College - Leadership Elections.

1. Registered Supporters.

It is our aspiration to extend the reach of our party by registering people who are Labour supporters as the first step towards turning them into full members. As a sign of our willingness to embrace a wider span of Labour supporters, we will create a new section for Registered Supporters within the Electoral College for electing the leader of the party. In so doing we are clear that the existing sections of the College should retain the primary shares of the College. Hence three key principles will underpin NEC procedural guidelines regarding the leadership election:

1. The Registered Supporters section of the Electoral College shall only come into being when there are more than 50,000 supporters registered with the party;

2. The supporters section shall, subject to point 3, constitute between 3% and 10% of the Electoral College, and shall never constitute more than 10%;

3. A member's vote shall always be worth more than a registered supporter's vote.

So the Electoral College for future leadership elections shall be comprised of:

- Affiliates

- Party Members

- Supporters (maximum of 10%)

- PLP/EPLP

(B) Multiple Voting.

Clear expressions of concern have been made about the ability of party members to cast multiple votes; particularly in respect of MPs and MEPs who already have the ability to nominate candidates in addition to having their own section in the Electoral College. Other multiple votes exist within the affiliate section and submissions voiced support for the universal application of "one member one vote" in this section. It is therefore proposed that MPs and MEPs should be restricted to just one vote in their own section and not permitted to cast any ballots in any other sections. It is also proposed that affiliated members shall cast no more than one vote in the affiliates section.

(C) Partnership in Power.

Discussions during this consultation have focussed on the need to make a reformed policy making system more accessible and responsive to Party members, with a fresh empowered annual Conference with even greater democracy. We are determined to take a new approach to policy making which meets those objectives and will take more time to develop the details. The NEC therefore agrees to further consult between now and the end of March 2012 on how to make the policy and decision making processes more dynamic, open, and democratic with a view to taking forward proposals to the NEC next spring, ahead of Conference.

Refounding Labour : a summary of Labour's consultative document

Keir Hardie is one of the primary founders of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) and then of the Labour Party, of which the ILP was itself a part. Labour is now seeking to refound itself.

It is, therefore, appropriate that I should have recently returned from a week-end school run by the ILP (now Independent Labour Publications) where we discussed the "refounding" document which I summarise here.

All Our Yesterdays

I have just discovered that back in 2004, Francis Bennion (on the left) ended this item posted on his blog with the following words "Now there is no proper Lord Chancellor, who is to keep Mr Blair's government in line with the law? Harry Barnes can't always be around". I can't, however, ever remember any successes I had on this matter when I was around on those green benches.

Besides even Tony Blair's Government proved to be mortal.

Francis Bennion was a Lecturer in Law at Oxford University from 1984-2002 and a leading Barrister. His entry by Wikipedia includes the following -

"In 1972, Bennion brought a private prosecution against the young Peter Hain for criminal conspiracy, in relation to Hain's activities as chairman of the Stop the Seventy Tour Campaign which took direct action to disrupt sporting events involving participants from South Africa in 1969 and 1970, as a protest against the apartheid regime. During the ten-day trial at the Old Bailey Hain dismissed his defence team, which included barrister Geoffrey Robertson, before being convicted and fined £200."

In those days I joined a demonstration organised by Peter's campaigners. I see no inconsistency in arguing that Governments should stick to the law, whilst (in certain circumstances) arguing that demonstrators can be justified in seeking to bend and change laws. Which is why we finished up having the bailiffs sent to our home in 1973 arising from opposition to a Housing Finance Act, which was directed against Council Tenants. I suspect that puts me outside of Francis Bennion's frame of reference. But it was nice of him to give me that pat on the back 4 years ago.

Tribune 1977

A slightly edited version of the following letter appears in this week's "Tribune" -

I was one of those people Robert Pandy describes (Tribune 4 April) who heckled Peter Hain at the Tribune Rally which was held during Labour's 1977 Conference. Peter had just defected from the Liberals and I felt that he first needed to earn left-Labour credentials before being invited to address us.

If my memory is correct, Neil Kinnock had an article in a subsequent issue of Tribune which criticised those of us who booed. I responded with a letter which defended the rights of the "little man" to heckle. (What would now be considered to be the use of a male chauvinist term, tended in those days to be seen as a generic term which covered women as well as men. I would be careful nowadays to talk about the "little person".)

When Peter first appeared for Business Questions as the new Leader of the House in the Commons on 19 June 2003, I added the following introduction to the question I asked him on a local Constituency matter - "May I welcome the new Leader of the House to his post? I have obviously changed my opinion since I heckled him at a Tribune Rally just after he had moved over from the Liberal Party."

Peter started his response by saying - "First I thank my hon. Friend for his historical reference. It was 26 years ago, if I am right, in September 1977 and, as I recall, it was a very friendly heckle."

He was only a month out, but the heckling was far from gentle. I then came to have a great deal of sympathy for what at one time were Peter's regularly expressed libertarian socialist views. I even ran a one-person campaign on my blog recently to try and get him to stand for the leadership and not just the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, as a feasible left-wing standard bearer. Such an approach is seen in the views he expressed in his latest Tribune article about Zimbabwe. Let us hope that he once more starts to apply these values to the internal British political scene, otherwise I will have to go back to heckling.

Harry Barnes, Dronfield.

The Peter Principle*

Ever since I posted this item, I have been running a one-man campaign to have Peter Hain stand (or equip himself to stand) for the leadership (and not just the deputy leadership) of the Labour Party.

