One Accepts. Four Reminded

The call which appeared here, has received a positive response from Andy Burnham (photo) and has the backing of John McDonnell. It is a request for the candidates in the labour leadership contest to issue "Manifestos of Intent" related to the democratic socialist principles contained on the back of Labour Party Membership Cards.

The other four candidates have today been sent this fresh email -

"Dear Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, David Miliband and Ed Miliband,

A fortnight ago I emailed then posted you a request to issue a "Manifesto of Intent" for the Labour Leadership Campaign. Manifestos which it was hoped would be issued widely amongst those with votes in the selection. I also handed a copy of the request to David Miliband that day, at a meeting he addressed in Sheffield.

So far Andy Burnham has responded favourably to this request, so I am sending him and his campaign team a copy of this email.

I hope that each of you will now agree to our suggestion.

Full details of our proposal are provided here, listing those who are backing us -
http://dronfieldblather.blogspot.com/2010/06/calling-those-with-voting-rights-in.html

All the best,
Harry Barnes (Labour MP 1987-2005),
(Address, email, phone number and blog details also supplied)."

Ken Coates

Ken Coates died on Sunday. He had a great capacity for what others would call work; whether it was political writing, academic output, establishing bodies which integrated publishing with group organisation, being a member of the European Parliament or participating in the dialectics of debate with adult students or political activists.

But none of the above were chores to Ken. What he saw as the real work he undertook in his life was when he was a coalminer from around the ages of 18 to 26. But even (or especially) in those days he learnt a great deal from various of his workmates and those he socialised with about Trade Unionism and Labour Movement Politics. So when he went to Nottingham University to study Sociology in what I will later show was the key political year of 1956, he talked of having discovered a new found freedom which lasted right throughout the week - and for every week. He had moved into a world which was to enable him to pursue two of his related passions - adult education and socialism. No longer did he have to share his precious time with coal getting. When he moved to be a Tutor in Adult Education (also at Nottingham University) he directed his attention to work with miners and other workers, whom he wished to share his newly found freedoms with.

I came to know Ken gradually when I moved into a parallel world of industrial day-release teaching for Trade Unionists (especially miners) at Sheffield University. This was in 1966 when Ken was launching the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, which my wife and I marched with in a protest outside the Labour Party Conference in Scarborough the following year. Then it was on to a huge fringe meeting which was a precursor of the Institute of Workers' Control which Ken helped launch formally the following year.

Ken's political instinct was always to develop initiatives which would draw people together in ways that would expand their understandings and would thus spread socialist ideas. These included War Crime Tribunals, opposing the war in Vietnam, European Nuclear Disarmament, Industrial Democracy, the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, a Pensioner's Parliament, an Assembly of Disabled People, a Convention for Full Employment and Spokesmen Books.

Throughout such activities he published masses of related books and articles (some are shown here), whilst editing collections of essays. He seldom worked alone. He worked particularly well with the late Tony Topham, who was a fellow adult tutor at Hull University. Their joint work was normally concentrated around the issue of Industrial Democracy, but they also produced a majestic 900 page work on the 1870-1922 formation of the Transport and General Workers' Union , entitled "The Making of the Labour Movement" (Spokesmen paperback edition 1994). My own copy being a gift from Ken to which he added his fraternal greetings.

In 1970 he came to major public attention when a study of poverty in the St Ann's district of Nottingham was published as a Penguin Special in joint authorship with Richard Silburn, entitled "Poverty : The Forgotten Englishman". He worked with Silburn on related work. He also collaborated closely with Michael Barratt Brown who ran the Industrial Day-Release programme from Sheffield University were I was one of a group of eight tutors teaching on the courses. Ken and Michael's joint work included "The Blair Revelation: Deliverance for Whom?" (Spokesman. 1996) which indicated that Ken would not have an easy relationship with the New Labour hierarchy.

Ken had stood as Labour candidate in Nottingham South in 1983. And although he lost, he had the distinction of having the late Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband canvassing for him with the help of his two sons David and Ed. He then became a Labour Member of the European Parliament from 1989 to 1999. In 1994 his seat encompassed the area of my own parliamentary seat in North East Derbyshire, where we worked together especially on environmental problems which blighted the area.

But the crunch came in 1997. First he was suspended by the Labour Group in Europe for failing to accept the arrangements they had put in place for the shortlisting of candidates for the coming Euro Elections. Tony Benn in my neighbouring seat Chesterfield and myself defended Ken's right to express his view. But towards the end of 1998 he joined the Green's Group in the European Parliament. He had clearly placed himself outside rules which the Labour hierarchy were only too keen to use. I tried to pursued him to pull back from his position, pointing out that there was still scope for rebellion against New Labour at Westminster at least, where 47 of us had voted in the first major rebellion against New Labour Whips over Single Parent Benefits. But Ken was never going to settle for being a loyal grouser.

Ken's uneasy relationship with Labour's officialdom had in fact led to his expulsion from the Party back in 1965. He fought his corner until 1969 before he was re-instated. His story and the wider politics of the period are covered in his book "The Crisis of British Socialism - Essays on the Rise of Harold Wilson and the Fall of the Labour Party" (Spokesman 1971). If he was alienated by Wilson, there is no way that he would continue to operate peacefully under Blair.

1956 (as I earlier indicated) was a huge year for socialists. It saw the Khrushchev Revelations about Stalin, the Suez Invasion, the Soviet Invasion of Hungary and revisionist advance in the Labour Party with Tony Crosland's publication "The Future of Socialism". Ken had been in the Communist Party up to then. But even then he had disagreed with an earlier line that Stalin had taken against Tito (where Yugoslavian Communism developed the concept of Worker Self Management which related closely to Ken's later work with the Institute of Workers' Control). For a period as Ken became an adult student he worked with those who established the International Marxist Group and he had a period on the board of International Socialism. He now seemed to be a Trotskyist.

In many ways Communism and Trotskyism are opposing socialist approaches. But Ken soon developed his own synthesis out of these to fit in with British (and later European) circumstances. He had already been drawn into activity with the New left of the late 1950s, with figures such as E.P.Thompson, Michael Barratt Brown and Ralph Miliband. What emerged for Ken was working with the left of the Labour Party where he could, but never surrendering to right wing practices. But it only made sense to Ken for him to spend energy in opposing the leadership of say Wilson and Blair, if this was only part of his main activity of building towards socialism via key issues such as Worker's Control and Environmental Protection.

We should certainly not dismiss his life as being full of heroic failures. The War Crime Tribunal was a major initiative and industrial democracy made inroads via Lucas Aerospace and others. His work for five years as President of the Human Rights Committee of the European Parliament was substantial. Above all he touched the lives of many as a tutor, writer and a political activist. Any of us would have been proud to have delivered a fraction of what he achieved from his "newly found freedom".

