Labour’s NEC elections
August 28th, 2006
A guest contribution from Andrea
At the beginning of August the Labour NEC election results for the CLPs division were announced. Members can elect six members to the party ruling body and 16 candidates were contesting the election: the two main slates, “Grassroots Alliance” (the Left wing slate) and “Labour First” (the so called “loyalist” slate), were joined in the race by a handful of independent candidates.
The result showed 4 candidates (Black, Shawcroft, Willsman and Wolfgang) from Grassroots Alliance being elected and 2 from Labour First (Wheeler and Reeves).
In the 2004 election 3 successful candidates were from the Grassroots Alliance and 3 from the Milibank slate. So it’s an improvement for the left wing slate that for the first time since 1998 has 4 out of 6 members directly elected. (They had held 4 seats at times in the more recent past, but only after various members resigned their seats and so the next-ranking candidates got in their place).
The poll was topped (as it was in 2004) by Ann Black. Not a surprise, considering she’s extremely hardworking and the most “mainstream” among GA candidates allowing her to get votes outside the “left” of the party.
Grassroots’ Christine Shawcroft (a long standing NEC member and on the Labour Left Briefing editorial board) and Peter Willsman (a leading figure in the “Campaign for Labour Party Democracy” organization) came second and third. They increased their total vote even though turnout was down.
Richmond’s most famous heckler, Walter Wolfgang (pictured), came in 4th place. Labour First’s candidates Peter Wheeler (Salford CLP chairman and Amicus officer) and Ellie Reeves (former National Chair of Labour Students) got the last two places on the NEC.
The election can be seen as a win for the Left of the party. The Grassroots Alliance slate was probably better organized and Labour First suffered from not fielding this time two vote-winning candidates from previous contests (Ruth Turner and Shahid Malik). It must be said that also the Grassroots Alliance “lost” a high profile candidate (Mark Seddon) this time, but Walter Wolfgang proved a better replacement than some new candidates. like Philomena Muggins (yes, I know, she sounds like a Harry Potter character. But I swear she’s real!) on the Labour First slate.
Some commentators painted the result as a defeat for Blair and the leadership. If on one hand it’s true that they aren’t probably welcoming monthly meetings with Walter Wolfgang and Christine Shawcroft, and it’s hardly a good result for Labour First, on the other hand I think the NEC election shouldn’t be over-estimated, especially because of the turnout.
It reached a record low: just 20.3% party members voted this year. The total score got by Ann Black this year would have placed a candidate just in 11th place in 2002. The poor turnout certainly shows a lack of interest among the membership. Labour should hope that it’s just for internal party elections and factions and it’s not a general lack of enthusiasm toward the party. Added to a declining party membership, disaffected members can be fatal at the next GE when the party will need many motivated party members in the streets to fight the Tories, the Lib Dems, the Nats and all other parties.
A revealing comment was made by Christine Shawcroft in the run up of the 2005 GE: “We are concentrating resources on national call centres and mail shots because the Party has never been so short of active members, and CLPs are reporting that there are no troops on the ground for knocking on the doors or even delivering the leaflets”. Polls are already indicating that Labour voters are less willing to turnout in a GE, so the same trend should be avoided among members.
This lack of interest by the membership should be an alarm bell for the party, and certainly not overlooked and ignored, but addressed (maybe by the new leadership if the handover is next year) by trying to encourage members to engage more with party activities.
Some on the Left tried to point it out that the result shows that they’ve a base to work from for the future leadership and deputy leadership race. It must be remembered that turnout will be much higher in a leadership ballot, voting for a NEC seat is not like voting for a Prime Minister (because Labour will be electing a PM, not just a leader) and that fighting Brown, Reid or Johnson isn’t the same as competing against Lorna Fitzsimons.
Andrea is an Italian student and one of politicalbetting.com’s most prolific contributors.
MessageSpace Advertising
Good stuff Andrea. Now I know how you stumbled across ‘mystery blonde’ Ellie Reeves.
Off-topic, I’ve just had a message pop up on my screen whilst trying to open a PDF. It warned:
“This file may contain viruses. It is important to know this document is from a trustworthy source”
The document is from the DfES. Can someone advise?
Congratulations, Andrea. You may already know that one of our TV companies - Channel 4 - is setting up a radio station (to take BBC Radio 4 head on), so they’ll be looking for an expert or two for their election night coverage next time - you should bung ‘em your C.V. - you’d get loads of glowing references from us lot
Can’t find a photo of Ms Muggins on the web…
Byers, Falconer, and now Byers again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2331374.html
Looks like Tony’s come back fighting. I think Paxman should have Byers on and ask if he considers himself Blair’s “attack dog”…
3 - Was there much discussion on Falconer’s comments? Suggested to me the embryonic stages of a “Stay on for the election, Tony” campaign. After all, why is now not the time to change the Labour leader, but next year will be fine?
As far as the leadership election goes, it\’s also worth remebering that the Labour Party only gives a third of the vote to members, so any attempt to use that base for the leadership is founded on an even narrower base than for the NEC. What\’s perhaps interesting is that the \’loyal\’ slate can still pick up two seats out of six when the government and Blair are as unpopular as they are. I think this probably shows (at least) two things: firstly, that it takes about ten years for a party membership to catch up with a successful leadership. The Labour Party is now far more Blairite than it was in 1994 - when it was barely there at all, but wanted desperately to win. Many members have left, but others have joined and it\’s shifted the centre of the party significantly. I\’d be amazed if 1994\’s membership would have voted this way in these conditions. This could cause problems in the future as was the case in the Conservatives when the party became more Thatcherite after she left than when she was in place. Secondly, even if there aren\’t huge numbers of them, reports of the demise of the Labour activist are premature. There\’s still a solid leadership-friendly section of the party which will keep things ticking along through the devolved assembly elections in 2007, the locals each year, the Euros if necessary and the London mayoral elections. Come the general election, the fear of Tory success should be enough to prompt the more recalcitrant activists out, as long as there\’s no reversal of the 1983 thinking when the Labour right deliberately let the Left lose on their own terms.