I offer no prizes for anyone who works out why I have dropped my campaign at this particular time. I have also given up waiting for Godot and recognise there is now no feasible candidate for the future leadership of the Labour Party. The only significant avenue left for the pursuit of democratic socialism within the Labour Party is political education, political education, political education.

* = The Peter Principle is "the principle that members of a hierarchy are promoted until they reach the level at which they are no longer competent" (The Concise Oxford Dictionary).

On The Thinking Person's Thoughts

This is a review of "The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes". The cover opposite is from a Yale Nota Bene paperback edition (Yale University Press) published in 2002. I only came across this work recently on the shelves at Waterstones on Oxford Street. At the time there was a stock of at least six copies for sale. Perhaps an enterprising member of staff thought it would be good for our souls. It is a view I now share after reading it, even though I tend to concentrate on criticism rather than praise below.



An Inheritance

Once a month I organise a discussion meeting at a Club which has links with my local Labour Party. A number of us end up in the lounge bar afterwards to continue our discussions. Recently I discovered that five of us who were sitting in a corner had all attended different Adult Education Colleges which (in our time) catered for people from the working class who held few formal educational qualifications. The Colleges we had attended were Coleg Harlech, the Northern College, Newbattle Abbey. Ruskin and the Co-op College.

In essence, Jonathan Rose's book describes working class struggles for the forms of education which the five of us had come to benefit from. He starts with the harsh conditions of the early industrial revolution, where the self-taught labouring person was often confined to sparse copies of religious literature, such as the Bible and Pilgrims Progress.

Many A Manny

A century or so later in 1896, Manny Shinwell left school at 12 after only 2 years of schooling in London, 9 months at South Shields and one and a half years in Glasgow. Rose describes him as going on to become one of the most accomplished autodidacts of the 20th Century.

I also benefitted directly from Manny's Progress. First of all, I joined the Labour Party to entered an essay competition he ran in the Easington Divisional Labour Party and gained second prize. Then he later provided a reference which helped me to secure a place to study Politics and Economics at Ruskin College. Nearly 40 years later I ended up sitting in the same seat in the Commons Chamber which Manny had occupied when he finally left the Labour Front Bench.

Even if we were poorer copies, there was many a Manny who followed this type of pattern.

Autodidact Addicts

Self education can not advance far on its own. Its practitioners require the intellectual stimulations of argument and debate to meaningfully discover and test out the understandings of others. They need libraries, meetings, comradely classes and face-to-face discussions with fellow addicts.

So Rose takes us on a journey into classes run by the Workers' Educational Association (WEA), the Women's Co-operative Guild, on University Extension Courses and by bodies such as the Miners' Institute of South Wales. Rose describes the latter as having been "one of the greatest networks of cultural institutions created by working people anywhere in the world". By the second world war, the Tredegar Workmen's Institute was circulating 100,000 volumes a year and ran a 800 seat cinema with a film society and celebrity concerts.

Mining His Material

Rose has delved deeply into a whole host of invaluable sources, including 2,000 published and unpublished documents listed in "The Autobiography of the Working Class: Annotated, Critical Bibliography" edited by David Vincent, John Burnett and David Mayall in 3 Volumes (New York University Press, 1984-89). Use has also been made of important surveys of working class reading by the WEA, the Sheffield Educational Settlement and various academic researchers.

In 53 pages of notes there is a cornucopia of references for someone with my own interests. For not only did I study at Ruskin, but I later taught Politics and Industrial Relations to industrial workers for 21 years before I went to Parliament and I also ran access courses for those without formal qualifications who were looking to move to study full-time in higher education.

Whilst my own experiences explains why I devoured Rose's book, it also explains my disappointments with it. I felt that it could have reached the following glowing assessment by Christopher Hitchen, but unfortunately fell short - Hitchen claims that it "bears comparison with the best work of Edward Thompson". Yet for me to say that this work does not match up to a masterpiece such as "The Making of the English Working Class" is itself hardly a criticism. But I do have three serious niggles about Rose's otherwise compelling work.

(1) What Is It All About?

The book covers massive and exciting grounds, but it lacks an overall analytic framework in which the author's discoveries could have been marshalled. This would have helped the reader to grasp hold of the logic of developments. Even if the reader then came to disagree with the author's particular perspective.

I appreciate that there is the alternative danger of imposing a one-sided viewpoint upon the wide variety of material which research unearths. But a sensitive analysis would have enlivened the mining of Rose's empirical details.

At times, within a chapter I could not see why he had moved from one interesting bit of information onto another. This problem also arose between chapters. For instance, why do details about working class people at theatres being confused about distinctions between fact and fiction, follow on from a survey of Mutual Improvement Societies who are described as being Friendly Societies "devoted to education" ? Perhaps we are moved dramatically to reveal the contrasts.

(2) No Marks On Marx

The above overall eclectic style is suddenly burst asunder in a chapter well into the book entitled "Alienation From Marxism". Rose now has a sub-theme which is to show why the British Working Class did not take to Marxism.

After a fruitful start in which he summarizes the range of possibilities offered by Ross McKibbin in "The Ideologies of Class" (Clarendon Press, 1990),we descend into an attack on Vulgar Marxism and on manipulations by the Communist Party. Even the Marxist use of jargon is criticised as putting Marxism beyond the pale, although earlier we have been given examples of British working class intellectuals mastering the more complex and obscure works of Kant and Hegel.