Snorkels For The Unemployed

During the inter-war depression the Plebs League produced this cartoon. The Con-Dem Coalition is now employing the same tactic, although inflation has boosted the figures that are shown. There is, however, an innovation which Duncan Smith is now considering. He may issue snorkels to those on the bottom rung, so they can swim around looking for jobs. No wonder the Lib Dems joined up to this Compassionate Conservatism.

Is There Room For A Third Miliband?

Ralph Miliband (1924 to 1994), the father of David and Ed as shown on the cover of Michael Newman's biography "Ralph Miliband and the Politics of the New Left" (Merlin Press, 2002). The New Left being a very different creature to New Labour.

The father of David and Ed Miliband was the Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband. In his final book called "Socialism for A Sceptical Age" (Polity Press, 1994) he wrote “(t)here are in effect three core propositions or themes which define socialism, all three equally important, and each related to, and dependent upon, the others. These are democracy, egalitarianism, and socialization of a predominant part of the economy.”

We need debates in the current Labour Leadership election on these interconnected matters. The current economic situation makes them more relevant than ever.

I present a way in which these understandings might be placed on the agenda in a guest post on the Fabian Society's blog "Next Left" and in the thread below this one.

The support of Labour Party members and affilates would be welcome here. This avenue is open to anyone with an email facility.

Calling Those With Voting Rights In the Labour Leadership Contest - But It Is Not Your Vote We Are After.

The letter below is being submitted to the five candidates for the Labour Leadership - who are shown above. If you are a member of an organisation which has voting rights in this election, then why not add your support via the comment box on this thread? Give your name and list the relevant organisations which you are a member of. These include Constituency Labour Parties, the Co-operative Party and affiliated bodies such as many Trade Unions and various Socialist Societies. The type of details we are after are shown for the signatories at the close of the letter. This comment box only takes information from those with a blog facility. But a further version of the letter appears on "Dronfield Blather" where the thread can be accessed by anyone with an email facility. Other signatories will be added as they are received. As a consequence this thread is being periodically updated.

TO THE CANDIDATES IN THE LABOUR LEADERSHIP ELECTIONS

The supporters of this letter are members of either the Labour Party and/or members of organisations affiliated to the Labour Party who pay their political levy or its equivalent.

Immediately after the election we felt that Labour needed a period of reflection and serious internal debate to assess the reasons for our defeat and to think through the direction we needed to move into.

Instead we have been confronted with an imperfect leadership contest in which the Party’s wider membership and its affiliated bodies have been excluded from the nominating procedure. This has restricted both the range of the political viewpoints and the background links of the candidates who have emerged.

What we feel now needs to be done is to seek to use the current imperfect leadership contest as a means by which we can acquire something like the form of assessment and internal debate which we feel is necessary.

This means that there is a need to divert the current contest away from being just another ’X factor’ game show, towards being a serious debate related to the principles contained in the Labour Party Constitution which state - “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect”.

To help achieve the depth and nature of the debate that we are seeking, we call upon each of the candidates to publish a Manifesto of Intent to make clear to everyone the direction in which they would seek to lead the Labour Party, based on their assessment of the reasons behind the electoral defeat and their interpretation of the direction where the principles quoted above should now lead us.

We ask that these Manifestos of Intent should be distributed widely in order to generate extensive discussion across the Party and beyond, so that this will assist those voting in the leadership contest to reach balanced and principled understandings.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We invite Labour Party members, members of the Co-operative Party and those who pay their political levy to Trade Unions affiliated to the Labour Party (or the equivalent) to add their names and their organisational links to this letter via this Comment Box or via that of "Dronfield Blather" if you only have an email facility.

1) Ken Curran, Birley Branch LP, Sheffield South East CLP, UNISON, Co-operative Party Sheffield Branch.

(2) John Halstead, Nether Edge Branch LP, Sheffield Central CLP, Cooperative Party Sheffield Branch.

(3) Harry Barnes, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE, Co-operative Party Chesterfield Branch,Labour MP 1987-2005.

(4) Martin Brader, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(5) John Dunn, West Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(6) Graham Baxter MBE, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE, Leader NE Derbyshire District Council.

(7) Jon Williams, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(8) Shelagh Wolliscroft, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(9) Roy Pilkington, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(10) Stephen Brunt, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(11) John Gilbert, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(12) Bill Michie, Nether Edge LP, Sheffield Central CLP, UNITE, Co-operative Party Sheffield Branch, Labour MP 1983-2001.

(13) Bob Piper, Abbey Branch LP, Warley CLP.

(14) Mick Davies, Bristnall Branch LP, Warley CLP.

(15) Shay Boyle, Sutton Branch LP, Bolsover CLP, GMB.

(16) Frances Kelly, Finchley and Golders Green CLP.

(17) Patricia Williams, Sutton Branch LP, Bolsover CLP, UNISON.

(18) Steve Thompson, Sheffield Central Branch LP and CLP, Co-operative Party Sheffield Branch.

(19) Dr Duncan Hall, Skipton Branch LP, Skipton and Ripon CLP.

(20) Douglas Michael Chewter, Skipton and Ripon CLP.

(21) Marianne Quick, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(22) Ian Robathan, Pheasey Branch LP, Walsall CLP.

(23) Jack Wearing, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(24) Doreen Curran, Berwick-upon-Tweed Branch LP, Berwick CLP, NUPE Retired Member.

(25) Ronald Curran, Berwick-upon-Tweed Branch LP, Berwick CLP, NUPE Retired Member.

(26) Gary Kent, Beckenham CLP, UNITE, NUJ.

(27) Christine Smith, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNISON.

(28) Caroline Smith, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(29) Rosie Smith, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(30) Barry Winter, Chapel Allerton Branch LP, Leeds North East CLP, ILP.

(31) Frank Abel, Manor and Castle Branch LP, Sheffield Central CLP, NUT.

(32) William Brown, Sheffield Hallam CLP, ILP.

(33) Felix Gott, Hornsey and Wood Green CLP.

(34) James Vernoit, Vauxhall CLP.

(35) Rebecca Eeley, Cheadle CLP, Fabian Society.

(36) Bernadette Duffy, Birley Branch LP, South East Sheffield CLP.

(37) Gordon MacMillan, St Ann's, Tottenham CLP.

(38) Dave Hill, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(39) Janet Hill, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(40) Caz Brader, Manchester Withington CLP. CYWU.

(41) Samuel Ohene, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(42) John McDonnell M.P., Hayes and Harlington CLP.

(43) Edna Woodhead, Ecclesall Branch LP, Sheffield Hallam CLP.

(44) John Woodhead, Ecclesall Branch LP, Sheffield Hallam CLP.

(45) George Bell, UNISON Bassetlaw Local Government Retired Member.

(46) Paul Harman, Darlington CLP.

(47) James Doran, Darlington CLP, Co-operative Party Darlington & South Durham Branch.

(48) Bob Gachagan, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, GMB.

(49) Ann Barnes, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, GMB.