5. That posted rather strangely. I’ll try again.
As far as the leadership election goes, it’s also worth remebering that the Labour Party only gives a third of the vote to members, so any attempt to use that base for the leadership is founded on an even narrower base than for the NEC. What’s perhaps interesting is that the ‘loyal’ slate can still pick up two seats out of six when the government and Blair are as unpopular as they are.
I think this probably shows (at least) two things: firstly, that it takes about ten years for a party membership to catch up with a successful leadership. The Labour Party is now far more Blairite than it was in 1994 - when it was barely there at all, but wanted desperately to win. Many members have left, but others have joined and it’s shifted the centre of the party significantly. I’d be amazed if 1994’s membership would have voted this way in these conditions. This could cause problems in the future as was the case in the Conservatives when the party became more Thatcherite after she left than when she was in place.
Secondly, even if there aren’t huge numbers of them, reports of the demise of the Labour activist are premature. There’s still a solid leadership-friendly section of the party which will keep things ticking along through the devolved assembly elections in 2007, the locals each year, the Euros if necessary and the London mayoral elections. Come the general election, the fear of Tory success should be enough to prompt the more recalcitrant activists out, as long as there’s no reversal of the 1983 thinking when the Labour right deliberately let the Left lose on their own terms.
4. “why is now not the time to change the Labour leader, but next year will be fine?”
Indeed, a pertinent question and one that should really be put to Blairites. Perhaps it is being assumed that because of the public assurance that that a new leader will be given “time to bed in” (I’m probably paraphrasing but it was something to that effect was it not?) then it’s not possible for Tony to U-turn.
Or maybe there’s just something about 2007 (or 2008). Our good fellow-poster Nick Palmer MP has always insisted it won’t be before then, as have many other Labour MPs, so maybe it’s just accepted that Blair’s hanging on until then and will be allowed to - almost just for the sake of crossing the ‘decade in charge’ mark.
Well done, Andrea. And an interesting topic too.
However, I do wonder about the future of the Labour activist, especially if Blair can be “persuaded” by his friends that the country still needs him. Andrea digs out Labour Party membership figures from time to time, but how many of these members are really active? Are there any constituencies where the Labour Party has simply ceased to exist?
For me as a Labour activist, the defining feature of this year’s NEC was not a left v Blairite tussle but a London v the world squabble over who gets to preen themselves in self-importance. The almost exclusively London based, self appointed grass roots alliance won because the rest of the world couldn’t care. The majority of the Labour party at grass roots sees composites and block vote and constitutional amendments and 1960s rhetoric as a throw back to days when activists aspired to having as little relevance to people’s every day lives as possible. They’ll always be a scattering of these people throughout the cities, in the Didsburys and Headingleys etc and in someways its reasuring that they do exist. Campaigning in elections for Labour would not be the same if there weren’t ‘activists’ desperate to campaign and fully prepared to help if only we would drop Wilson, Callaghan, Kinnock, Smith, Blair etcetera.
Having said all that, I have to admit that I broadly voted for the GA slate. I just felt that if I had to put up with them, so could Blair.
9.”For me as a Labour activist, the defining feature of this year’s NEC was not a left v Blairite tussle but a London v the world squabble over who gets to preen themselves in self-importance. The almost exclusively London based, self appointed grass roots alliance”
Ann Black is from Oxford, Azam is from Oldham and Gaye Johnston from Hyndburn. Christine Shawcroft has good London links (her time in Tower Hamlets), but she’s now based in Nottingham (secretary of Nottingham South CLP). So among the candidates just Wolfgang (Richmond Park CLP) and Pete Willsman (Erith & Thamesmead CLP) were just all London based.
6. “What’s perhaps interesting is that the ‘loyal’ slate can still pick up two seats out of six when the government and Blair are as unpopular as they are.”
I actually expected a 3-3 split among the two main slates. Wheeler has good trade unions links and I suppose Reeves was able to build a good network thanks to her days as CChair of Labour Students (she has trade union links too: she works as a trade union lawyer)
2. Innocent Abroad, Mrs Muggins photo can be seen here:
http://www.labour.org.uk/fileadmin/labour/user/About_Labour/NEC/0244_06_NEC-ALC_Voting_Guide_WEB.pdf
All election addresses are in that guide linked too. In some cases I think it’s not easy to guess what slate the candidate is it just reading the address. In other cases it’s easy.
4. “Was there much discussion on Falconer’s comments? Suggested to me the embryonic stages of a “Stay on for the election, Tony” campaign. After all, why is now not the time to change the Labour leader, but next year will be fine? ”
- I think there wasn’t much discussion, because well, it’s what someone can expect Byers to say. It’s like there wasn’t much discussion about Dobson and Short being on Sky asking Blair to go: they said what you expected them to say.
- I think it will be too difficult for TB to do that kind of U-Turn (fighting another election after having said he wouldn’t)
10. Further, neither Richmond nor Thamesmead are “real” London. Richmond’s out in the sticks and Thamesmead’s just full of dodgy ‘afordable housing’ than no one wants to live in.
I learn’t from this site that their most intellectual and appealing member of the NEC, Baldrick from Blackadder, left a couple of years ago.
Does this Dinosaur committee have any real power or is it just to try and give the membership a feeling of influence?
*affordable.
We really do need an editing facility.
13. DC, I think you must read Ann Black’s always useful NEC reports to understand what they now do:
http://www.annblack.com/nec_directory.htm
What is “real” London?
16. Zones 1 and 2.
The zone numbers go up to 2?
9. Actually it would be interesting to see if there was a geographical path in both votes and turnout (London being different from the rest of UK)
Fair enough. I’m biased but i think of London as anywhere within walking distance of an Underground station. (so Walter Wolfgang is probably not London).
13 - “I learn’t”
Does this mean you did learn or you did not learn?
20. I’m happy with that - it rules out Dulwich and Bromley.
21 - Short for I(’ve) learned that. I’ve learn’t today that learn’t is correct
23 - Oops. I’ve today learn’t learn’t is correct
So pedant is right. English grammer is very tricky.