Rose's problem is that he moves away from his study of autodidacts and working class intellectuals to generalisations about the working class as a whole.

Writers such as GDH Cole who claimed to be Marx-influenced explained Marxist ideas and had a close following amongst the category of working people Rose is supposed to be examining.

A tradition of a more sophisticated Marxist approach was also reflected in what happened in 1956 when people such as Lawrence Daly of the National Union of Mineworkers resigned from the Communist Party over the Russian invasion of Hungary and the revelations about Stalin, yet retained a keenly critical Marxist outlook.

Nor were all those who remained in the Communist Party (such as the late Bas Barker and his comrades in Chesterfield) the intellectual zombies which Rose indicates.

(3) Where Are We Now?

In the final chapter of his book, Rose turns his attention more specifically to developments after the second world war. The extension of formal education, cultural studies, the rise of popular and modern writing, the decline of a concentration on the classics, modernism, then post-modern studies, plus the rise of the mass media are all given as reasons for the decline of the tradition of the autodidact and their associates.

Yet the impact of the changes Rose highlights may have been much slower and less dramatic than he claims. For instance, he ignores the Adult Eduction College tradition which I mentioned at the start of this review, apart from his coverage of an early Ruskin College in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Coleg Harlech, Newbattle Avenue, Fircroft, Hillcroft, the Co-op College and the Catholic Workers' Colleges are either ignored or merely given passing references. Whilst the Northern College was only founded in 1978 in the very midst of what Rose sees as a barren period.

Neither do University Extramural Departments enter the frame, including the Sheffield University Industrial Day Release Scheme which ran up to the eventual decline of the Coal Industry: nor do we hear of bodies such as the Society for Industrial Tutors.

It is only from the early 1990's that these post-war forms of education began to be transformed by moves to further education based on modules and accreditation.

Even then Trade Union Education Schemes which had expanded in the post-war period survived, although they provide more of a training ethos than provisions based on widening people's horizons and interests.

Yet as Rose points out earlier in his book, workers are capable of adjusting to a variety of seemingly alien conditions for wider educational ends. Even though the hay-day of the popularity of the classics of the Everyman Library has long since gone, there are today's alternatives. Future surveys may well come to throw up a fresh form of viability of the intellectual life of the British Working Class - especially if the use of Sky Channels from History to Foreign News Services, DVDs, CDs. iPods, overseas travel and surfing the Net are all added to paperback book buying. The modern world may be short of interest groups with wide ranging and communal concerns, but specialist groups vie for membership.

We do, of course, have to recognise that the diversions of modern life offer fresh stumbling blocks to the intellectual growth of the working class. These differ from the deprivations of the past. But this does not means that everything isn't still worth playing for.

Final Thoughts

Even when my above criticisms have been taken into account, the book under review is still full of rich sources of material, revealing tales of our past and fascinating events. There is no reason why on my bookshelves it should not at least earn an honourable spot near "The Making of the English Working Class". I will certainly recommend it to anyone attending our Sunday Evening Discussions who has not read it already.

Still Waiting For Peter

Peter Hain is reported to be attacking Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling for acting "appallingly" in blocking a rescue package for workers whose pension schemes have collapsed. The Political Editor of The Observer, Nicholas Watt started an article on this matter in yesterdays paper in the following way.

Cabinet Split Over Pensions Rescue

"Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have sparked a furious cabinet row by blocking a £725m rescue package for 125,000 workers who lost pension rights when their employers went bust or wound up their schemes.

The Observer understands that Peter Hain, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is angry at the refusal of Darling and Brown to come to the rescue of the 125,000 workers, whose lengthy wait is being contrasted with the rapid help handed out to investors in Northern Rock. Hain has spoken privately of how the government has handled the matter 'absolutely appallingly'"

Here is the full article.

What Will Peter Hain Now Do?

If Peter Hain wins out in this internal tussle, then he can re-establish some of his credentials to be a plausible left wing Labour Leader in waiting: although his proposals to push more people off benefits and into work acts as a stumbling block to this.

If he loses out along with the workers who need the £725 million rescue package, then he has no option but to resign from the Government and lead a fight back on the back-benches on this issue - and for a wider programme of feasible democratic socialist initiatives.

I have argued in the past that Peter Hain is the best placed Labour Minister who can act in this way. But for me he is now at the last chance saloon.

Fabian Frolics

One Person, Numerous Votes

So far I have received three ballot papers. For instance, as a national member of the Fabian Society I am entitled to participate in their ballot for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party.

My Fabian voting paper arrived along with a booklet containing essays from the six contestants. These vary in size from around 1,750 to 2,500 words.

I found them to be an easy read, aided by the fact that generally they vary in style and content. I had expected much of a muchness; hotch potches, making sweet noises but without making cashable recommendations.

But only Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson adopt this approach.

Fun With Hazel And Peter

Hazel Blears and Peter Hain are much more fun. They have disguised snipes at each other. Moreover they both have themes, which sharply differ. Admittedly, their themes are predictable, but that is better than there being absent.

Hazel is the New Labour warrior, convinced that we have done a damned good job and need to press on down a similar way. She recognises, of course, that as part of a moderniser's agenda, we never step into the same river twice. But if we keep the faith, we will surely win another General Election.

Peter wants to stress both the advances and shortcomings of New Labour. This gives him the opening to hint at some radical new ground rules, which all fall under his theoretical appreciations of the values of "libertarian socialism".