(50) Martin Stone, Chesterfield CLP, UNISON.

(51) Socialist Health Association.

(52) Pete Firmin, Hampstead & Kilburn CLP. CWU.

(53) Val Graham, Chesterfield CLP, UNISON.

(54) Stan Newens, Harlow CLP, Labour MP 1964-70 and 1974-83, Labour MEP 1989-1999.

(55) Derek Bunce, Haywood & Hixon Branch LP, Stafford CLP, UNISON.

(56) Paul Cotterill, Leader Labour Group on West Lancashire Borough Council in a personal capacity.

(57) Simon Whitten, South West Bedfordshire CLP.

(58) Ian Woodland, Southampton Itchen CLP, UNITE.

(59) Andreas Paterson, Norwich South CLP.

(60) Jon Taylor, Chair Wharley Bridge Branch LP, High Peak Constituency.

(61) Mark Grayling, Grassmoor Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, Chesterfield Co-operative Party.

(62) Tom Gann, Greenwich & Woolwich CLP, Fabian Society, Parliamentary Candidate for Salisbury in the General Election.

(63) James McGee, Salisbury CLP, Fabian Society.

(64) Vino Sangarapillai, Horsey & Wood Green CLP, UNISON.

(65) Anthony Mckeown, High Peak CLP, UNITE, Co-operative Party Chesterfield Branch.

(66) Ruth Stoba, Whaley Bridge Branch LP, High Peak CLP.

(67) Kingston & Surbiton Constituency Labour Party, (posted by Max Freedman Chair).

(68) Stephanie David, Bexleyheath & Crayford CLP, GMB.

(69) Robert Naether disabled GMB Union south wales.

(70) Alex Williams, Stockport CLP.

(71) Steve Pickering, Eckington Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(72) Bob Heath. Eckington Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

John McDonnell Wins Again

The Newsnight Debate between the five contenders (as shown above) for the Labour Leadership can be viewed here. I forced myself to watch it last night. I thought that it was poor stuff and wasn't helped by Jeremy Paxman cutting people short and having his back to his studio audience so he hardly let them in on the questions. The winner for me was John McDonnell due to his failure to qualify for the contest. I think that he would also have known how to handle both Paxman and his leadership rivals. But perhaps that is sour grapes.

John McDonnell Wins

John McDonnell has come top of the ballot. Well it is called a ballot. It is really a raffle. He has the first spot for a Private Members Bill in the new Parliament. I know that he will make good use of his opportunity to have a full Second Reading Debate on the measure he chooses. What of a law to say that those nominated for the leadership of a political party should only require a minimum of 5% support from their nominating body? It's OK I know that he is more seriously minded than that.

He could go for a Bill to see that the 3 million missed off electoral registers are properly registered to vote. From experience I know that it is a matter than can gain cross-party support and the Labour Leadership candidates would all feel obliged to support him! I even had Tony Blair in the lobby to support me when I tried something similar back in 1993 - although he seemed to lose his way afterwards.

Comrade Cameron

During Prime Ministers Questions yesterday, David Cameron said -

"Transparency on pay is an important principle, because it is good for democracy and accountability if we know how much people in the public sector are earning. I also think that it will help us to control public spending. When people see how much people are paid in the public sector, the pressure will be on to keep top pay levels down. It would also be worth while having a maximum multiple of 20 times earnings; we are holding a review to get that done. People at the top of a public sector organisation should not earn more than 20 times what people at the bottom earn. It is that sort of progressive idea that we are looking forward to introducing."

Such a move to greater egalitarianism in the public sector could, of course, be extended further afield. If there is a case for limiting pay differentials within a public sector organisation to 20 fold, then is there not a case for limiting pay differentials to 20 fold throughout the entire and combined public sector? And if there is a case for doing this in the public sector, then does that case not apply across society as a whole? No-one whether they were in the public sector, the private sector or what is described as being the third non-profit making sector of the economy would then be paid more than 20 fold the level of the national minimum wage. And why should the principle be limited to wage payments only? What of a 20 fold limit on both wealth, shareholding and property holdings? The only problem I can see with this further expansion of the 20 fold principle is that some people have zero holdings in these areas. And 20 times zero is zero. A way around this difficulty would to be to introduce legislation to provide for minimum levels of holdings of wealth, shares and property ownership. The alternative of having the State confiscate the lot might be going a bit too far for Cameron.

At least, it looks as if the Conservative Party will have to drop all that talk about egalitarian moves being the politics of envy. Comrade Cameron has started to break the mould. If the present Coalition collapses, perhaps he could seek a Conservative/Socialist Campaign Group Coalition. He only needs to extend the logic of his stance at PM's Questions.

Electoral and Political Reform - Labour's Move

Labour is on the back foot over the issue of electoral and political reform. This is because in its period of 13 years in Government it only produced a number of limited and sometimes confusing reforms in these areas.

1. On the reform of the Upper Chamber it did little more than transform a mixed hereditary and appointed Peerage into what is now a mainly appointed one.

In order to cap the Coalition's current proposals, Labour now needs to call for the complete abolition of the Peerage, with strict limits being placed on the legislative powers of the Second Chamber. If significant moves could also be made in advancing the powers which back-bench MPs exercise over the Executive, there would then be a case for the abolition of the Second Chamber altogether.

2. It introduced a variety of different voting systems for different tiers of Government, with no convincing explanation as to why this hotchpotch produced a principled system.

Labour could call for all elections, from the European Union to Parish Councils to be operated under the Alternative Vote.

3. Despite introducing a more flexible electoral registration system, Labour failed to stem the collapse in the numbers of voters who are missing from registers. Some 3 million were missing from registers at the recent General Election, which is around twice the number that were missing in 1997. Yet we are moving to a system of individual voter registration. This system has been introduced into Northern Ireland and the electoral registration rate has fallen there from 95% to 86%.

The main groups of people missing from electoral registers are be found amongst the poor, the young, the rootless, ethnic minorities and those avoiding debt collectors. We need a proactive electoral registration system to overcome the problem of these missing millions. As the categories mentioned above are unevenly distributed throughout the nation, this seriously distorts the drawing of constituency electoral boundaries. Correcting the massive shortcomings in electoral registration, needs to precede any major redrawing of constituency boundaries. The sale of electoral registers to commercial interests should also be banned as it acts as a deterrent on registering to vote amongst many disadvantaged people.

4.Despite a slight recovery at the last General Election, there was a worrying overall fall in electoral turnout during Labour's watch.

Efforts by Labour to make politics relevant to tackling the economic, environmental and social needs of the those who are disenchanted, will add significantly to all forms of electoral turnout.

Additionally, it is important that Labour should campaign against the Coalition's proposals to reduce the number of MPs in the Commons - it is the Peerage and possibly the Second Chamber which should go instead. Cutting the numbers of MPs will itself further tip the balance of power in the Commons away from back-bench MPs towards the Front-Benches. For as long as the numbers of MPs who are on the "pay-roll" remain unchanged, it is back-bench seats which will in practice be culled.