Grammar
Andrea - Way up to your standard! :). First, a question: what is the overall composition of the NEC by sections? I know its structure has changed significantly since the goold old (pre Blair) days. I think the MPs (and MEPs?) elect three members but haven’t a clue about the rest. Presumably, overall, it is still staunchly pro leadership.
And talking of those good old days, as someone who lived through the internecine left-right struggles in the 1970s and 80s, what is so striking is how seemingly powerless is this reformed NEC compared to its predecessor. There was always intense media speculation whether the AUEW union, that swung decisively to the right in the late 1970s, would cast its 1 million or so block vote to oust those grizzly lefties like Joan Maynard (Stalin’s granny) and Judith Hart et al.
And those rigged disreputable elections had a real importance over party control. Now they get barely a mention.
27. John, the overall composition is:
- Leader (Tony)
- Deputy Leader (Prezza)
- Treasurer
- 3 governments place (now Gordon, McCartney and Blears)
- EPLP Leader (Gary Titley)
- Young Labour
- Division I (Trade Unions): 12 places
- Div II (Socialist Societies): 1 place
- Div III (CLPs): 6 places
- Div IV (Labour Councillors): 2 places (Jeremy Beecham and Sally Powell re-elected last month)
- Div V (PLP/EPLP): 3 places (Dennis Skinner, Angela Eagle and Michael Cashman elected in June)
28 - Andrea, Many thanks. Yep, a complete leadership stitch-up
On the London business, what is and what isn’t. Its where you send your local authority politicians. If Richmond councillors go to Kingston-on-Thames, its in Surrey, if they go to the GLA its in London: simple. Strangely Surrey is peculiar, under the old GLC Kingston-on-Thames reps. went to County Hall, even though Surrey County Council HQ is in Kingston-on-Thames. The reason that the Surrey County Hall is in Kingston and not Guildford (the county town). Is that the good burgers of Guildford wouldn’t put up the money for a County Council building, back in the ’20’s. Thats how it was, I seem to remember, been a few years since I lived there, so a bit hazy on detail.
30 - I don’t think that passes the Bromley test
Thanks for the article Andrea. Looks like labours biggest problem is appathy, and a rapidly declining membership base. The reverse of what is happening to the Conservatives who are gaining new members and new councilors all the time.
I wonder if labour will have either the troops or the money to fight nex time.
Andrea. Well done! I’m always amazed at your knowledge. Does anyone anywhere have ther same grasp of British party politics as you? I don’t think even on this site and there are some very well informed people here.
15- Thanks Andrea, an interesting insight in to this organisation.
21- I have the ability to create whole new tenses and phrases with the English langauge, just like Glen Hoddle!
30 - there are some pretty bizarre situations regarding county towns and administrative headquarters. In particular, Matlock is the administrative headquarters of Derbyshire. Reason, I believe, is that about 100 years, Derbyshire CC sold the county HQ for development, and bought a few fields in the middle of nowhere (or Matlock) for the new one. At least Matlock is in the local authority of Derbyshire CC.
One assumption that many, including the BBC, usually get wrong, is assuming that Canterbury is the county town of Kent. It is not, and never has been as far as I know. Canterbury is a small town / city (about the 15th biggest town in Kent) dominated by cathedral, and now the university. County Hall has always been in Maidstone.
30 - there are some pretty bizarre situations regarding county towns and administrative headquarters. In particular, Matlock is the administrative headquarters of Derbyshire. Reason, I believe, is that about 100 years, Derbyshire CC sold the county HQ for development, and bought a few fields in the middle of nowhere (or Matlock) for the new one. At least Matlock is in the local authority of Derbyshire CC.
One assumption that many, including the BBC, usually get wrong, is assuming that Canterbury is the county town of Kent. It is not, and never has been as far as I know. Canterbury is a small town / city (about the 15th biggest town in Kent) dominated by cathedral, and now the university. County Hall has always been in Maidstone.
If Bromley, like so many others tries to deny its in London its still in Kent. I don’t know Bromley well, but if you have a County Councillor in Maidstone, you are in Kent. If you’r rep. goes to the GLA you are in London. You wouldn’t have a rep on the GLA if you weren’t. If you have both, then I’m really, really confused.
Andrea, loved the comment about Philomena Muggins sounding like a Harry Potter character!
6. “The Labour Party is now far more Blairite than it was in 1994 - ……… This could cause problems in the future as was the case in the Conservatives when the party became more Thatcherite after she left than when she was in place.”
It’s not clear to me why this should be a problem for Labour. Thatcherism moved the Tories away from the centre where most Brits live. Blarism moved Labour towards the centre - which is where most Brits live. The change should stand labour in good stead.
Oh by the way, What defines the County Town is ‘The town chosen in each county to proclaim the death of the monarch and the assumption of his/her heir’ ‘not a lot of people know that’.
Good and very informative article Andrea - thanks.
I still find it amusing that in a 21st century, supposedly mass-membership party, that nearly 40% of the NEC seats are still reserved for trade union place-men, and only 1/3 of the votes in the election for Party Leader are for rank and file members.
No wonder the membership have been walking away in droves.
I agree Benedict - will they have the tropps to fight many of the key seats next time? I’m not so sure. What is the activist position like in the marginals? As you pointed out yesterday, one of the key success factors is a prefessional agent structure at local level - I doubt they can afford it any longer.
35 - They are probably getting confused with Canterbury being the County Ground of Kent
38. Snowlake, when I first mentioned her to Book Value, he replied back she was a fantasy name! And then I noticed that when the result came out, on various blogs there were people wondering if she was from Hogwarts.
The poor woman got 7982 voted and ended up in 14th place.
40. “As you pointed out yesterday, one of the key success factors is a prefessional agent structure at local level - I doubt they can afford it any longer”
Last year Petersborough’s Labour had an unpaid agent (so I suppose not a professional). At least it what the Venerable Helen claimed.
There’re still CLP and Con local associations that employs not professional as agents. A couple of MPs actually have themself as agents.