Mould Breaking With Harriet And Jon

But Harriet Harman and Jon Cruddas adopt surprising approaches. They present think pieces, each around their own distinctive single topic. There is no rushing at break-neck speed through climate change, making poverty history or health and education.

Instead, Harriet deals only with family matters. This, of course, is intended to highlight the role and needs of women. So it fits neatly into Harriet's campaign theme of "I'm a woman". But it does show that there is a substantial agenda here and with Harriet up front it might re-connect us with the female vote.

Jon The Clever

The biggest surprise, however, comes from Jon. His piece reads as if it was produced for an academic journal. There is nothing about his plans for democratising the Labour Party, nor does he point out that he does not want a Cabinet post. Quite correctly, he assumes that we know that by now.

Instead, he realises that Fabian's like to think of themselves as thinkers. So he gives them a piece examining what has happened to the working class. As he concludes that it is still as prominent as ever and needs to be courted, he also says things that John McDonnell's camp love to hear. So he seeks to capture two birds at once - Fabian thinkers and Hard Left ranters.

In the spirit of the dialectics of debate, I merely suggest that he takes on board some points about changes is working class life which I feel he has missed. They are here, see the final section entitled "The Working Class".

But I am beginning to think that Jon is a smart cookie. On TV today he was asked who he would like to see in a Labour Cabinet and came up with the name of "Neil Gerrard". That is a clever choice. It will appeal like mad to the Hard Left, yet will not upset others. Neil always pursues his corner soundly and without rancour. Pity he is retiring at the next General Election.

Confusing?

So do I now move Jon above Hilary in my list of choices? And what of Harriet? Then look at this goody from Alan. This voting lark is really getting confusing and I thought I knew the characters concerned. Still Peter-the-first and Hazel-the-last, still stand.

Is This A Male Chauvinist Ticket?

My ballot paper as an individual member of the Labour Party arrived today. As things stand (unless I can be convinced by strong countervailing arguments), I intend to place the only two women in the contest for Deputy Leader in the last two places.

Here are my order of preferences and the reasoning behind my choices -

First Choice - Peter Hain

Although he has involved himself in all the compromises of being a member of Blair's Governments, he seems to me to have a greater understanding and belief in the case for libertarian socialism than anyone else who is likely to achieve office in the current state of the Parliamentary Labour Party. His Governmental record also shows him to have pushed the boat out further in a democratic socialist direction than anyone else. And at last he has spoken out.

Second Choice - Hilary Benn

There is a sharp drop in the curve after my first choice. With Hilary, I am influenced by the fact that he has a decent record as the Minister for Overseas Development. On the other hand, it is easier under the normal confines of New Labour to make a reasonable fist of this job than of any other. What would he be like elsewhere?

I don't go for the way he tries to use his loose Bennite connections, as when he says "Labour values are in my blood". For one thing, I am myself an old Bevanite and feel that Bennism was often over the top. This criticism can't, of course, apply to Hilary, but I doubt whether he would match up in Bevanite terms either. I only go for him here because he looks better than the following choices.

Third Choice - Jon Cruddas

I am not grabbed by the argument that he doesn't wish to be Deputy Prime Minister. For I would like my vote to influence the determining of who is offered that post; especially when I am not allowed to have a vote to determine who will be Leader/Prime Minister.

And although Jon is the only candidate who is from outside the Government and has been free from the restraints of collective responsibility, what did he ever do from the freedom of the back-benches before he announced his candidature? He only edges in front of my next choice because he finally hit on the usefulness of a platform which contained the advancement of internal Labour Party democracy.

Fourth Choice - Alan Johnson

It is now getting more and more difficult to find anything positive to say about my final choices. Alan's saving grace is that there is one issue he carries over from his Trade Union experiences. He believes that it is right for our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland to be able to choose to be full participants within the Labour Party. Such an approach attempts to cut across the Catholic-Protestant political divide, especially in working class areas. It is an approach that is neither Green nor Orange, but Red.

He had the guts to go to Belfast and press this line, a 100 years after the very first Labour Party Conference was held there (previous Conferences were summoned by the preceding Labour Representation Committee). So unlike Blair, he does at least have a sense of history.

But otherwise, he has been so tucked in with the Blair agenda (especially on education) that I can give him no additional defence.

Fifth Choice - Harriet Harman

Harriet is next, but only because it is Hazel that remains. And she only has the edge over Hazel because of her own incompetence. Hazel is a tough, hard-line and able Blairite. With her as, say, Deputy Prime Minister, the chances of moving beyond the Blaitite agenda are diminished. Having Harriet in the post would be even less dynamic than continuing with John Prescott in situ. She is then less of a danger than Hazel.

Admittedly, Harriet has picked up some of Jon Cruddas programme on inner-party democracy . Yet he knows what he means.

Last Of Them All - Hazel Blears

She is the most Blairite of the candidates and willingly grabbed the appointed Party Chairmanship when it was offered to her. She is a loyalist to the hilt. More dangerous still, she is an able loyalist. Give her a script and she will ram it down your throat.

Waiting For Ms Godot

A great disaster of the Deputy Leadership Elections is that it contains no female candidate who has any democratic socialist instincts and ability. Yet there are numbers. My favourite would have been Yvette Cooper. She has a record of studying difficult problems and coming up with worthwhile solutions. These go beyond her seeming entrapment in the Gordon Brown camp. With a brave campaign, she could well have been my first choice.

The Leadership Question

Tribune's Tribulations

This week's "Tribune" is good fun on the Labour Leadership issue.

