Constitutional Conundrums

Labour's response to the result of the Scottish Referendum and to the promise of further devolved powers to Scotland must first of all be to press to deliver what has been promised. Yet we also need to work towards a federal-style structure for the United Kingdom in which equal and co-ordinated powers will be held (as near as is possible) by Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Regions of England.

In the meantime, MPs from Scotland should retain the same rights in the Commons as other MPs. For they will have been elected to a UK parliament. We should not even have a passing provision in our constitutional practices for first and second class MPs. It undermines the democratic process.

 If Scottish MPs were to be refused parliamentary rights over matters which refer to England, then surely this provision would then have to apply to MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland. But as the powers devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all differ from each other; we would then have a confusing pattern as to which MPs could participate in what.

In moving for a federal structure for the whole of the UK we need to resolve two major problems.

First, what will the people of Northern Ireland agree to for their own internal arrangements?  Under a federal model, the province would be a small and barely viable unit within the UK, with a population of only 1.8 million. Then if they were offered a significant federal status, this would be seen as a form of detachment from the UK. This is a position that is likely to be rejected by the majority of the Unionist population. Moves to introduce a federal solution in the province, could even lead us back to major paramilitary conflict.

Secondly, what is an appropriate federal structure which should be shared across England?  If England were to become a single federal unit, then the UK pattern would become constitutionally and politically lopsided. England has a population of some 53 million, Scotland 5.3 million, Wales 3 million and Northern Ireland 1.8 million. Powers devolved to a large area such as England would need to be different from those devolved to our neighbours. There is, therefore, a case instead for establishing a number of federal units within England. But how many and where? There are different degrees of local identity across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But what local regions do those living in England identify with? And what structures would be an improvement in terms of democracy and social justice?

For administrative purposes, England is currently divided into nine regions. These are the populations, The South East 8.6 million. Greater London 8.1 million. North West 7 million. East of England 5.8. West Midlands 5.6 million. Yorkshire and Humberside 5.3 million. South West 5.3 million. East Midlands 4.5 million. North East 2.5 million. But how far do people operate within and identify with these regions? Perhaps an examination of traffic links could be used to give these potential federal units adjusted boundaries. Then there are other indicators of interconnections,  as shown in the above map of phone calls (also see here). It might be possible to roughly amalgamate some of those linked areas.

 

 A pattern of major amalgamation of the above regions could give us, say, three federal units for the UK.  There could be a Northern federal unit, run from say Manchester. The populations of the North West, North East, Yorkshire and Humberside coming to 14.9 million. Then there could be a Midland's federal unit run from say Birmingham. The populations of the East Midlands, West Midlands and the East of England coming to 15.9 million. The largest city in the remaining Southern federal unit (of 22 million) is London; although it might be worth looking for an alternative centre for its federal unit. For Lands End is almost as far away from London as Newcastle is. Again traffic flows/phone-links (etc) might lead to adjustments of the boundaries of such three federal units.

So it looks as if we are looking for between three and nine federal units within England, which have to make sense to their populations whilst advancing democratic participation and economic and social justice. Then what is proposed for the internal powers of each federal unit? How far can we find a fairly common pattern that will be acceptable to people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English Regions? How far will the federal powers need to be identical within each federal unit? Will these powers need to be guaranteed within a new written constitution? 

None of this can begin to be sorted out on the back of fag packet. We need (a) to pass greater powers to the Scottish Parliament as a consequence of referendum promises, (b) retain Scottish MPs powers at Westminster for the time being and (c) engage in a Constitutional Convention to help us establish a federal or federal-style solution. This will be no bad thing if it eventually comes to involve something of the degree of political participation which we have recently witnessed in Scotland - as long as it does not go over the top in the streets of Belfast.

1st October - Update : Another area to employ in seeking to establish regional identity in England, is regional television coverage. A map showing the areas used by the BBC can be found by scrawling down from this link. 

2nd October - Comment : This item has also appeared on the Web-site of Independent Labour Publications (ILP) who are the successors to the Independent Labour Party. See here. Barry Winter their former Secretary submitted them this following comment,which appears here at his suggestion. Thanks Barry.