Labour First’s Peter Wheeler is actually Hazel Blears agent
Thanks for the link to the photos, Andrea - for some reason I thought Muggins was an Afro-Caribbean, but clearly she isn’t…
As to this London business, it’s really quite simple. London has postal districts - those parts of the Home Counties that fall under the GLA area have postcodes.
44. “those parts of the Home Counties that fall under the GLA area have postcodes….” - did you miss out the end of this sentence?
Anyway the debate was about “Real London”, not London!
The London Postal Districts do not coincide with the GLA.
[45] Oh, Real London - that’s inside the Circle line. BV’s on the wrong side of the river, for a start and I miss out by about fifty yards… the inimitable Sean T qualifies, though…
A very interesting article from Andrea, I also share your view that it is the decline in Labour’s base that it needs to worry about. Each day that Tony continues the base shrinks and Gordon risks inheriting a ship that has too many holes to fix.
Thanks also for insight into NEC structure, 6 places for the Members and 12 for the Unions….. Hardly encourages the Members to participate?
The point that David Herdson makes about the membership’s profile changing has a ring of truth, but what matters to Labour is its ability to campaign locally and all the signs from council elections are of a rapid decline in the base.
I do think you are right Andrea to conclude that Labour’s membership has reached a critical point in its willingness to support the party. Apathy is a phase that happens after Anger. The next stage is to withdraw from Membership and whilst Labour says (at NEC) that their membership decline has stabalised at just under 200,000, that has been achieved only through a massive programme of contacting lapsed members. 12 months time (with Blair) could see a fall.
If Gordon cannot engineer a quick change with the Members and unions cash, I dont see how anyone can think he is up to running the country.
47 - We’re building up a nice set of competing definitions for “Real London” here
Any more for any more?
40 and 43 - paid professional agents are vastly over-rated IMHO. Get a good one and they are worth their weight, but get an average or poor one and they are just a drain on resources.
What you really need is an experienced campaigner who can run the campaign for the candidate(s). That is where Cllrs often come into their own for the party. The Cllr cam become the focus for the campaign in their own ward. They also have wives/husbands and children who often help out. That is where Labour’s losses will bite hardest and the Conservative gains will tell.
Some defeated Cllrs will continue to fight in order to regain their seats but my experience of Lib Dems is that once you kick out their Cllrs their activity often crumbles. I think this is due to them often co-opting fairly non-political people to stand for them, who then have no deep ties to the party when they lose. This has been the case in Wokingham for example. In Sutton and Cheam I think the Lib Dems will find it much harder next time to get their message out now that the Conservatives have a majority of the Cllrs in the seat!
Labour is importing a new working class. The British working class were found to be ‘not fit for purpose’.
Meanwhile, Britain under Labour has become a madhouse.
Christians are arrested for making the sign of the cross and offending vampires. Attempted murders are not investigated and attackers the permitted to return and finish off the job.
It took 18yrs before the people trusted Labour again. They wont get a third chance.
51 - BTW it’s an interesting point about EU migration. Are the authorities taking any steps to enforce the integrity of the electoral roll? (which is shaky enough as it is). Will anyone really notice if half a million Poles and the rest decide they want to vote next time around?
[52] IIRC, EU nationals can vote in local elections. Doubtless someone will be able to quote chapter and verse before we’re all much older…
50.”What you really need is an experienced campaigner who can run the campaign for the candidate(s). That is where Cllrs often come into their own for the party. The Cllr cam become the focus for the campaign in their own ward. They also have wives/husbands and children who often help out. That is where Labour’s losses will bite hardest and the Conservative gains will tell.”
uhm, not sure if I’m following you….do Labour candidates not have helpful partners?!
RE 38 Snowflake, judging by some of your pronouncements you would be on the loony right of Thatcherite in many ways. Many of Labours policies can be viewed as right of center, for example its authoritarian attitude to law an order in terms of law past, and either left of center or just plain incompetant when it comes to enforcing any laws, for example the failure to even investigate the stabbing of the man who was later shot.
The fact that labour is filled with a combination of hard left and loony right people bodes well for the Conservatives.
RE 40, Robin, it was Ben Redsell who mentioned the loss of agents, not I.
53 - I was referring to the next General Election
54 - I assume Rik is just saying that one councillor is worth several extra bodies on the ground.
[57] I suppose the extra bodies on the ground are yet more evidence of Labour’s incompetence at law enforcement, eh, Benedict?
55 oops. Will he forgive me?!
58 - Mike, You’ll turn into Basil Brush if you’re not careful. Boom Boom!
[60]
Does it really matter if Labour loses membership? Unlike the Tories and Libdems, the Labour Party has a fall-back position.
The unions provide plenty of manpower (and cash) at general elections. Moreover, much of that manpower is professional and salaried. It can therefore be relied upon to support the campaign, regardless of personal preferences.
Frankly, Labour might be better off without those pesky little CLP’s.
Re: 50 yes a good councillor can suffice if they can spare the time.
On the point about how Lib Dem councillors fail to get back in, I would add that the Lib Dems typically have a smaller membership base than their main rival. So their ability to bounce back is much reduced.
57. Later I’ll look at the councillors breakdown in London marginals (they’ll go into the next election with this council base- except byelections).
I’ve started to look at it some months ago, but then I got busy wirh something else and I didn’t continue it.
But here’s some situations:
Brent North: Lab 17 councillors, Con 10
Hampstead and Kilburn: LD 20, Con 9, Lab 1 Ealing Central and Acton: Con 17, Lab 4, LD 3
Ealing North: Con 15, Lab 9
Enfield North: Con 14, Lab 5, LD 2
Harrow East: Con 16, Lab 11
Harrow West: Lab 13, Con 13, LD 1
Islington South: Lab 13, LD 11 (Lab had 0 councillors in the run up of 2005 GE)
Hammersmith: Con 16, Lab 13
Westminster North: Con 18, Lab 12
62 - At the next election Labour are presumably going to be needing a fair number of “shock results” to hold back the tide. And you don’t get (positive) shock results in seats where the campaign is being managed (and given support) centrally. You can have as many salaried union officials as you want, but are they really going to be much use campaigning in seats about which they have limited local knowledge?