Taylor's Trantram

Robert Taylor has a good moan and groan about the failure to produce a contest for the Leader's post itself. It is enjoyable knock about stuff. He only seems to miss one ploy. He fails to have a go at the Deputy Leadership candidates who showed that they did not have the guts to take on Gordon for the top job.

Anderson's Analysis

Alongside Taylor's article is one by Paul Anderson which seeks to undermine's his colleague's line. Paul writes -

"Every time the top post falls vacant in any of our major political parties - and in Labour's case, when the deputy leader goes - the cry goes up that there must be a contest to ensure a debate on the party's future. Then there is a lot of huffing and puffing (HB -Robert Taylor Style!) about how the absence of a contest means that debate has been stifled, or else there's a contest in which all the candidates welcome a chance for debate which the contest offers. What rarely if ever happens is any actual debate."

Candidates' Non-Contest

Paul's final point is then confirmed when we turn to a set of six articles elsewhere in Tribune from the Deputy Leadership candidates. They remind me of looking for a programme on a multi-channel Television when you have some time to kill. There are umpteen alternatives, but it is hard to distinquish one from the other. A more limited but real choice would be welcome. So we have to distinguish between -

1. Hilary (I am a nice guy) Benn.
2. Hazel (I want us to win the next election) Blears.
3. John (I only want half the job) Cruddas.
4. Peter (I was a nice guy 30 years ago) Hain.
5. Harriet (I am a woman) Harman.
6. Alan (I don't need to say anything) Johnson.

Editorial Initiative

Having gathered together all the above thoughts and non-thoughts, the editor of Tribune then decided that it was time to try and enliven matters. The editorial states -

"So while the hustings rumble on until June 24, we are seeking to liven up the debate, with the help of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, by publically asking the candidates the following questions relating to both the Labour Party and the policies of the Government".

These 12 questions then follow, with Tribune promising to publish the replies it receives. The editor, however, has the wit to tell as not to hold our breath in waiting for them.

Perhaps he should not be too septical, for I tried a similar ploy in the 1992 contests. I limited myself to five questions in an article in the "Morning Star". And I did receive answers to each from the winners, John Smith and Margaret Beckett. They were duly published. I hope that the current candidates feel that this means it pays to respond! This was, however, 15 years ago and before the birth of the policies and practices of New Labourism. Perhaps we should not really hold our breath after all.

Then Comrades Come Rally

Peter Misses Out

I kept pressing for Peter Hain to stand for the Leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds that he was a closet Libertarian Socialist who could come forward with a feasible left-leaning platform that could stimulate a much needed debate in the Labour Party. I felt that he could have given Gordon a good run for his campaign money.

But it is not to be and Peter will only be a candidate for Deputy. I will give him my vote, as I hope that he can use the position as a launch pad in a future Leadership campaign - if, for instance, Labour lose the next General Election.

John Benefits

Given that the only possible Leadership contest now seems to be between Gordon and John, then I have no difficulty in making my mind up between them. I am not New Labour and reject the powers and freedoms of the market. So I can't support Gordon, even if he is developing a leftish form of New Labourism.

I am all for the debate for the leadership providing a democratic socialist challenge to New Labour. John who has ability, conviction and a pleasing personality; will certainly fly this red flag. I might be being carried away in a wave of emotion, but I will now join with my former comrades in the Socialist Campaign Group and give John my full and active support. If all else fails, at least I will enjoy myself.

'Another World Is Possible"

The above is the title of John's Campaign document. His Campaign operates from www.john4leader.org.uk and info@john4leader.org.uk. See here.

My own statement for use in his Campaign is -

"John has wide ranging abilities, understandings and commitments. When dealing with issue after issue, he invariably thinks through sets of serious proposals and pursues them with determination and dedication. Without John as a candidate for Leader, there will be no debate in the coming key weeks inside the Labour Party about whether its future can rise beyond the confines of New Labour and embrace the norms of democratic socialism."

If I am now guilty of an emotional spasm, then long live red emotional spasms.

Oldies4Peter

Victory With Victor?

Victor Meldrew is supporting Peter Hain for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party. I go a step further and keep pressing Peter to stand for the Leadership itself.

So what have Richard Wilson (who played the roll of Victor Meldrew) and I got in common which leads us to see just what it is that Peter has to offer the Labour Party?

The Wisdom of the Aged

Simply that we are old enough to know a thing or two about both Peter and the needs of the Labour Party. Victor and I are both "threescoreyearsandten" being born within a fortnight of each other. We, therefore, have memories which go back to the triumph of the real Labour Party under Attlee in 1945.

Our knowledge of Peter goes back to the 1970s. We saw Peter's anti-apartheid work with the campaigns on Stop the Seventy Tours against the white-only South African rugby and cricket teams. My banner at the latter said "Hit Apartheid For Six".

We have both probably absorbed many of the 21 books and pamphlets which Peter has written since 1971, where his advocacy of libertarian socialism has matured over time.

We also saw Peter's involvement in the setting up of the Anti-Nazi League and his move into the Labour Party in 1977. Twenty years later we saw him set off on a commendable Front Bench career, where he often pushed the boundaries as far as he could under New Labour with responsibilities for Wales, Africa, the European Union, the Leadership of the Commons and Northern Ireland.

To Boo or Not To Boo?

Mind I wasn't always a fan of Peter's. When he moved from the leadership role he had played in the Young Liberals to join the Labour Party at the age of 27, I was annoyed when he immediately appeared on a Tribune platform at a Labour Party Conference before he had served his apprenticeship with us. So I roundly heckled him from the body of the meeting.