 Harry’s thoughtful contribution clearly sets out the challenges facing any attempt to reform the UK on a more democratic, equitable and balanced basis. It will not be easy and, as yet, Labour is running scared of dealing with these issues. That’s partly understandable given the difficulties it faces but the issue is likely to become more pressing. It cannot be dodged indefinitely. Already new parties are being formed advocating the decentralisation of power.

Calling for devolution to city regions, as Labour has done, lacks one key element – the need for real democracy. Such deals between city leaders and business people fail to tackle the growing political crisis. Nor is much, as yet, being offered to those areas outside the city regions.

The party could help by starting a conversation both internally and externally about how to proceed. To be fair, it is taking some steps in that direction. But it needs to be a Big Conversation, reaching out into the wider society. It should involve more than submitting ideas to the centre. Party leaders should be coming to listen to party members. I recently attended my constituency party meeting where devolution was on the agenda. Half an hour was allocated to the discussion and the MP spoke for 20 minutes!

One leading question is how we can begin to deal with the mass hostility/disinterest in contemporary politics. As Colin Crouch wrote some time ago, we are living in what he calls a post-democracy. Democracy has been hijacked and increasingly centralised. Large corporate and financial interests, together with leading civil servants and Westminster politicians, shape politics. No wonder people feel cynical and that mood is not going to be easy to overcome. What can be said is that in Scotland, when people were given a tough political choice about their future, politics came alive.

                                                                              Barry Winter

 

Margaret : Your Chance Has Arrived

Given that Gordon Brown and Margaret Beckett are reported as looking for means to boost house building, is there still hope that we can move towards a major Council House building programme?

Margaret Beckett as the Minister for Houing has a final chance to go out in a blaze of glory on this one and retrieve her past reputation for being a socialist.

Spend And Tax - Update Added

Tomorrow's Pre-Budget Statement should seek (a) to stimulate demand in the economy, (b) with the knowledge that monies will need to be paid back at some stage - although if the package works and demand grows then some of the payment for it will be self-financing. I will judge what is proposed by Alistair Darling to the extent that it fits in with the following pattern. But I won't be holding my breath.

To Increase Economic Demand

1. Increase Pensions and other Benefits.

2. Increase Expenditure on Social Provisions in areas such as Health, Social Welfare and Education.

3. Finance a Council House Building Programme.

4. Take over houses that have been repossessed and rent these out to their former owners.

5. Raise the Income Tax Threshold, without allowing the wealthy to benefit from this.



To Pay For This Programme

A. A Wealth Tax.

B. Windfall Taxes on Super Profits and Bonuses.

C. Raise Income Tax on the Top Earners.

D. Corporation Tax Increases.

E. Work also for International Taxes on currency and other forms of speculation. With the proceeds being used to overcome third world poverty.



POST BUDGET AFTERWORD, Monday November 24

On moves to increase demand in the economy, Alistair Darling produced thin versions of the points I made in 1,2,3 and 4 above - although he covered a wider and more problematic range of issues. Whilst there was nothing about a specific Council House building programme (my point 3), social housing was included in the capital spending that is to be brought forward from 2010-11. So perhaps I should be half satisfied with this half of his equation.

On moves to pay for his programme, Alistair included none of my points A,B,D or E. He did include the much trawled and future promise of an extra 5% income tax band for those earning over £150,000. Whilst this is a mild version of my point C, I am aware of the significance of such a change of principle. I once asked Tony Blair if we could not move towards a more progressive element at the top end of the income tax scale. To which he said that we could not go into a general election promising an income tax increase. Gordon Brown answered the same question by saying that nothing was set in concrete. It is nice to see that we are now out of the concrete, even if I did ask my questions over ten years ago!

The Problem With Gordon

This is from today's Guardian -

"Gordon Brown tonight called on the world's most powerful industrial nations to agree a programme of immediate and coordinated tax cuts to prevent the global economy sliding deeper into recession."

If the world economy is moving into a deflationary position, there is a problem with a co-ordinated programme of tax cuts. In a deflationary situation and with instability, there is an interest in people hording any newly found money from income tax or VAT-style cuts, which can be done by holding it in banks at even low interest rates as well as keeping it in their purses and wallets. For if money will be seen as increasing its value, people will wish to keep hold of it as some form of protection for the future. It will then only be via a growth in unemployment and the possibility of cuts in wages and benefits that the newly impovished will be obliged to spend the bits they have.