The Importance Of Next Week

If a week is a long time in politics, then the five years since I retired from the Commons is an eternity. There have been two General Elections since I left. The make-up of the Parliamentary Labour Party is dramatically different from the one I knew. Even those who remain from my time are unlikely to be the people I remember. They have been through the traumas of the expenses scandal, economic collapse and now electoral defeat. It is not easy for me to work out who has changed and who has plodded on in the their old vain.

But I still have a clear view about what the diminishing band of democratic socialists in the Commons should do next week. They should book a Committee Room for a meeting of those who still see themselves as democratic socialists and labourites to hold a desperately important meeting. A meeting of what used to be called the hard and soft left. They need to discuss the future direction of the left and then opt for a single candidate in the coming leadership election. That will then give them less than a fortnight in which to mobilise to get the 33 necessary nominations for their candidate on the basis of what will need to be feasible left principles.

In my final years it might have been someone like Chris Mullin who would have filled the bill. Who it is now I know not. Until the key task I seek is undertaken, I will opt for John McDonnell. I disagree with him on numbers of fundamentals; but I remember him as having decency, honesty, guts and socialist beliefs. And he was there to support me in my own more reformist efforts. But I would prefer a left unity candidate from the avenue I propose, John or whoever fighting on a platform agreed by those able to deliver the nominations. And it is only such a platform that can then help reshape the very nature of the coming leadership debates.

The Short Window Of Opportunity

As the closing date for Labour MPs to nominate candidates for the Labour Leadership Election has now been extended to 9th June, two further measures need to be taken.

First, those Labour MPs who have come out in support of specific candidates should withdraw their endorsements until they have consulted the views within the Movement, especially those opinions of the Constituency Parties who have just worked to return them to the Commons.

Secondly, Constituency Parties should set up open meetings for their membership to discuss (a) what they see as the way forward for the Labour Party and (b) to take a vote on whom they favour to become leader. Those Constituency Parties who have Labour MPs should arrange these meetings so that their MP can be in attendance. In these cases meetings are likely to need to fall between 28th and 30th May or 4th to 6th June. It should not be the intention of meetings to instruct their MP on how to act, but for each MP to absorb the ideas and perferences of the membership whilst fully participating in the discussions. All Constituency Parties (whether or not they have Labour MPs) should be encouraged to send their views on ideas and preferences to the NEC of the Labour Party. The NEC findings should then be forwarded to the Parliamentary Labour Party who should hold a meeting to consider these by 8th June.

Marx And The Milibands

"I believe we need a market economy but not a market society", said David Miliband when launching his Labour Leadership bid in South Shields. But what if market economies produce market societies? We would then need to tackle both at the same time.

He should turn to pages 49 and 50 of his late father's book "Marxism and Politics". It was a book which Ralph Miliband (photo) dedicated to David and Ed, although they were only aged 10 and 6 at the time.

Ralph Miliband quoted Marx and Engels from "The German Ideology" -

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it." This analysis can equally be applied to the shaping of what David calls our "market society".

Ralph then comments thus - "As will be argued presently, these formulations now need to be amended in certain respects. But there is at least one respect in which the text remains remarkably fresh, and points to one of the dominant features of life in advanced capitalist societies, namely the fact that the largest part of what is produced in the cultural domain in these societies is produced by capitalism; and is also therefore quite naturally intended to help, one way and another, in the defence of capitalism".

Ralph Miliband wrote his final book in 1994 just before his death. It was published with a Foreword by David, Ed and their mother and is entitled "Socialism For A Sceptical Age" . They conclude "Nothing can make up for the loss we feel, but it is some comfort that the ideas developed by Ralph Miliband in this book and elsewhere will live on". The first two chapters of the book are entitled "The Case Against Capitalism" and "Socialist Aspirations". He deals not in dead dogmas but in living truths.

Hopefully David and Ed's competition for the Labour Leadership will stimulate an interest in the works of their father. His classic "Parliamentary Socialism" published in 1961 still provides us with key insights into the way the Labour Party operates. The experiences of the last half-century fit well into the intellectual framework he provided. David and Ed would do well to turn to the family bookshelves and engage with their father's ideas.

The Size Of The Constitutional Fix

A Claud Monet Painting of Parliament, early 20th Century.
There are massive problems about the "Political Reforms" which are listed in the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

(1) The proposals will turn political debate in parliament, the media and hence the nation towards questions of electoral and constitutional change and away from economic and social issues. Yet we are in a serious situation where we all need to take an informed interest in policies which will effect the basic conditions of the people. These electoral tricks need to be nipped in the bud now or otherwise diverted so that we can concentrate on serious matters.

(2) If we have fixed-term parliaments, what is the democratic argument for setting these for as much as five years? Ignoring the vote for the Commons which is now due to meet, there have been 20 general elections since a universal franchise was first operated in 1929. The 1935 parliament had its life extended until 1945 when the war arrived. If we exclude this special period from our calculations, it means there have been 19 parliaments over a 71 year period, with an average life of 3 years 9 months. Only 7 of these parliaments have lasted for 5 years or near to that period. What was so important about them that they should now be the norm? The Chartists argued for annual parliament's annually elected. Although that might lead to media overkill today, there is a strong democratic case for not curtailing general elections and the people's votes for excessively long periods. Fixed parliaments of 3 or 4 years should be enough.

(3) It is proposed that a Referendum Bill on electoral reform will be introduced to give us the option of opting for the Alternative Vote AND for the creation of fewer and more equally sized constituencies. But a reduction of the number of MPs will further place parliamentary power into the hands of the Front Benches, because it will work out overall to be back-bench MPs that will be culled. This is a category from which numbers of "rebels" emerge. Parliament needs more of these, not less.

(4) Before we move to the provision for more equally sized constituencies, we need to overcome the serious shortcomings of the current electoral registration system. This system was first dented under the operation of the Poll Tax - which was a meaningful popular name for this deterrent to electoral registration. Yet things have continued to get worse since those days. There were 3 million people missing from the electoral registers on 6 May. That amounts to 4,500 per constituency. But the missing voters are by no means evenly distributed throughout society. They are concentrated amongst the young, the rootless, the poor and ethnic minorities. It is only when we act to register these missing voters, that we will be a position to re-draw equitable constituency boundaries.

(5) The proposal to allow the dissolution of parliament on the artificial vote of 55% of MPs is being recognised as a constitutional disgrace. If established it would be a recipe for massive political turmoil once we were faced with a dissolution vote which was "lost" when those in favour of it fell in the band between 50% plus one and 55% minus one.

It beggars belief that the Liberal Democrats have agreed to these proposals. It remains to be seen whether they did this out of stupidity or from manipulative malice. It is certainly time for them to drop the term "Democratic" from their title.