Then in the pages of Tribune, Neil Kinnock condemned the unruly mob who had attempted to disrupt the meeting. I responded with a letter defending the right of the little people to boo.

Peter has not forgotten the incident. As Leader of the Commons in 2003, the prefaces to a question and answer on ex-miners chest diseases went as follows -

Harry Barnes: "May I welcome the new Leader to his post? I have obviously changed my opinion since I heckled him at a Tribune Rally just after he moved over from the Liberal Party....."

Peter Hain: "First, I thank my hon.Friend for his historical reference. It was 26 years ago, if I am right in September 1977 and, as I recall, it was a very friendly heckle....." ( Which, of course, it was not. HB.)

I was in the Commons last week for a St. Patrick's (Early) Day Reception. Unfortunately, duties arising from the Northern Ireland Election results prevented Peter turning up. It was a pity because I would have put my case to him for his standing for Leader. And if he had rejected what I had to say, I could always have booed him again.

You never know what 70 year olds like Victor and myself will get up to.

So far, everyones a fruit and nut case

The Labour Leadership contest is in danger of turning into a complete and utter farce.

The Three Stooges : Clarke, Milburn and Meacher

Ignoring the Byzantine policy-making structure which they helped to foist upon the Labour Party, Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn now propose to set up their own policy debate via a web-site. Yet as every blogger knows, comment boxes seriously degenerate after the first wave of entries - just have a look at Harry's Place.

John McDonnell is probably correct when he states that "nobody can believe that this is anything other than a smokescreen for the launch of a pre-emptive coup against Gordon Brown by the Blairite ultra-right." For when this duo are supposed to be tackling Gordon Brown on policy matters, instead they concentrate on what really worries them - his slump in the opinion polls put down to a lack of charisma.

On the third stooge, see this one I made earlier.

At The Starting Blocks

A. Gordon Brown. He has been the economic wing of New Labour, even though he has had one of the longest sulks about his leader, even challenging that of Ted Heath over Margaret Thatcher. For those in a democratic socialist position, he is a non-starter - unless he is suddenly going to return to the days of John Smith.

B. John McDonnell. He was fine when we shared rebel division lobbies against New Labour excesses. But everything can't be put back in one fell swoop. His campaign isn't meant to build a meaningful challenge to old, new or right-wing Blairism. He is merely for spreading the socialist gospel. But even that aim will backfire in widespead defeat.

C. Micheal Meacher. He has no credabilty on his chosen ground of the centre-left. He tucked in with the New Labour Government and then got the sack. He had missed his chance to resign and build a base amongst the very back-benchers he is now trying to appeal to. When he was finally free to move, he came up with a futile conspiracy theory about 9/11. He had been surfing the net without discernment.

D. Godot or God-damn-it. This is the yet unknown candidate of the dreams of Charles Clarke and Allan Milburn (they are probably waiting for us to turn out on the streets to shout for them.) If what emerges is a substitute for Blair/Brown or the right wing varient feared by John McDonnell, then this could be the candidate from hell.

Who Is Doing The Thinking On The Centre-Left ?

The leftward leaning (but pro-capitalist) think-tank Compass has washed its hands of the Leadership Contest and is running a strange and premature ballot for its members for the Deputy Leadership instead. As the returning officer, it is asking its members to vote for Jon Cruddas. Are they serious ?

As I keep arguing, only Peter Hain (of the booming Northern Ireland economy) can save the centre-left from the folly of a Leadership contest where it currently has no real presence. OK, I am on the left but we can't do anything without a centre. Why do I seem to be the only to be making the case for Peter4Leader? Perhaps I am the only one who isn't mad after ten years of New Labouring.

If Peter does not make a move, then I will probably have to end up voting for John McDonnell (if he makes the ballot paper). But this will be due to a non-emotional spasm and will be an act of desparation. And without John in the contest, it will have to be Gordon or abstention. I can't belieeeve it.

Michael : You Have Placed Us In It.

The Poor Man's Clare Short

Michael Meacher's decision to stand for the leadership of the Labour Party and thus for the Prime Minister's Crown is an unmitigated disaster.

He is yesterday's man, having stood for the deputy leadership 23 years ago in the heyday of a long departed Bennism.

He then tucked in as a Labour Minister under New Labour, voting for the invasion of Iraq. He had failed to budge or to follow Robin Cook - who at one time had only been soft left compared to Michael's hard leftism.

When Clare Short resigned over the invasion of Iraq it was too late, but at least she resigned and had been doing some of the work of a socialist at International Development. Unlike Clare, Michael only found his voice to criticise New Labour once he was pushed out of the Government.

He now seems to have flipped over to a "troops out" position over Iraq. So he voted incorrectly in favour of the invasion and compounds this by calling for a premature scuttle.

Heaven knows, I have disagreed enough with Tony Blair over Iraq but on the troops position he made a sensible speech in the Commons yesterday. I don't know if Michael heard it. But he certainly did not stay in the chamber to ask questions afterwards.

Ego Tripping

What we need is a left-leaning candidate who will offer a sensible critique of New Labourism, whilst being serious about troop withdrawals and will adopt a Labourite platform which won't frighten the birds.

Although Gordon Brown will probably win, what of the situation afterwards? We need someone who will be a focus for an alternative approach which democratic socialists can live with. This won't be Michael. He will once more disappear into the wilderness when his present ego trip is over.