Tax cuts for the poor makes sense as the poor have little option but to spend the bit they have (and the world is full of poor people), but in other areas would it not be better for Governments to increase their own expenditure rather than to give across the board tax cuts? The building of Council Housing and its equivalent being an alternative.

The problems with a move to increased Government expenditure is that (a) it might get bogged down in long term capital programmes which would not do what is needed to stimulate demand in the short-run and (b) numbers of Governments throughout the world are corrupt and would misuse such a programme. So Governments would need to use their expenditure to provide people with consumer type goods. In a world that has wide areas of poverty this is by no means an incorrect approach - although international co-ordination would be essential to the tackle corruption problems.

Is It Time For A Negative Interest Rate?

FACE TO FACE WITH A NEGATIVE INTEREST RATE.

In 1960 I was 24 and a fairly new full-time student at Ruskin College when I was set an essay by my economic theory tutor on the likely impact of a negative interest rate. Unfortunately I could find no reference to anything called a "negative interest rate" in the reading list which he had supplied, nor could any of my fellow novice students enlighten me on the meaning of the term.

So when it came to the tutorial, I read out what I had thought through for myself. My tutor kept correcting me until it dawned on him that I had persistently got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He then heard me out in silence.

I had ignored the notion that changes can occur in the value of money due to inflation or deflation. Instead I dreamt up a situation in which real values were static, but any savings which people deposited would receive a cut when retrieved. Save, say £100 and get £95 in return.

Even such an odd theory gives some limited scope for intellectual gymnastics and my tutors end-of-term comments obviously looked back on this incident. He reported that I "showed a distinct ability to think for myself, but at a superficial level" ! It is a position which is, no doubt, reflected regularly in this blog.

A POSITIVE RETURN TO A NEGATIVE INTEREST RATE.

The likely impact of a negative interest rate is, however, a key contemporary issue. For it refers to a situation in which the rate of interest could feasibly be outmatched by the rate of inflation. The basic rate of interest fell to 4.5% on 8th October, yet in September the rate of inflation had already reached the higher figure of 5.2%. In practice many available rates of interest still exceed the 4.5% figure, but the inflation and interest rates are fast closing in upon one another.

Ken Livingstone is amongst those calling for a further cut in interest rates to boost investment. In real terms this would produce a negative interest rate for savers.

The case for doing this is made in today's Morning Star by Jerry Jones. He states that the government should "drastically reduce interest rates to around 2% and bring in regulations last seen in the 1950s and 1960s to ensure that the banks pass on the lower rate.....(to) ease the situation of those heavily in debt and (so) people would have more to spend. This would increase overall economic demand. These measures would make it cheaper for individuals and businesses to take on loans, which would help to boost economic demand, investment and employment. Fewer people would be in danger of losing their homes through getting in arrears.....(the) downside of slashing interest rates whilst inflation stands over 5% is that interest rates would be negative in real terms (my emphasis HB) so savers would lose out.However, cuts would act as an incentive to invest and spend, which would help to stimulate the economy".

TWO EXTRA FACTORS

Given that I first stumbled into negative interest rates 48 years ago, I will add two extra factors to Jerry Jone's powerful analysis.

First, savings are also used for investment purposes when banks and other financial institutions are obliged to act sensibly. Money withheld from savings needs to be invested or spent to create growth. However, money kept in purses and wallets does less than money properly saved.

Secondly, if the Government are to adjust interest rates in order to influence economic activity then (although they hold reserve powers), they need to reclaim the power to do this from the Bank of England. Those of us who came to learn about negative interest rates the hard way, knew that Gordon Brown made a great blunder in his first act as Chancellor of the Exchequer when he tied his hands behind his back.

Prioritising Peccadilloes

I fulfilled my commitment (made in the thread below this one) by keeping away from blogging for 24 days.

In any case, little happened in my absence apart from (1) the collapse of capitalism, (2) Gordon Brown's moving from zero to hero, (3) Barack Obama surging ahead in the race for the White House and (4) Sheffield FC winning two FA Cup Qualifying Games. Rather more important was my wife's birthday.

Over the time of my absence, I undertook a detailed study of the 121 Reports I had issued to the General Commmittee of the North East Derbyshire Labour Party in my 18 years as their MP - along with associated Hansard extracts and newspaper cuttings.