64.”Enfield North: Con 14, Lab 5, LD 2″
2 isn’t for the LDs but for the Save Chase Farm thing.
Well the situation as to what makes London London is confusing. We have to now accept that the county is a political entity and not a geographical one: I know this is going to start an argument.
As far as London is concerned, it goes back to the early sixties, 1961? when the Macmillan Government got fed up with the LCC always being dominated by Labour. So they created the GLC to bring in the ‘blue’ outer boroughs, too even things up. They made a miscalculation, Labour still had enough votes to win the GLC. This led to the ‘Red Ken’ period and the GLC’s abolition. Labour on its return to power created the GLA. Postal areas, I don’t think are relevant. The reason I think we have to accept the political entity argument, is Peter Walker’s ‘ Local Government Act 1974′ (probably the worse piece of legislation in history) this destroyed geography as a basis for ‘where you were’. The classic was Bournemouth, Bournemouth was always in Hampshire, Dorset had insufficient ratepayers, the County line was redrawn, Bournemouth ended up in Dorset. Bournemouth and Poole were a few years ago redefined as a unitary authority, so they are not in either? Dorset lost 40% of its council taxpayers in one swoop. Mention that act to any one from Yorkshire and watch them go purple. Mention it to any one from Rutland, and I can’t answer for the consequences.
Grazie, Andrea. Good ammunition.
On behalf of SeanT, who is in Spain and unable to post this personally, here’s Sean’s latest thoughts:
49. Inimitable, moi? Thankyou. I certainly am inside the Circle Line. I think I might be the last novelist in Fitzrovia. A bit like being the last coalminer in Ebbw Vale, or the last clockmaker in Clerkenwell. Then again, there may be some little-known belle-lettrists lurking the other side of Great Portland Street, so I could be wrong.
Anyway, back to Andrea’s intriguing post on the Labour party, and its membership. In response to this, and to NickP’s revealing breakdown of the types of people who inhabit the Tory party, I thought I’d do the same for Labour.
So here it is. Apologies for the length of this post. Bank Holiday prolixity.
As far as I can tell, the kind of people who actively support New Labour tend to be:
1. Proper idealists who aren’t mad. I’d say about 10-15% of the modern Labour party is made up of nice, pleasant, informed, well-adjusted people who are simply idealistic, if a little naive, and think a sacrifice in freedom is worth the gain in equality. Bless.
2. Single issue obsessives - i.e. animal rights activists, femiNazis, Islamist fellow travellers, etc. These cranks and freakydeaks believe the world is structured precisely so as to persecute them, or their favoured cause, and no one and nothing else suffers as much. They fail to notice the suffering of others, they are sociopaths, in other words. In recent years numbers of these have been peeling off to Respect, the Lib Dems, but the Labour party, even in its present shrunken state, still boasts many thousands of these unappetising dweebs.
3. Related to the previous category. When they were lads or lasses these people had an epiphany which led them to believe the world was unfair, and unfair to them in particular. John Prescott is a prime example of this kind of unsavoury twerp - still kvetching about the bike his grammar-school bound brother got, which he didn’t. The trouble with these people is that their sense of victimhood leads them to believe they can do what they like when they grow up - as a kind of repayment for the unfairness. They therefore tend to be amoral, and deeply embarrassing. Prescott, again, springs to mind.
4. The haters. These are the equivalent of the racists in the Tory party (I’d say there are many more haters on the left, these days, than racists on the right). The haters on the left tend to hate Britain, God, America, Israel, white people. This is almost certainly because they hated their fathers, the embodiment of power, and they also, deep down, hate themselves because of this. An anti-white people, anti-Britain, anti-American party like Labour is the obvious place for these people, though again the Lib Dems have put in a bid for the contract. Often these people are religiously Europhile, or excessively pro-immigration, consciously believing these to be sensible ideals; subconsciously they believe in these things because they want to dissolve Britain and Britishness.
5. Lying careerists. These are men and women with no great principles and a matching lack of talents (apart from a certain plausibility). These people go into politics, “showbiz for ugly people”, because they see it as the best way to power, riches and fame for untalented ambitious liars like themselves. Every party has these - David Cameron is possibly one, we shall have to wait and see. But perhaps because the rest of the Labour party is largely made up of such weirdoes, saddos and creeps, people too ugly and boring to be voted for by sensible electors, this government is producing a particularly fine crop at Cabinet level. The elite of the Labour party consists almost entirely of lying careerists, Byers, Jowett, Mandelson, Robinson etc etc being prime examples.
Not forgetting, of course, our beloved Prime Minister.
Copies of this analysis, with ancillary data, can be emailed to Labour party constituency offices, if they send me £50. Thankyou.
69- Very entertaining!
Bit harsh on Robinson.
54 - Andrea they do! Its just that often when a Cllr is defeated they fade away, their families as well. However, Labour and Tories seem to be more resilient when defeated than Lib Dems.
57 - exactly
64 - Andrea - I can save you some work:
Sutton & Cheam - Cons 14 ; LD 13
Carshalton & Wallington - LD 19 ; Cons 8
54 - Andrea they do! Its just that often when a Cllr is defeated they fade away, their families as well. However, Labour and Tories seem to be more resilient when defeated than Lib Dems.
57 - exactly
64 - Andrea - I can save you some work:
Sutton & Cheam - Cons 14 ; LD 13
Carshalton & Wallington - LD 19 ; Cons 8
67 - stonecold - as someone who hails from Bournemouth with relatives in Rutland I agree wholeheartedly! It is another reason for my loathing of that useless bag of flab otherwise known as Edward Heath!
55. “Snowflake, judging by some of your pronouncements you would be on the loony right of Thatcherite in many ways.”
LOL. Which pronouncements exactly? My opposition to abolishing stamp-duty on shares (because it removes a stream of income from international investors to the treasury)? My pro-Europeanism? My being in favour of free movement of people? My assertion that people in Britain are better off tax-wise than in other countries? My support of the NHS?