The proposals are, of course, within the fix-it tradition of Lady Thatcher and Lady Porter. If there are any Conservatives who are left in the Butler and Supermac tradition, it is to be hoped that they will help to put a stop to these disgraceful proposals.

Don't Put The Cart Before The Horse

Next week the National Executive Committee should delay the election for the Leadership of the Labour Party and in its place instigate wide ranging discussions throughout the Party about how Labour should operate in the future and what its major policy objectives should be. It is only following such discussions by the membership of the Labour Party, its affiliated organisations, the Co-operative Party and the Parliamentary Labour Party that the leadership contest should be set in motion. The discussions do not need to lead to a firm policy programme, but we need to find out what views on Labour's future direction exist within the Labour Movement so we can then have a meaningful leadership contest in which the candidates and those voting understand each other.

Hat Tip - Next Left

The Future For Socialists

The polls have just closed in the General Election. Perhaps Labour has done better than anticipated. But whatever the result, democratic socialism is in crisis.

There are, of course, many bits and pieces Labour can point to with satisfaction; such as the minimum wage, the school building programme and free bus passes for the over 60s. But under the guise of New Labour, it has alienated much of its traditional support. In striking out for what it called a "dynamic" economy it failed to protect the industrial working class whose employment and communal life had been based around the collapsing manufacturing industry. Instead Finance Capital was backed as the source of growth. But the more this seemed to work in the short term, the bigger was to be the financial collapse.

Democratic Socialism and Labourism were jettisoned within the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Party was filled up with place-persons who had turned to politics as a career move. Those Labour MPs who reflected traditional values were either bought off or isolated mainly within the Socialist Campaign Group.

Rank and file activists found that the internal democratic life of the Labour Party (which had never been perfect) was now anaesthetised. In despair many resigned or failed to renew their membership. Some gave up political aspirations, whilst others buried their energies in minority group politics or in interest group activities. Some of the later being areas with their own forms of impact.

It might be the case that once the election results are announced, New Labour will be on the back foot. Those democratic socialists who remain in the Labour Party might for a while find more avenues in which they can press their case.

But the task ahead is a huge one. Short term coups will not provide long term advances. Democratic Socialism needs to reconstruct its base, both within the Labour Party and in society generally. This will require a concerted effort over years and not "just the big set piece battles but the drip, drip, drip of arguments and constant assertions" (Prof Massey).

We need a big protracted turn, but this is in need of many small beginnings. We need to discuss what these entail. Here are my three starting points - (1) discussion, (2) democratisation and (3) direct activity.

(1) Discussion. Democratic Socialists need to meet together to debate ideas within loose organisational formats, which themselves eschew sectarianism. Within the Labour Party we need to press for the importance of such forms of political discourse; which we should extend to embrace ex-members, non-members and members of outside bodies. Political Education (but not political indoctrination) should be a constant activity.

(2) Democratisation. We need to revitalise the democratic life of the bodies we engage in within the wider Labour Movement. The way to tackle their democratic deficits is continually to behave within the internal life of an organisation as if it was already democratic. Bureaucratic Centralism can be placed on the back foot even when it has fixed the rules in its favour. Injustices will be seen to be injustices whatever the rule book has been fixed to say. Let us all put down meaningful resolutions for debate or submit candidates to challenge those who believe that they rule by divine right. The purpose should not be to win or to fix victories, but to encourage the life blood of the dialectics of debate.

(3) Direct Activity. Debate should, however, lead on to action. We need to press the institutions of the wider Labour Movement into joining with deprived communities to struggle for their immediate needs. But we need to do this for the well being of people who are in need, not for some direct pay off in membership or votes. It is both the right thing to do and part of the long road to rebuilding what should be our natural base.

The above three avenues end up re-enforcing each other. See here also.

Peter Heathfield

Peter in Sheffield July 1984 with Arthur Scargill


Peter Heathfield died yesterday. Above all he was a kind, open and pleasant person who was always a pleasure to meet. He was also a committed socialist who cared deeply for the well-being of NUM members and of the communities they lived in.

He had studied Industrial Relations, Politics and Economics on a three year day release course for Derbyshire Miners which was run by the Sheffield University Extramural Department. I arrived as a tutor on these courses some years later. But I got to know Peter well in his period as Secretary of the Derbyshire NUM from 1973 to 1984. This arose mainly because he had a deep interest in the nature of our classes and the progress of its members. Along with our children, my wife Ann and I regularly attended the Derbyshire Miners' Weekend School which was held annually at Skegness at Easter. The miner's always asked tough questions and made blunt contributions. Peter was very much at home with the dialectics of debate.

Peter was invariably present at Labour Movement events in North Derbyshire at this time, being a regular and carefully listened to speaker at each Chesterfield May Day Rally. He would have enjoyed the Rally which took place only the day before his death. Amongst the events was a film on the impact of the 84-85 Miners' Strike in North Derbyshire. I only wish that he had been well enough to have participate by being in front of the camera.

Both Peter and his first wife Betty are best known for their roles in the strike. Peter as the General Secretary of the NUM and Betty for the leading work she undertook in the Women's Movement who played a crucial role in supporting the miners. But there was much more to them than the matters which hit the headlines.

Prior to the strike one of Betty's commitments had been with the Woodcraft Folk. My wife Ann attended the groups activities in Chesterfield for a year, before moving on to help in setting up a local group where we live.

Peter was invariably present with the NUM delegation at the numerious Labour Party Conferences which Ann and I attended. He was a regular at Irish Evenings which were run under a flag of convenience by the Workers' Party. He was the only person they ever asked to speak, everyone one else sang songs or played tin whistles.

When he divorced and remarried and moved to North Anston in Yorkshire I visited him in the home he had set up with Sue and then addressed his local Labour Party.

I last saw him just over a year ago at a packed meeting at the NUM headquarters at Barnsley. Arthur Scargill was the main speaker and we were there for the 25th Anniversary of the strike. Peter was in the audience and his health was clearly fading. But it was good to see him again. When it was pointed out to a packed crowd that he was sitting in the audience, his reception matched that of Arthur's.

I first met Peter in the former Derbyshire Miners' Offices in Chesterfield. I last came across him at what had previously been the Yorkshire Miners' Offices at Barnsley. These are places that as a tutor on Miners' Course over a period of two decades, helped to shape much of my life. The debt which I and many others owe to Peter is something we should never forget. To pay that debt we should act on the principles he propounded. It is what he would have wanted.

Inspiration From Gordon Brown

Inspiration from Gordon Brown - see this video.

A May Day Manifesto

Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party launches their Manifesto.

I gave links here to the Manifestos of the three main political parties. I felt that as we appear to be nearing a significant changing point in British politics, I should then read them. They all proved to be disappointments.

The Conservatives aim to jettison their Governmental responsibilities and to press charities, self-help groups and private enterprise to accept these. The Lib Dems only come to life when they are propounding electoral reforms which they hope will give them extra parliamentary seats. Whilst Labour wishes to plod on with a variety of mainly directionless New Labour schemes.