I made a lengthy analysis of all this stuff.

But I pushed it all to one side for the meeting I addressed in Dronfield yesterday evening which was entitled "That Was Parliament That Was". Instead I concentrated on the politicians' peccadilloes which I had observed during my 18 years in the Palace of Varieties.

The turgid stuff is intended for a book I am writing. On the other hand, if I am looking for a commercial success then perhaps I should stick with the peccadilloes.

Tackling The Crisis

Gordon Brown opens the way for Monopoly Capitalism, whilst George Bush turns to Public Ownership and the Daily Telegraph looks to Karl Marx via today's Comment Page Cartoon. Things can only get stranger.

My Bias On Byers

An Andy Davy cartoon of 21 August 2006 when Stephen Byers came up with the idea of solving our problems by cutting inheritance tax. Gordon was still Chancellor.


Before it was absorbed and included in this article, The Observer gave today's front page coverage over exclusively to comments from that political has-been (and never-was) Stephen Byers in order to continue to stir the pot against Gordon Brown.

The Observer states that Byers "told The Observer it was time for radical new ideas big enough to capture voters' imagination and claw back marginal seats".

Is Byers suggesting that Brown should emulate his friend Tony Blair with equivalents to (a) the embracing of a pro-capitalist agenda, (b) the invasion of Iraq without understanding anything about it and (c) the destruction of Britain's manufacturing industry?

We have memories in this area over Stephen Byers' clear failure as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take moves which could have saved 700 jobs at Biwaters in Clay Cross in the year 2000. Matthew Carr in Red Pepper covered the shameful issue tellingly in their issue of January 2001. Unfortunately I can't find a link to the article, but I keep it on file.

I am no great enthusiast for Gordon Brown's political stance, but I am very much aware that it is Stephen Byers' form of extreme New Labourism that it at the root of Labour's current problems (problems which the media are stirring for its own news-making and ideological purposes). For as I said to Red Pepper, "you can try to reconcile the free market and social justice, but in the end you have to come off the fence and when they (New Labour) do so it is in the interests of capitalism".

It is not that I am biased against Byers, its just that I am not bothered who stops him.

The Turbulent Twins

Tony and Gordon In The Eyes of Capitalism.
Alan Greenspan was the head of the Federal Reserve in America from 1987 to 2006. He was the crown prince of world capitalism. He has written a book entitled "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" (Allen Lane 2008).

Below I give an extract from a review of his book by Prem Sikka which appeared in Tribune. His quote from Greenspan's book confirms what democratic socialists knew all along.

"Greenspan was a key player in the expansion of Reaganomics and the rolling back of the state...He praises Thatcherite economic policies and offers his evaluation of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and present Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Referring to a meeting in 1994 he says: "It appeared to me that Brown was the senior person. Blair stayed in the background while Brown did most of the talking about New Labour. Gone were the socialist tenets of postwar Labour leaders...Brown espoused globalisation and free markets and did not seem to be interested in reversing much of what Thatcher had changed in Britain. The fact that he and Blair had arrived at the doorstep of a renowned defender of capitalism (namely, me) solidified my impression"

Will Quentin Davies Now Leave The Labour Party?

Gordon Brown and Quentin Davies.






The Observer reports that a government-commissioned review of civil and military relations which was led by Quentin Davies (the former Conservative MP who defected to Labour last year) has expressed alarm at the number of school children who have no idea about military life. He is said to want secondary school pupils to receive basic military training as a means of developing greater affection for the armed forces. A key element of current cadet's training is the mastering of shooting and the undertaking of military drill. Davies is said to believe that the virtues of discipline, physical exercise and team spirit outweigh any concerns we might have about children using firearms.

The impression is given that Gordon Brown supports this typical right-wing Tory non-sense. However, Des Browne the Minister of Defence (who for some inexplicable reason appointed Quentin Davies to undertake the review) has merely used diplomatic language to state that whilst he can not comment on Gordon's position, the Government "are waiting to see the recommendations with interest".

It would be good to see Gordon booting out the above proposal, by pointing out that a good way to ensure that schoolchildren will not involve themselves in anti-social behaviour is to provide them with an education system which extends their horizons and encourages them to think about, question, investigate and discuss the mysteries and excitements of life.