I think I’m centrist in the grand scheme of things, and in the Brownist camp of Labour, socially liberal, for free markets, not ideological about either tax cuts or spending (both are viewed as neutral tools of government). I more pro-European than Brown though, and prefer Blair here. I’m not keen on wars, so to the left of Blair there.
You on the other hand often sound like a Lib Dem.
Genuine question, why did you join the Tories rather than the Lib Dems?
Forget about Walter Wolfgang for the moment, what about that other famous heckler, Mr Duffy? Check out this site to follow the unfolding story!
http://www.vote-2006.co.uk/index.php?topic=21.165
67. Re. the 1974 act, total agreement about its ‘merits’ or rather the lack of them. Re. Dorset in particular, one reason Bournemouth was shoved out of Hanmpshire into Dorset was that the boundary between Poole (always in Dorset) and Bournemouth had become indiscernable - the two towns appeared to be merging into a single conurbation. The addition of Christchurch, further east still was I think due to it being linked electorally with Bournmouth East at the time, but otherwise had little logic.
When both towns were included in the County Council (DCC) framework, there was a fair bit of grumbling from elsewhere in the county that the interests of ‘the conurbation’ had become dominant - so the creation of separate unitary authorities for Poole and Bournemouth has lanced this boil to some extent. Weirdly though, Christchurch continues to send members to DCC.
Andrea: as a Tory activist I can’t get worked up about Labour’s internal elections (deckchairs:Titanic). But I did want to say you are a boon to this site and some Labour MP should hire you as a researcher. Thanks for the piece and for all you do. C.
Thanks for that Fred. I wonder when ‘Bournemouth, Poole’ will do a ‘Brighton and Hove’ and go for City status.
Where is London? Well, the GLC wasn’t sure. Under the hegemony of Red Ken (as the press then called Mr Livingstone) the GLC was actually run by a bunch of northern socialists who tended to live at various spots on the Northern Line. Unremarkably, though unfairly, the distribution of GLC grants also ran north and south, with good Labour boroughs in East and West London at either end of the District Line, like Newham and Barking & Dagenham, receiving nothing.
Could it be that the NEC election turnout was so low because Labour actually has far fewer paid up members than it claims?
69. That is quite possibly the funniest post I’ve ever read on this site. If Bank Holidays induce this stuff then maybe we should fall in line with the French and have a few more.
69 proxy commentator, made me smile. “lying careerists….” probably less than 1% of its Membership.
To be fair 80% of the Members are decent nice people.
78. The idea has been mooted in the past…but after the recent arguments about the new parliamentary boundaries (which cut across the old town boundaries) I wonder if there isn’t a bit of local particularism bubbling up again in the area.
abc at 51 - lol. There’s been a big swing to Labour among vampires since Michael Howard stepped down. We look after our voters, y’know.
A very good analysis by andrea, as we’ve come to expect, and I also agree with most of David Herdson’s comments. A couple of additional comments:
- Voting in the NEC constituency election is hard work, and although there are clearly other factors this has to be a major reason for the annually repeated low turnout. You get 20 or so names, most of whom I’ve never heard of (I’m sure the same is true for most members). You then have three choices: (1) Read the 20 election statements: it’ll take you an hour or so (2) Vote for whoever you’ve heard of (3) Shrug and chuck it in the bin. The candidate are not conveniently identified in competing lists - you have to study their statements and work it out. I dutifully worked through it and voted; my wife, a lifelong Labour supporter, simply didn’t bother.
- It’s certainly true that activist members are thinner on the ground than they used to be (my impression is that this was true of all parties last year, hence the huge expenditure on phone canvassing and direct mail). At the GE, I had around 100 active helpers (i.e. people who would regularly deliver leaflets and/or canvass), of whom 50 were not party members, and in between elections it’s about half that. Some of them are personal supporters; others are Labour supporters who can’t afford the membership fee or simply don’t want to bother with branch meetings and such. In 1997 I’d guess the figure was more like 150, and they were nearly all party members. Although membership has stopped falling, there are a lot of people who prefer a more detached relationship, helping when they feel like it but not bombarded with stuff like regular members.
That said, we are still outnumbering the Tory activists on the ground by a large margin. There has been virtually no visible Tory activity in marginal Broxtowe since the General Election, except when we had two council by-elections (which they did fight hard), while we’re currently distributing our third more or less constituency-wide newsletter since then. In large chunks of the constituency, e.g. the whole of the towns of Stapleford and Kimberley, most people have never heard from the Tories between elections since 2001 (they had one active guy in each in 1997-2001: both have given up). That may change now they’ve got a PPC, but I don’t think they have the capacity to put out a newsletter between elections to most households except by paying for commercial delivery. Whether this absence of local profile makes much difference is, of course, an interesting question!
Of course TB isn’t going to fight the next election, btw. I wouldn’t be against it, but he won’t.
80 “Could it be that the NEC election turnout was so low because Labour actually has far fewer paid up members than it claims? Camulodunum”
I doubt it but I they are much less engaged than the Tories. 35,000 Labour NEC Vs 200,000 that the Tories leadership achieved.
Does Labour have a better automatic reneal system for payments than the Tories which might explain why Labour are keeping their “official” membership numbers up at 200,000 as people overlook cancelling their bank arrangements? Whereas the reality is that real membership is a lot lower?
81. I shall pass on your compliments to SeanT! - who is at present en route from Extremadura.
Correction
Are they much less engaged than the Tories? 35,000 Labour NEC Vs 200,000 that the Tories leadership achieved.
84. “Of course TB isn’t going to fight the next election, btw”
Indeed, it’s a nice theory though.
Incidentally, Nick - do you have a view on Alex’s point at 4? If this isn’t a good time to change leader, then why will next year be? Or the year after? What exactly is the point in Blair still occupying Number 10 when everyone’s just staring at their watches and wondering when the big announcement will be?