So I have finally turned to the Green Party Manifesto. I don't agree with it all, but it does seek to tackle what it correctly sees as the three defining crises of our time - "a debt-fuelled economy teetering on the edge of collapse and haemorrhaging jobs, massive inequalities of income and assets, and catastrophic climate change".

Because of its residual trade union and working class links, Labour will continue to have my support. But when the inquest takes place after the close of the polls at 10pm on Thursday, the Green Party's perspective is something that activists would be well advised to give close thought to when deciding what Labour should do next.

There is another Manifesto which is worthy of our concern, from the Co-operative Party - also see. In shaping its own document, Labour made a few concessions to Co-operative principles. The Co-operative Manifesto provides important openings which Labour should develop.

From "Homage To Catalonia" to "1984"

This photo is from the fine web-site of Poumista. It is taken in a Surveillence Zone in the Municipality of Barcelona. Anyone unaware of the significance of the photo should turn immediately to "Homage to Calalonia" et al and "1984".

Electoral Confusion

Seven weeks after Iraqis went to the polls, a special election court has disqualified both a winning parliamentary candidate from the Alawi bloc and 51 other losing candidates. All of these have had their votes discarded. If the decision is upheld this will require a recalculation of the votes and the possibility of reversing the narrow defeat of Prime Minister Maliki’s alliance by Alawi's bloc. This could give Maliki the first chance to form a new coalition government.

See this report in the New York Times.

UPDATE 28 APRIL : There is today fine coverage of the situation by "Musing On Iraq" who is worth following on a regular basis.

The Manifestos

Access the Manifestos of the three main parties here - Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem.

UPDATE 21 APRIL : The above Manifestos are due to be on sale at Waterstones. I understand that they will be £5 each and Waterstones will sell them as a 3 for 2 deal. But check by phone or email with your local branch first to see if and when they will be available.

They will have a short shelf life. Not only do Political Parties often deviate from manifesto commitments after General Elections, but should we get a hung parliament no proposal will be able to progress which can't find a majority in the new parliament. But they may prove useful for those who are into holding inner-party inquests after the election.

Electoral Confusion - Iraqi Style

The Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has been successful over his challenge to the Iraqi Election Results which had given Allawi's Iraqi National Movement a lead of two seats over his own State of Law Coalition. The votes were initially counted electronically, but now the Iraqi Electoral Commission have ordered a manual recount of votes that were cast in Baghdad which was an area of Maliki's strength. No recounts are to take place in the other regions of Iraq.

There are also claims that up to $4 million of counterfeit US currency was used in the run up to the election. The finger is pointed at Iran, with the money being seen as being used to aid the Islamic Supreme Conference and the Sadrists who (in competition with Prime Minister Maliki) combined to take 70 seats from the votes they obtained in mainly Shia territory.

Defend Iraq's Oil Workers

FROM TUC INTERNATIONAL

Take action to stop harassment of Iraq oil workers!

After weeks of industrial action in the southern oil fields in Iraq, management are trying to undermine the Refinery Workers Union by sending four of its leaders to other workplaces. This is a standard management tactic in Iraq, and in the past has often meant sending union leaders to more hostile, violent areas of the country. But pressure from Iraqi trade unionists and trade unionists around the world has stopped this before, and we can do it again.

Sign the LabourStart appeal demanding that the Iraqi Oil Minister rescind the transfer orders and support the call for an ILO-compliant labour law in Iraq.

Still Needed - A Full Franchise

The Electoral Commission estimates that some 3.5 million people who are eligible to vote are missing from electoral registers. That is almost 7% of the potential electorate. It is just assumed by many that we long since achieved a full franchise, but this has been in serious decline for a considerable period as we became a more mobile and, in many cases, a highly rootless society. There has also been a falling away of interest in Party politics, so registration although a legal obligation is low down in the priorities of many. The numbers missing from electoral registers are highest amongst those living in bed-sitter land, the homeless, the poor, ethnic minorities and the young.

Non-registration is a serious undermining of the franchise and means that in an average parliamentary constituency there are some 5,400 missing voters. But because the spread of non-registration is much higher in urban conurbations, there is also a serious distortion of the drawing of constituency boundaries.

Until the 20 April there is a brief opportunity for those who aren't yet registered to correct this. The avenues for doing this can be found here and here. This is only likely, however, to place a small proportion of the missing 3.5 million onto registers.

At one time it would not even have been possible for people to have qualified for late electoral registration. For the deadline for registration was set for a date in October, with the registers not coming into operation until the following February. This wasn't altered until 2000 when what was known as "rolling registration" first came into operation based on a number of unsuccessful Private Members Bill I introduced into the Commons from 1993 onwards. The "rolling register" principle was extended during the parliament which has just ended, allowing registration as late as 11 days before a General Election.

But much more needs to be done. We need extra facilities for Electoral Returning Officers so they can trace the movements of those entitled to vote and exchange information as people move to new electoral areas. With the use of computer technology in an information-packed world this can easily be done. Then Electoral Returning Officers need the type of investigative avenues I pressed for in the 1990s. They are contained in the Bills I introduced, although advances in technology over the past decade are needed to update my proposals. Then Electoral Returning Officers need to be given the duty (and the resources) to canvass the public in order to ensure the fullest franchise that is possible.

Even under the current arrangements, the polling cards should have been posted to voters by now. With publicity, this would have shown those who did not receive a card that something might be wrong. They would then have 11 days left to ensure their registration.

For other franchise problems see my earlier analysis - although I underestimated the number of those not registered.

Al Sadr and Iraq's Hung Parliament

The Iraqi Parliament when in Session.
It is claimed that 1.4 million people voted in the unofficial referendum in Iraq which was organised by Al Sadr's Bloc to determine who to support as Prime Minister. Yet this would mean an average of 333,333 voters for what were claimed to be 42 polling centres. Furthermore some 32% of those who voted opted for candidates other than those presented to them on the ballot paper. They made use of a write-in facility. The results are given below. INA stands for the Iraqi National Alliance which won 70 seats in the official election, 39 or 40 of whom belong to Al Sadr's Bloc.

24% Ibramhim al-Jaafari (INA) Prime Minister April 2005 to May 2006
23% Jaffar Mohammad al-Sadr (State of Law) Dawa Party Leader
17% Qusay al-Suhail (INA and Al Sadr's Bloc) *
10% Nouri al-Maliki (State of Law) The current Prime Minister
9% Ayad Allawi (Iraqiya) Interim Prime Minister May 2004 to 2005
5% Baha Araji (INA and Al Sadr's Bloc) *
3% Ahmed Chalabi (INA) President Governing Council 2003-4 *
2% Adel Abdulmahdi (INA) A current Vice-President
2% Rafia al-Issawi (Iraqiya) A current Deputy Prime Minister *

* = a write-in. The total for other write-ins with lower individual percentages than the above was 5%.