If Gordon kicks Quentin's views into touch, will the ex-Tory then desert us? I can only hope that both Gordon and Quentin act in these ways. If Gordon backs Quentin, then where do Labour Party socialists defect to? The problem for us is that in British circumstances, we only really have the Labour Party or nothing. Unfortunately, the latter is increasingly becoming attractive.

In Place Of Nye

At a Labour Party Conference in 1959, Aneurin Bevan said that "Socialism in the context of modern society means the conquest of the commanding heights of the economy". It is telling that Martin Rowson should produce this cartoon in the former (and continuing) Bevanite magazine "Tribune". It is a brilliant response to New Labour's embarrassed nationalisation of the disgraced Northern Rock.

Gordon's Lack Of Imagination

This is a Xmas Card which Gordon Brown sent out in 2002 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unfortunately, it isn't his only creation which is lacking in imagination. I comment below on his latest interview in today's Observer.

When Brown Goes To Town

Today's Observer runs an interview with Gordon Brown as if it was his Mission Statement for 2008 - see here and here. The topics which he discusses are, however, dictated by the questions he is asked. So perhaps what is missing from Brown's responses are not entirely his own fault.

Although I imagine that some preparatory discussions between 10 Downing Street and the editorial team on the Observer would have taken place to clear the ground for what was to be discussed. I assume this explains why we get no embarrassing questions about missing personal hospital, benefit and driving records. Nor about cash for favours. It is also clear that if a Prime Minister has something else to tell us, he can easily find a way to do this in the context of a press interview.

What Is Missing

I grant that Britain faces a number of immediate problems which Gordon was required to address. These arise from matters such as serious economic buffeting, terrorist dangers, significant sections of the workforce remaining unskilled and record levels of personal debt. So we could expect Prime Ministerial gravitas on the need of tackling such problems. He is, however, thinner on solutions than he is on our need to gird our loins.

Gordon needs to understand that his core labour voters can not live on fresh nuclear power stations, private house building programmes and ID cards alone. We need something to inspire us and to work and vote for. With a few relevant policy proposals to fit into the picture, there is plenty of mileage to be gained from using some old fashioned socialist rhetoric about fairness, social equality, co-operation, justice for the world's deprived and saving the planet. He doesn't even have to mention what he sees as the politically embarrassing "S" word when arguing for such values. Indeed he does dip his toes into the water with a mention of having met the Kyoto targets and the need to look for more radical targets for 2050. But words on these read like a footnote rather than a chapter heading.

Overall there is little to indicate that he has a vision which relates in any way to his Party's traditions. He merely wishes to be seen as a more relevant technocrat than his Tory and Lib-Dem opponents (which he might be, but that is all).

Problems With Gordon's Specifics

1. He wants "financial management and financial budgeting" to be taught in schools. What is needed instead are educational provisions (open for life) which stimulate our intellectual imaginations and widen our horizons. That will give us the wit to know how to run our bank and mortgage accounts. And it will have many more spin offs, including the advancement of intelligent and caring forms of democratic participation.

2. His commitment to ID Cards is also only half-thought out. We can use ID cards for clearly progressive purposes, such as ensuring that everyone who is entitled to benefits receives them and in ending the scandal of 2 million of those who are entitled to vote being missed off relevant electoral registers. But we can't do that under a half-cocked scheme in which "existing British citizens" can opt out of holding ID cards. The case for ID cards should rest on socially valuable ideas being operated on universal criteria. It seems that we will be getting neither from Gordon.

3. When it comes to the need to make long term commitments, Gordon gives us nuclear power, an expanded Heathrow and a housing programme from which Councils are mainly excluded. It is a programme to drain one's blood rather than send it pounding. Gordon's proposals call for other matters to be placed on the agenda. How are nuclear power stations to be made secure and subject to democratic control in their operations? Will we tackle the problem of the need to ration people's aeroplane and other forms of travel? Why can't we have an option to enable democratically elected Council's to be landlords?

4. If we are to attract people away from the forms of Islamic extremism revealed in Ed Husain's "The Islamist" by winning the hearts and minds of the people concerned, then might not the most fruitful and least discriminatory way of doing this be to try and capture ALL our minds for the principles of sharing, participation, mutual support, anti-discrimination, democratic involvement and co-operation. There you are Gordon; all that can be said without once using the "S" word.