(P.S. I’m quite proud of composing that last paragraph without using the word “duck”)
81. You think the comment at 69 is a joke? I think he uses humour to describe what makes up NuLab.
From my own observations, I could only say that 15-20% of Labour supporers are patriots. The ‘haters’ categories is by far the largest share of Labour support at about 75%; anti-English, anti-white, anti-male, pro gypsy, pro unlimited immigration, pro feminist, I could go on ….. These people have absolutely no reasoning powers to accommodate the groups they hate, whereas at least the Tories, English Democrats, UKIP and others encourage women, minorities and DDA people to join their ranks.
Labour stinks of, and is saturated with the same Anglophobic white hating scum we were led to believe Labour dumped in 1994. Blair (I mean Bliar) was the mask to hide it and used a Zionist to market him in return for the illegal war against Iraq.
We should remember how party membership has declined in this country. In 1954 the Tory party, claimed 2.8million members, Labour 800,000. This confirms me in my view, that the political party is in terminal decline. The growth of IT, Electronic Media,the Web will make it an irrelevance. Can there be a bigger waste of time, than banging on doors, or putting leaflets through letter boxes. ‘Oh I’m so glad you called, the scales have dropped from my eyes, I was thinking of voting for the other lot, but you’ve totally convinced me not too,’ Or ‘I’ve just read, the Lab/Con/Libdem leaflet, thank God I did, if I hadn’t I might have made a dreadful mistake and voted for the wrong party’. More likely’P**s Off! I’m watching Emmerdale’
89 Francis……….
If Labour was 75% anti-white then as they are 90% white they presumably are all self loathing?
Be realistic it is only a few %.
84.”Voting in the NEC constituency election is hard work, and although there are clearly other factors this has to be a major reason for the annually repeated low turnout. You get 20 or so names, most of whom I’ve never heard of (I’m sure the same is true for most members). You then have three choices: (1) Read the 20 election statements: it’ll take you an hour or so (2) Vote for whoever you’ve heard of (3) Shrug and chuck it in the bin. The candidate are not conveniently identified in competing lists - you have to study their statements and work it out. I dutifully worked through it and voted; my wife, a lifelong Labour supporter, simply didn’t bother. ”
yes, Nick, fair point.
And I start from that observation to reach two points I put in the main piece:
- the better organization of Grassroots Alliance. I think they did a better job to make sure their supporters knew who their candidates were and to make their supporters in CLPs to propose them for CLP nominations (Black, Shawcroft and Willsman got more than 100 CLPs to nominate them)
- the final part about fighting Brown and co not being the same of fighting Fitzsimons. I think that the difference in the Brown, Reid, Johnson profile compared to Lorna’s one is much higher than the difference between McDonnell and Christine Showcroft.
(btw, it’s easy to figure out the Grassroots Alliance candidates. Wolfgang’s statement had the “My approach is shared by the other Grassroots Alliance Candidates: Mohammed Azam, Ann Black, Gaye Johnston, Christine Shawcroft, Peter Willsman” part, Willsman had ” Please also support Azam, Black, Johnston, Shawcroft, Wolfgang”, Shawcroft had “Please also support Mohammed Azam, Ann Black, Gaye Johnston, Peter Willsman, and Walter Wolfgang”, Black had “I shall also vote for Azam, Johnston, Shawcroft, Wolfgang and Willsman”
On the Labour First, Bill Thomas had “If elected, I and my colleagues Azhar Ali, Lorna Fitzsimons, Philomena Muggins, Ellie Reeves and Peter Wheeler will be the bedrock of that support but also recognise the role of being `critical friends’)
Are the unions getting ready for a move on Blair?
from BBC
“The Transport and General Workers Union (T&G) says it is joining Amicus, Unison and the GMB to host a congress fringe meeting entitled “new leader, new agenda”.” dated Friday…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5286718.stm
64 Eltham (new boundaries)
Con 11, Lab 8, Lib Dem 2
28 I note that there are two MEPs and two non-government MPs. Doesn’t this exaggerate the significance of Strasbourg viz a viz Westminster?
What exactly does the NEC do?
National Executive Committee
The work of the NEC
The National Executive Committee is the governing body of the Labour Party that oversees the overall direction of the party and the policy-making process. It carries out this role by setting strategic objectives on an annual basis and meeting regularly to review the work of the party in these areas.
All members of the NEC are members of the National Policy Forum. This body oversees the development of party policy through a rolling programme of policy development. Throughout the year, NEC members participate with government ministers in Labour Party policy commissions that prepare reports on different areas of policy which are then presented to and consulted on with the party membership before going to annual conference. This forms the basis of Labour’s general election manifesto. In order to maximise the participation of all party members in this process, one of the current objectives of the NEC is the holding of local policy forums throughout the country. During the last rolling programme over 40,000 members took part in these events.
The NEC also has a number of specialist committees and task groups and is responsible for upholding the rules of the party and propriety of Labour selection processes.
Basically it seems, not much.
89: Well, francis, most of us are against xenophobes and anti-semites, if that’s any help to your subtle analysis.
88: alex, my argument for a late change has always been the pragmatic one that there will be a significant market for ‘fresh start under new leader’, and if we change too soon it gives the media time to grind the new leader down and erode the bonus. In terms of actual policy I don’t really care whether the handover is in 2007 (it won’t be before) or 2008 (it won’t be later).
So on the NEC these 12 union members and 4 (of 6) GLA party members agreed the foundation hospitals?
Did they actually have any say in it?
Snowflake and NickP?
97 - I thought as much. Or rather I thought as not much!
I presume that despite the Treasurer being an NEC member, they don’t go through the party finances in much detail…?
91. HF The ‘Hater’ category is 75% which includes white haters. The largest section are Anglophobes.
96. yes, now their power is very much reduced compared to many years ago.