Waiting For Peter

The alternative to Gordon and John McDonnell should be Peter Hain. He has at least made noises in Government to show that he isn't in tune with the general thrust of New Labour.

If Michael has placed the blocks on Peter's leadership candidature, I will never forgive him. Michael's decision to stand makes John now look like the only refuge for Labour Party socialists - unless Peter will at last grasp the nettle.

Peter The Great?

My case for Peter Hain standing for the Leadership of the Labour Party rather than for the Deputy Leadership is added to by two passing events.

(1) Sunshine

Today's Sun carries an article supporting Alan Johnson for the Deputy Leadership in order to stop the position going to Peter. This should give Peter a standing on the Left and Centre of the Party which some had not thought of before. If the Sun is so powerfully against him, then might he not be just the right person to be Leader and Prime Minister?

(2) Tribulation

This week's Tribune claims that Hazel Blears is about to enter the Deputy Leadership race. That would make the contest even more crowded with six pressing for nominations from Labour MPs. Life is more simple so far in the contest which really matters. Only Gordon Brown and John McDonnell are currently the intended candidates. Yet for Labour MPs and the wider Labour membership who are looking for an able candidate who is neither New Labour nor Hard Labour, then Peter is the best choice. He has had a long term commitment to libetarian socialist ideals, yet he is also a political realist.

In a full Leadership contest he would probably end John McDonnell's hopes of clearing the nomination threshold. Hopefully, Socialist Campaign Group members would then come behind him to stop Gordon Brown. Yet he would not reflect John McDonnell's over-the-top position.

Who Else?

The only stumbling block to my suggestion is Peter Hain himself. He needs to realise that if he wants to be great, he needs some grit.

Peter4Leader ?

If he can venture this far, then why can't he go this far ?

Clicking for Democratic Socialism

Me and the ILP


Before I was ensnared by parliament, I spent a decade or so involved locally and nationally in the work of Independent Labour Publications (ILP). They published at least 60 articles of mine.

Although my links with them never entirely disappeared, I was invariably swamped by the usual M.P.s' passing trade. I soon, however, re-established closer contact with the ILP on retiring from parliament.

I am, therefore, pleased that my article "Iraq: The Third Big Issue" appears in the current issue of their journal "Democratic Socialism". I am equally pleased that it appears alongside such worthy contributions. The ILP prefers to present challenging material.

Peter and the Crud

The first person it challenges is me. I tend to have been using people's comment boxes to blow raspberry's at Jon Cruddas and his campaign for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party . Even christening him "The Crud". But now my old friend Barry Winter has set me thinking with both a serious interview with Jon and a thoughtful review of the pamphlet Jon wrote with John Harris, entitled "Fit for Purpose: a programme for Labour Renewal". Jon is using his campaign to centre upon a need to democratise and revitalise the internal life of the Labour Party. A point he hammers home by insisting that he is standing exclusively for Deputy Leader and not for Deputy Prime Minister.

We then have articles on the role of faith in public life, why anti-Americianism must not be a pillar of left-wing thinking, whether the Euston Manifesto is as new a political development as it initially appeared to be, plus how far the analysis by Compass in "The Good Society" was reflected on the fringes of Labour's Conference.

If that does not grab you, then what of its breathless tour of Labour Blogs?. That should get everyone clicking.

It is appropriate that my "Democratic Socialist" came through the letter box this morning, for I have arranged for Will Brown one of its regular writers to address our Local Labour Party Discussion Group this week-end on "Labour, the Left and the Leadership." I wonder what he will make of my "Will The Real Peter Hain Please Stand Up?".

Will the real Peter Hain please stand up?

Peter Hain is standing for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party. In a recent speech which he then posted on his parliamentary web-site under the title “We must rebuild the progressive coalition”, he states that Tony Blair is “one of our greatest Prime Ministers”.

Does such a claim and the use of the Blairite terminology “progressive” indicate that Peter is himself a Blairite? Not necessarily. For one thing, it is possible to recognise Tony’s “greatness” merely by the fact that he helped to bring about the longest running Labour Government in history. It is the same sort of greatness we can grant to the lack-lustre Lord Salisbury who managed to serve 14 years as a Conservative Prime Minister at stages between 1885 and 1902. Neither is the word “progressive” the property of Tony; although as I will indicate later he does like to monopolise its use.

Peter’s also said “(w)hereas the last century was overwhelmingly a conservative century. Tony has given us the chance to make this century, Labour’s century.” This claim has great similarities to a claim Tony himself made at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party immediately after Labour’s electoral victory in 2001.
He pointed out that whilst the 20th century had been the century of conservatism,
his audience had to help ensure that the new century would be the century of …….. .
He then hesitated to think of the word that would best express his meaning and came up with the notion of the 21st Century needing to be the century of “progressive politics.”

To Tony , but not I hope Peter, “progressive” is used as a code word for a wider political agenda. It involves opposition to a conservatism (with a small “c”) of not just the Conservative Party, but also of traditional Labour with its values of social equality and publicly controlled services. It spoke volumes that Tony would baulk at suggesting that a room full of Labour Parliamentarians should seek to usher in a century of Labour Party dominance. For what if such a Labour Party backtracked and drew ideas from its past ? Perhaps it would then be necessary (to Tony) for other forces to pick up the new progressive agenda of uniting the freedoms of the market with social justice.