Tobin Or Not Tobin?

That Is The Question For Gordon

Gordon Brown has made a commendable speech at the United Nations on the crucial need for positive measures to tackle world poverty. Massive resources are, of course, needed to achieve this.

The time is, therefore, opportune for him to stress the case for an internationally operated tax on currency speculation - commonly known as the Tobin Tax. This would cover the major financial transactions which take place across the world on a daily basis. If the world's major financial markets were placed under its operation and the financial might and technical skills of the G8 were used to reach funds hidden in off-shore accounts; then the massive resources would be available.

Here is an explanatory Early Day Motion which I submitted when an MP in 2004 as signed by 147 MPs on a cross-party basis; plus further details from a Socialist Campaign Group News article in an earlier campaign in 2000.

The problem is that Gordon Brown rejects the proposal. But the time is ripe for him to place the matter on the international agenda. We need some fresh and urgent campaigning on the issue.

Do Socialists Need To Reassess Gordon?

The think-tank "Reform" is for "liberalism" within the public sector, free enterprise and limited Government. Gordon Brown's short period as Prime Minister has got up its nose - here.

Given Gordon's democratic agenda for Parliament and now moves towards public expenditure for what could come to be a more democratically controlled form of social interventionism, then maybe some of us rushed to judgement too soon in seeing Gordon as merely a tougher Blairite - as here and here.

So who is Gordon trying to con? Is it those anti-Labourites he has drawn into his "inclusive" Government or is it the Left and Centre-Left of the Labour Party? Or is it all of us?

It is all worth following closely and critically. Watch this space.

The ABC Of Brown's Government

The full list of Government members appears here.

What are its key characteristics? I take the headings from Alec Glasgow's "The Socialist ABC".

"A is for Alienation"

As a start towards what Gordon calls a "Government of all the talents" , he has given prominent positions to five members from outside Labour's ranks who are given Peerages to enable them to have a "legitimate" parliamentary presence. When you add to this the fact that at least two Lib-Dem Peers have been given the role of advisers, then we are starting out on the road towards building a National Government. This is added to by the fact that we are still looking for further defections from Tory MPs.

"B is for the Boss"

Big Business (but certainly not the Trade Unions) are given seats at the table, with the establishment of a Department of "Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform". In order that we can have no doubt as to what this is about, Sir Digby Jones the former boss of the Confederation of British Industry has been made second in command. Furthermore, he has also been given an overseas economic role at the Foreign Office. On top of all this a Business Council for Britain has been established which includes Sir Richard Branson and other top bosses. The Prime Minister and Ministers with economic responsibilities will attend its deliberations. If Thatcher had gone as far as this we would all have screamed blue murder.

"C is for Capitalism"

There are also several new faces at Junior Ministerial level, plus those who have been re-cyled such as John Denham into a Cabinet position. Yet the bulk of appointments are re-appointments, who have mainly be shifted into fresh positions. This gives huge advantages to Gordon.

First; as nearly everyone has to knuckle down to new tasks they are unlikely to be able to give much thought to Gordon's overall plan. By they get round to being in a position to think things out, it will be too late and they will be sucked in.

Secondly; The Labour members with appointments are mainly Blairites and Brownites. There will be little trouble from the former, especially when they see that Gordon's set-up is an even more dynamic form of "New Labour" than anything Tony ever got around to. We are now into Capitalism with a big "C".

"X,Y and Z, me dear daddy said, will be written on the street barricades"

X. There is only one possible hitch which I can see for Gordon's project. Some of the Brown camp who criticised Blair may have assumed that Gordon was (at least) a few degrees to the left of Tony. They now face reality. It is Gordon who is the political thinker and was the major architect of "New Labour". The first two moves of New Labour in 1997 were Gordon's. The establishment of the independence of the Bank of England and the announcement that we would stick with Tory spending limits for the first two years.

Will reality finally be seen by some of those close to Gordon, such as the former Bennite we used to call Red Dawn? And will they react? There are Trade Unions which should, at least, be alerting Labour MPs to the dangers of Gordon's project.