In the official election, the result was Iraqiya 91, State of Law 89, INA 70, Kurdish Alliance 43 and others (no group with more than 8 seats) a total of 32.

Here is an analysis of the above situation. Also see here and here.

UPDATE 9 APRIL. Here is a fine analysis of the result.

Iraqi Sorrow

See Aljazeera

Muqtada al-Sadr's Initiative - Plus Updates

Muqtada al-Sadr (left) the Shia cleric has been especially hostile to the Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki ever since the Iraqi Government took military action to overcome much of the influence of his Mahdi Army from March 2008.

The Shia cleric also has little love for Malaki's main rival in the recent Iraqi Election - Allawi. For Allawi leads a secular grouping which has attracted wide Sunni support

Yet al-Sadr is always willing to take initiatives in Iraq to advance his own corner. The 39 seats his group obtained in the election gives him a bargaining chip he is using to the full.

Over yesterday and today Al-Sadr is running an unofficial referendum from 42 centres in Shia territory to determine who his group of 39 should support for the position of Prime Minister. All Iraqi's around the centres can vote (as below) They can choose from amongst 5 candidates or write in any other choice.

A further advantage of an unofficial referendum is that it has no international observers or official checks to look out for fraud.

Here are the five candidates on al-Sadr's ballot papers. All are Shia and none are Kurds -

1. Maliki the existing Prime Minister whose State of the Law Coalition won 89 seats.

2. Allawi appointed interim Prime Minister May 2004. This time, his list the Iraqi National Movement won 91 seats. But there are legal moves to ban six of those elected.

3. al-Jaafari Prime Minister April 2005 until May 2006. He is Chairman of the Iraqi National Alliance who took 70 seats. Yet his National Reform Trend itself only gained one seat - his own. Muqtada's Group of 39 are also part of this Alliance. al-Jaafari was expelled from the Dawa Party in 2008 for setting up his current Party.

4. Jaafar al-Sadr of the Dawa Party ran on Maliki's ticket with the State of the Law Coalition . He is the son of Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr, a leading Ayatollah executed by Saddam Hussain who was also the father-in-law of Muqtada al-Sadr.

5. Adil Abdul-Mahdi Vice-President of Iraq and with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq who are on the list of the National Iraqi Alliance.

75 seats are held by groups outside those mentioned above.

See Patrick Cockburn on this issue in the Independent. He is the author of "Muqtada Al-Sadr and The Fall Of Iraq" (Faber and Faber, 2008).

UPDATE 5 APRIL - see how Allawi is between a rock and a hard place.


UPDATE 7 APRIL - Jaafar al-Sadr (number 3 above and photo) is reported to have come top in Al-Sadr's unofficial referendum with 24% of the votes. It must have been close because there were 5 candidates, except that write-ins were also allowed.

Shock, Horror - Capitalists Support Tories!

What will New Labour do now?

Iraq : Who Is The Winner?

Let us assume that (a) Maliki's attempt to seek a manual recount of the votes in Iraq fails and (b) the projected results show the result as it will be finally determined. Will Allawi or Maliki then be in the best position to form a Government?

As Allawi has gained two more seats than Maliki, he is given the first official shot at cobbling a majority together. But he has a hard task to do this. For Maliki would seem to have 49.5% of the seats within his control even before the manovering starts. These are made up of his own groups 89 seats, the 70 seats which went to the Islamist National Iraqi Alliance and the 2 seats of the Islamic Group of Kurdistan who are also Islamist. That would leave him only 2 seats short of a minimal overall majority.

To triumph, Allawi needs the following support to add to that of 91 seats he holds. 43 Kurdish Alliance, 8 Movement for Change (a newly emerged Kurdish group who are an opposition to the Kurdish Alliance), 6 Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni), 4 Unity Alliance of Iraq (Secular), 4 Kurdistan Islamic Union (who at least work closely with the Kurdish Alliance) and 8 from the seats provided for Minority Groups (five of whom are Christians).

There are, of course, other possibilities. Either Maliki or Allawi or both of them could drop out of the race to let someone else in to form a Government; or they could come together in a coalition holding between them 55.4% of the seats. But which one would hold the top job?

My details are based on this source and its links - as they stand at this moment.

Also see this detailed analysis.

UPDATE 30 March : See Musings On Iraq.

Support The Iraqi Labour Movement

Here the TUC explains the urgent need for the introduction of fair and just Labour Laws in Iraq.

Here the case is further explained in an interview with Hashmeya Musshin a-Saadawi (photo) President of the Electricity Workers Union in Basra. Having met her at the TUC, the Commons and in Iraq I know of her full commitment to the cause of peace and progress in Iraq.

To support this campaign sign up here.

And press your own Labour Movement organisation to endorse the campaign, by them sending a supportive email to Abdullah Muhsin, the International Representative of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW) at postmaster@iraqitradeunions.org

Ashok Kumar

I am deeply shocked to hear of the death at the age of only 53 of Ashok Kumar, the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Our times in the Commons overlapped for a period of nine years. For several of those years we both had offices which were almost opposite each other on the same Committee Corridor. We often called into each others rooms, not just to talk politics but to chat to each about our other shared interests.

I knew little about his specialist field in Chemistry where he held a PhD, but we had common interests in areas such as Philosophy and Opera. We never visited each others homes, but he told me that his was overrun with books which went well beyond his scientific interests. Invariably his interests in politics also went well beyond the MPs' passing trade and he was well versed in the world of political theory. His Labour commitment was grounded in the ideas of political activists such as Anthony Crosland, whilst I had emerged from out of the Bevanite tradition. But the differences in our approaches merely added to the pleasure of our discussions.

When my wife Ann visited London she worked with me in my office and thought highly of Ashok. Ann and I went on a Easter Break to Vienna and when we went together to see Wagner's Rheingold she sent Ashok a copy of the following postcard with the comments "Silly me. I thought that when Harry brought me here it was to enjoy ourselves - then he also took me to see where Wittgenstein used to live!".

Ashok was born in India but had been to both Secondary School and then to the College of Art and Technology in Derby, whilst I was a Derbyshire MP. Then I had originated from the North East and knew something about the Middlesbrough area. So even on our passing Constituency business we could discuss our concerns.

I also observed many of Ashok's contributions in the Commons and we often sat in the same row of seats, again just opposite each other but this time separated by a gangway instead of a corridor.

The Speaker is correct in saying that Ashok "was a most assiduous Member" as is the neighbouring Middlesbrough MP Stuart Bell in pointing out that "he leaves behind an untarnished reputation." Given Parliament's recent battered standing nothing could be more important than that the coming new wave of MPs should follow Ashok's example.

Transforming Labour

Compass (who claim to be giving direction to the democratic left) are conducting a survey on how to transform the Labour Party after the General Election. They state that -

"Since 1997 Labour has lost over half its members. Win, lose or draw it is becoming very clear that after the general election the Party will need to think about how it renews and transforms itself in the months and years ahead......To kick things off and to get your direct input we've devised a short 10 min questionnaire which we're encouraging Labour activists, members, supporters and stakeholders to take part in."