The paradox of “progressive politics” is, of course, that it is as conservative (with a small “c”) as traditional Labourism is. For the freedom of the market adjusted to seek to provide some form of social justice is exactly what Lib-Labism and Social Liberalism were all about a 100 years ago. Thankfully that limited vision was then subsumed by democratic socialist ideas which, under Labour, managed to get us to a post-war settlement with a mixed economy and the welfare state. Much of which has now been surrendered, but which some of us hoped would have been built upon..

Nor is Tony‘s progressive politics unique in its call for “modernising” in an attempt to handle today’s problems of rapid technological change, globalisation and world-wide instability. All approaches to politics should adapt to meet modern conditions, be they for those who are on the side of social justice, or of free enterprise or of Tony’s attempt to guarantee the future of his own hybrid.

None of the approaches I have suggested have exclusive access to modernisation. I am in favour of a modern voice speaking out for a contemporary version of democratic socialism. This is where Peter might just come into the picture.

The question we need Peter to answer is whether he remains committed to the basic analysis he spelt out in his book “Ayes to the Left: A Future for Socialism” (Lawrence & Wishart, 1995)?

In this book he makes a strong and intelligent case for libertarian socialism, claiming it is an alternative which needs to be pursued in opposition to both state socialism and state capitalism. He stresses that an extra danger of the latter (in addition to its crude commitment to the injustices of unrestrained free enterprise) is that it requires a strong state with anti-democratic norms to police its operations (see pages 24 and 25.)

What does Peter feel that Labour has done about the problems of state capitalism since 1997 ? Have the Labour Governments which he has participated in
moved to break its hold ? Or have they basically just accepted or even solidified it. ?

Whatever factors we stress, Peter has to accept that Labour has not broken the Thatcherite mould of state capitalism.

Peter is still given to using the language of his alternative belief in “libertarian socialism”. It crept into an interview he gave to the Daily Telegraph as reported on 23 September. Indeed it is difficult for him to throw off such an approach, for he has had a belief in participatory forms of democracy , radical politics and anti-state power which go back to his expression of these ideas in works such as “Radical Regeneration” (Quartet Books. 1975) and “Don’t Play with Apartheid: the background to the Stop the Seventy Tour Campaign “ (London. 1971).

It would be a further paradox if Peter (who was at one time the leading light of the Young Liberals) should emerge as the person who could struggle to get the Labour Party to loosen the grip of a modern version of Social Liberalism which dominates Tony’s vision of “progressive politics”.

It is getting to crunch time. Peter needs to explain how close his book of 1995 will be to his manifesto for fighting for the Deputy Leadership. I don’t agree with all the books’ bits and pieces. I am not for compulsory voting, which doesn’t fit well with his libertarianism. Whilst I imagine that his own experiences in Northern Ireland will have altered his old extreme green agenda. But when he says that the “Re-distribution of ownership must remain a principle objective for socialism” (page 38) and goes on to stress the possibility of numbers of democratic structures, including municipal ownership; then I am with him.

If Peter himself wishes to be great, then we need him (a) to spell out his vision for the Labour Party (hopefully in line with his 1995 book), (b) to stand for the Leadership and not the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party (for he can’t properly enter into a battle of ideas if his position is merely to seek to be the reserve), and (c) to do something beyond what even Robin Cook did. Not just to resign from the Government, but to do this in order to run a campaign for the soul of the Labour Party.

Even if he lost such a battle, he could set a process in motion which would establish a role for a feasible libertarian left in the Labour Party whose views would influence future developments.

I can’t see a democratic socialist alternative to Peter if he will only stand up in the way I suggest. Whilst Gordon Brown has been an economic maestro , this has essentially been directed to delivering Blair’s “progressive” and flawed agenda . Why should we kid ourselves that things will change under his leadership? And the last description we can apply to John Reid is that of being a “libertarian”.

What then of John McDonnell ? As a member of the Socialist Campaign Group in Parliament for 17 years, should I not be part of his campaign ? In Socialist Campaign Group News for this September, he lists a seven point programme mainly on matters where I have been alongside him in various past votes in the Commons. I also greatly admire John’s dedication, ability and personality. But, to tell the truth, I could only ask people to support him if I decided merely to fly a flag for some of my beliefs, rather than to seriously act for positive openings for democratic socialism in tomorrow’s Labour Party.

The attractions of a Peter4Leader Campaign is that I believe that he can ride two horses at once. He can relate what he proposes to his socialist values thus giving us the vision that is currently missing from Labour Party politics, whilst trimming in order to advance policies which are feasible in difficult sets of circumstances..

When I have been in Commons lobbies with John (and against Peter who voted in line with his Government) we were often trying to stop the advance of what was passing for “progressive” politics; such as tuition fees and further privatisation. How we then move in a fresh direction after losing such votes is, however, a complex matter. John gives the impression that we just pull the switch and change directions.

Nowhere is this more strongly illustrated than over Iraq. Of course, we should never have invaded and the consequences (aided by bad handling) have been counter-productive. But we don’t return to a pre-invasion situation by just removing our troops. We have to relate to ways of tackling some of the very problems our actions helped to create.

If, however, Peter will not act in the way I recommend; then it looks as if I am left with a choice amongst the two Johns and Gordon. So I will then have to decide whether I opt for an abstention or for a bit of what used to be called “revolutionary defeatism” with John MacDonnell. I doubt whether either approach would matter much.

But if Peter will stand up and relate his principles to the realm of what is practical, then we might be onto something. I don’t believe that he would win. But we do need someone who will be in a position to stir the conscious of the Labour Party. Who else can do this properly?