Y. The only good sign is that Jon Cruddas has had the wit to refuse what seems to have been the offer of a Regional Minister's post and Deputy Chairmanship of the Party - for the latter should, of course, be an elected post. Perhaps he and others linked in with Compass can at least press for the leftish shift which some Brownites had been dreaming about.

Z. The democratic socialists who remain in the Labour Party, need to appreciate just how bad things are. We can't just tuck behind John MacDonnell in campaigns which make us think that given one more bound, we will be free. Yet there is nothing we can feasibly build or associate ourselves with outside the Labour Party. Let us face it, we are in for a long and difficult haul. In a Deputy Leadership contest which gave us a final option between Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson, we saw the state the Party and the wider Movement are in.

As democratic socialism is so weak in the Labour Party, what should we do? We can't beat Gordon and company at the game of manipulating agendas and fixing votes. All we can do is what we should always do. Convert people to democratic socialist values. It is back to appreciating basic understandings of our values and having a commitment to "political education, political education, political education". Let us concentrate our efforts, where we should have our strengths.

There Is No Stopping Gordon - Unfortunately

Stinking Fish

In appointing two further Lib-Dems from the Lords as advisers and four other non-labour people as Ministers, Gordon Brown has fully confirmed the fears I expressed yesterday.

The disgraceful appointment of Sir Digby Jones is not merely non-labour, it is solidly anti-labour as this former chief of the Confederation of British Industry has shown in his repeated attacks on trade unionism and on even mild labourite aspirations.

Gordon's Government is looking more and more like an embryo-National Government. I did well to call him Ramsay MacBrown.

Improving The Positioning Of The Deck Chairs

The only semi-decent move he has made in his appointments so far, is the establishment of seven Ministers for the English Regions. This will, of course, only work reasonably if Select Committees and a separate Parliamentary Question Time are provided for each of these, so that each Region's back-bench MPs can openly pursue the local concerns of their constituents. Such provisions might emerge in a statement Gordon is due to make in the Commons on Monday.

Unfortunately, anything positive that comes out of this is seriously overshadowed by Gordon's life threatening blows to labourism.

Gordon's First Five Days

Although Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as Prime Minister yesterday, he took over Tony's former role as Party Leader five days ago on Sunday.

So far, the democratic socialists who remain in the Labour Party have seen a worrying pattern develop.

Five Days, Five Failings

1. He started out by placing himself firmly in the New Labour camp and sort to detach himself from Labour's heritage with the words "there will be no return to the failed approaches of the past".

2. He quickly moved to propose a downgrading of the role of the Trade Unions within the Labour Party, undermining what used to be known as the "Labour Alliance".

3. He floated the notion of an alternative form of alliance which would draw in Liberal Democrats and others. It is early days, but he has arranged for Shirley Williams who vigorously attempted to divide and destroy the Party in the past to take on the role of an adviser. He has also provided an opening for non-Labour people to attend Cabinet Meetings by giving Malloch Brown a government post.

4. He gleefully accepted the strange Tory MP, Quentin Davies into the Labour Party. Then quickly, he promoted a past Tory deserter Shaun Woodward into the delicate post of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

5. His Cabinet is made up of a mixture of people from the former Blair and Brown camps. No effort has been made to cast the net wider, with the possible exception of the appointment of John Denham who rebelled over the issue of invading Iraq.

What Next?

Tomorrows appointment of Junior Government posts is likely to be used to illustrate the general thrust of his administration. It is unlikely to make any serious effort to incorporate left-leaning Labour MPs in its ranks.

I will comment further when I have seen the names and will access what scope is likely to remain in the Gordon Brown Labour Party for democratic socialists.

What Did You Make Of Gordon's Speech?

1. Was It Just Blairism Without Blair?

In his Labour Conference Speech today, Gordon Brown seemed to give us a vision for a re-vitalised New Labourism. At least, he labelled himself "New Labour". This would mean that after a palace coup, he has ended up firmly in line with Tony Blair's approach of seeking to reconcile free market practices with certain moves to social justice.

So we were given calls for -

(a) A property-owning democracy plus a renewal of social housing.

(b) A marriage for educational purposes between businesses and trusts on the one hand and schools, colleges and universities on the other.

(c) A world of open, dynamic and flexible markets plus the strengthening of the humanitarian role of the Department of International Development.

(d) Charities to work with public bodies to ensure that no child grew up in poverty.