It took me much longer then 10 minutes to prepare my submission. But excluding the survey's 35 tick-boxes (which is an approach I criticise as being a means of obtaining the answers they are looking for), here is my response -

• If you are a Labour member, why did you join the Labour Party?

I joined in 1957 in the Easington Constituency to qualify to enter an essay competition on nationalisation which was run by the local Labour MP, Manny Shinwell.

NOTE : In the specific questions you ask below I am only in a position to answer less than half of them and have otherwise clicked into the "Neither Agree nor Disagree" options. This is because I disagree with the assumptions which underpin such questions. I can't therefore give "yes" or "no" answers to them. When it comes to internal Labour Party democracy we need to encourage members to attend meetings, to enter into serious discussions at those meetings and to mandate delegates to Constituency Meetings and the like. Delegates then need to be held to account by the members who appointed them. This is not to rule out provisions for one-member one vote avenues in the Party, but it recognises the importance of the dialectics of debate when people meet face to face. We should also stress the rights of the individual members of the Labour and Co-operative Parties and of the members of affiliated organisations. We need to define who is covered in this process and not use the nebulous term "stakeholders".

(Some 35 questions follow which only provide for tick-box style answers and seem to be designed to achieve pre-determined answers. We then move on to the following).

• In terms of your own local Labour Party, could you offer any examples of best practice – have you successfully experimented with new structures? What works and what doesn’t? Have you run any good local campaigns that have been particularly effective? How have you made activities more inclusive?

My own local Labour Party runs political discussion meetings which are open to (a) any member of the Labour Party, (b) all members of the Club where the meetings are held and (c) to others by invitation (i.e. to people not in the Labour Party and to some who have resigned from it). Click into the blog "Dronfield Blather" to see. Some Local Labour Parties also run 20 minute discussions at the start or close of their meetings. Recently a discussion about the BNP was held in-between a Local Government Committee Meeting and a Constituency General Committee Meeting. There were 18 contributions.

• Are there other organisations you are involved in such as trade unions, pressure groups or NGOs where they involve their members, supporters and stakeholders in engaging and interesting ways? If so please outline these below.

The local Labour Party Discussion Group I mentioned earlier has led directly to (a) submissions to Compass, (b) a submission to a Commons Select Committee and (c) to members submitting motions to their Local Labour Parties.

• Do you have any other ideas you’d like to offer for Transforming Labour?

Political Education on the lines I have described in the above two boxes encourages the development of open-minded political understandings (and not dogmas) by its participants. This leads them to press for democratisation and intelligent discussions within both the Labour Party and in the wider Labour Movement. For a fuller explanation of this case see the blog "Dronfield Blather" for 20 February, 2009.

Voting In Iraq

Iraqi Women Waiting To Vote

Despite the flaws in the Iraqi political system those who bravely turned out to vote in the face of terrorist dangers have given us all a lesson in the importance of democracy.

UPDATE 4.30 pm The turnout in the Iraqi election is reported to be 62%, which is similar to the 61.4% turnout in the UK General Election of 2005. The turnout contrasts well with (a) that of under 55% of MPs who bothered to turn up for the votes last Thursday which determined some important changes in how the Commons will operate in the future and (b) the 34.7% vote at last years' European Elections.

UPDATE 13 MARCH : Speculation on the outcome of the election.

Michael Foot

I first came across Michael Foot on a Ban-the-Bomb March from Aldermaston to Trafalgar Square in Easter 1960. (The photo was taken at the Labour Party Conference later that year). I marched with a contingent that were associated with New Left Review and somehow on the way I finished up seated on the floor in a crowded room in the flat of Emrys Hughes MP, where Michael was the centre of attention. I had been a regular reader of Tribune for some time, so I was very much a follower of his political position.

From the mid 1970s I was a regular at Labour Party Conferences and often heard Michael speaking either at Party Conference or at Fringe Meetings. Then in 1986 when I was a Prospective Labour Candidate I met him at the funeral of Frank Cousins, which took place at the Crematorium at Brimington near Chesterfield. Earlier I had hoped to visit Frank who lived in my local North East Derbyshire Constituency during his retirement, but his illness had prevented this.

I then served in the 1987 to 1992 Parliament, which was Michael's final period as an MP. He was one of the few senior members of the Commons who spent time listening to others, rather than just popping in and out of the Chamber to speak. But when he did speak there was no one that was more impressive. This is shown in the winding up speech he had made just before Callaghan lost the vote of confidence on 28 March 1979, which then led to Thatcher's first electoral victory. Michael's speech lasts for half an hour, but it is well worth listening to as a way of remembering him.

The Future And Cruddas

Compass have just published a pamphlet by Jon Cruddas entitled "The Future of Social Democracy". It consists of two talks he gave. One being the Annual Compass Lecture on 9 September 2009. The other given two days later as a Keir Hardie Memorial Lecture in Merthyr Tydfil.

When reading "The Future Of Social Democracy" it is easy to miss the wood for the trees. In the 24 page contribution from Jon Cruddas he refers to 36 writers ranging from Aristotle to a recent publication by Jerry Cohen and also to 24 politicians from Campbell-Bannerman to Gordon Brown. In three pages, he manages to shoot out 28 different policy proposals based on thin or absent forms of analysis (which does not mean numbers of them aren't important). There is, however, a theme that all 88 bits and pieces relate to.

He advocates a vision for Labour which is drawn from the Liberal Collectivist tradition starting with writers such as TH Green and moving on to politicians such as Lloyd George. His criticism of the way New Labour has developed is that it moved away from this potential approach and came to be dominated by the free-enterprise wing of Liberalism. He even attempts to capture socialists such as Keir Hardie and GDH Cole to his banner on the grounds that they were influenced by the ideas of the Liberal Collectivists. Of course they were, but they also transcended the limitations of such approaches.

Cruddas is aware that Labour needs to give people a vision for the future, but his is based on radical liberalism/capitalism and not democratic socialism. Now I realise that a political party advocating socialist ideas might frighten the pigeons in modern society, but a vision is no vision at all unless it can inspire. The trick is to have a worthy set of values, whilst having the political wit to tack and manoeuvre towards them.

Cruddas is leading us astray.

HAT TIP - Getty Images

Solidarity With The Iraqi Teachers' Union

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has issued the following message of solidarity to the leaders of the Iraqi Teachers' Union:

'British trade unions salute the bravery of the Iraqi Teachers Union and its leaders in resisting interference by the Government and political parties of Iraq. We call on Iraqi politicians to respect Iraqi teachers' desire for a free and independent trade union to represent them, and abandon threats and intimidation against its leaders.'

For the full TUC statement and the reasons behind it see here.

Hat Tip : Labour Friends of Iraq