To ensure the free market will continue to wag the tail of social justice, he promised "no return to the failed approaches of the past". That is really Blairspeak for no moves to either progressive taxation nor to increases in social service provisions.

2. Or Instead Was It Closet Socialism?

When Gordon said that education was the "great liberating force of our generation" was he just repeating Tony's mantra of "education, education, education"? For Tony's formula worked out to be more about "training, training and re-training" to equip people for new roles under the impact of the technological revolution. Yet this is not what the "liberating" of people's minds should be restricted to.

So were Gordon's promises of education or apprenticeships for all up to 18, plus significant new expenditure per pupil indicating a shift? Does he want an open world of education which will enable people to follow in his own footsteps and work on a thesis out of pure intellectual stimulation?

Then what of all those other bits and pieces he dropped out, such as protections for vulnerable workers, devolving power to parliaments and the people, having citizens forums and citizens juries, renewing the NHS, tackling racism and xenophobia, acting to tackle climate change and even the municipal socialists' dream of the communal control of assets?

Can the free market alone produced these? And does Gordon know they can't?

So Where Does Gordon Really Stand?

Is he merely trying to appeal to two audiences? In (1) above we get the arguments that will appeal to the World of New Labour. Whilst in (2) is he looking to residual socialists to give them a nudge and a wink?

If so, which side is he really on? Or is he just trying for an easy life? The problem, of course, with sending out crossed messages is that New Labour might believe he is really a socialist, whilst socialists will be convinced he is New Labour.

At the 1997 election, Labour stood on a platform which included "no income tax increases". Afterwards I asked Tony if he felt it would be possible to move to a progressive income tax agenda at the following General Election, he replied "Harry, we can't go into a general election promising tax increases." Later, Gordon's answer to the same question was that nothing is set in concrete. I wonder if either (1) or (2) above, or neither are set in concrete.

I rather suspect that Gordon's tactic is to keep us guessing about his ideological stance until he finally hands over the Leadership. At least we knew where we stood with Tony.

Which Is The Spoof?

Gordon Brown has an article in today's Tribune entitled "My Passion, My Priorities, My Vision". In only 11 paragraphs it contains the words "I", "me" and "my" no less than 22 times.

I am now awaiting his appearance on the steps of 10 Downing Street after his return from Buckingham Palace to tell us "We are now Prime Minister."

He also makes 17 uses of the terms "our", "we" and "us". As in -

"Labour is the only party committed to social justice, fairness and equality. Our party is the only party that will stand firm for Britain's hard working families, the only party focused on better public services and the right educational opportunities for our young people"

Which is a bit inconsistent with his invitation to Lib-Dems to join his Government.

Alongside Gordon's article is a hilarious one by Chris Proctor on Gordon's coming coronation at Labour's get-together at Manchester. This includes -

"The leadership coronation will be run on traditional lines. Entering on a Roman chariot and bearing aloft his trade-mark budget briefcase, Il Duce will be borne on a chaise longue to the main podium by the chairman of Asda with his "Grateful for the minimum wage" button badge, MediCare shareholders sporting their "Yes to NHS Reform" logos and the Arms Trade Sinfonietta singing - and meaning - Oh! What a lovely War!"

The way things are going perhaps it was Gordon's article that was the spoof and not the one from Chris.

Ramsay MacBrown

Is it only the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives who are upset about Gordon Brown's offer of Government posts to Paddy Ashdown and via Ming Campbell? I suspect that those Labour Party members who spend a great deal of their time struggling for Council, Assembly and Parliamentary seats against an often two-faced Liberalism are also squealing? The media will, of course, need time to find them as most of the accessible members of the Parliamentary Labour Party are captives in Brown's camp.

Perhaps Gordon should re-read something he once wrote -

"The second Labour Government had ended in disaster. Ramsay MacDonald was now leading a Conservative-dominated Coalition Government. The Parliamentary Labour Party, which had supported the rightward lurches of MacDonald until the day of his defection, was in disarray."
Page 225, "Maxton" by Gordon Brown (Mainstream Publishing, 1986).

Prime Minister MacBrown has defected even before he has got going. As I once heard Don Mintoff say about a new Nationalist Prime Minister in Malta - "He has barely started, he has only farted"