IIRC the endorsement of all GE candidates passes through the NEC. Usually not a controversial issue, but in mid 90’s Liz Davies was rejected after having being selected for one of the Leeds seats (she then became a NEC member!). Last year there were problems with Linda Riordan (the Halifax candidates): the NEC selection panel proposed to refuse the endorsememt, but then the whole NEC voted for the endorsement (12 to 8 with Baldrick abstaining)
91. What would be surprising about many of NuLab’s leading lights being self-loathing? it’s a very common psychological condition and the symptoms are alarmingly present in many senior NuLab figures. The voters are quite a different matter of course.
98. Nick, your Labour party is full of zenophobes. Anti semitism is not as simple as being anti-Jewish, it includes being anti-Arab, anti-Islam, of which your Labour government sanctioned a war against an Islamic country. Zionism is by far the biggest form of racism and supremacy known to mankind, yet the Labour party condones and actively supports it. Zionism uses deception to displace one’s own faults onto others, a tactic your fiercely anti-English party uses time and time again. I just hope your party gets wiped out. By the way many Jews are not Zionists and are ashamed of Israel’s actions in Lebanon. Please get your facts right and dump the spin.
102- He was prepairing the Turnip Surprise…
104 - Oh dear, Oh dear
SeanT writes from Duty Free in Barajas Airport:
91. Indeed. I think self-loathing is almost emblematic of leftwing thinking, and liberal-lefties in general. People who are ‘comfortable in their skin’ tend to be well-adjusted, happier individuals - people who, necessarily, see no great immediate need to change the world drastically (though they might sincerely wish to ameliorate the sufferings of the poor, etc). These people therefore tend to be conservative, rather than revolutionary. This is construed as ’selfishness’ by the Left, whereas it is possibly just ‘contentment’.
Conversely, people who are deeply unhappy with themselves, are therefore unhappy the world as it is: and therefore wish to revolutionise things, to change a world in which they feel so maladjusted.
This also explains why, compared to the right, many more people on right are personally unattractive, and why so many of the more boring earnest types gravitate to the left. They hope to make the world like them more, by changing it. They generally fail.
The Herbert Commission, which recommended the structure of Greater London, sat from 1957-60.
The idea that it was a “gerrymander” is a classic exampple of political hyperbole which took off. After all why on earth would Harold MacMillan have annoyed his county and borough councils in Bromley by bringing them into London?
The 1889 LCC boundary was that originally defined by the Metropolitan Board of Works, coterminous with the current twelve inner London Boroughs and mainly carved out of shire Middlesex with parts of Surrey and Kent.
Governments everywhere are wary of strong local government in Capital cities: hence Paris being run by commissioners until the 1980s and the unusual structure that operates in Washington DC today.
In 1900 the 28 Metropolitan Boroughs were created under the LCC.
However even by then, London’s local governemnt boundaries were an anamoly.
West and East Ham were excluded, the county boundary (london/Middlesex) ran down the middle of Kilburn High Road and along Finsbury Park.
Neither London Transport, the Met or the post codes followed the LCC boundary. There were over 100 local authorities in what is now Greater London, ranging from 3 County Boroughs to miniscule Urban Districts within the main Metropolis and so some adjusted arrangement was necessary. There was only one authority in London created by the 1963 Act that exists entilrely on and only on its former boundaries - Harrow.
In fact, Herbert proposed expanding the boundraies out to roughly what is now the M25. It also proposed more and smaller Boroughs, retaining Wembley, Willesden and Ilford for example as single authorities.
The Govrnment settled on roughly the Met Police area and so the legislation progressed. If one were gerrymandering from a Conservative point of view then it would have been better to expand much further outwards. Barking, Dagenham, East Ham, West Ham, Erith, Feltham etc were hardly Conservative strongholds. Middlesex CC was actually quite marginal changing hands regularly.
Certainly the GLC was more marginal than the LCC, in fact too marginal as it changed hands in every election except that of 1970!
Indeed had the LCC still existed the Conservtives would have certainly won it in 1967 and probably in 1977.
It has to be says that Labour were themselves critical of the Labour Group on the old LCC - ran for years as a personal fiefedom by Sir Isaac Hayward and Mrs Freda Corbett MP. In act Michael Foot once described the LCC in incredibly scathing terms. They had a history of squashing dissent and expelling any alternative voices.
For the 1964 GLC elections many of the old guard were dropped and the Labour leader desgignate (William Fisk) fought Havering as a symbol of change and his deputy (Tom HIggins) was from Ealing. Sir Isaac, having declined to stand sought an Aldermanic seat on the new GLC and was humiliated by the Labour Party.
I’m sure SeanT and francis speak speak for all God fearing Anglo Saxons on this site and we should be grateful to them for being so succinct. Lets hear no more of Gypsies Blacks Women Gays and Lefties.
Long live the Queen!
Re 58, Innocent Abroad, Why yes of course, I blame everything bad on them.
09 Roger,
Why stop the debate now? It was your beloved Labour Party that introduced all of the political correctness, anglophobia, anti-white racism, etc.,, etc. into the country in a calculated way hoping to do as much damage to the white man as is possible.
Re 67, Stonecold, I agree that the 1974 LGA was for peoples sense of place a disaster. You can’t just create or mangle counties like that. They are what they are for historical reasons.
I can’t think of an upside to the act, perhaps some one else can?
SeanT, balancing his beer on a plate of patatas bravas, says:
109. Roger, didn’t you compare Israelis with ‘wild animals’ during the recent conflict there? And didn’t you say you had finally renounced your support for NuLabour precisely because of Blair’s support for Israel?
Strikes me that you have a lot in common with Francis’s worldview. You are both passionate anti-Zionists, for a start. Or am I misconstruing you?
13. I am not anti-Israeli, nor anti-Semetic. Israel has as much right to exist as any other country, however I oppose all forms of racial or national supremacy. I am complaining about Zionism because it is a form of supremacy which seeks to take over the world by deception and/or force. Militant Islam appears to be just the same, but often it is in reaction to Zionism.
104: You are obviously some sort of foreigner, francis (but welcome in our country, of course): true patriots know how to spell xenophobe. Zenophobia is an irrational fear of warrior princesses.
A toast to francis and SeanT and all the other beautiful people of the ‘right’. The rest of us can just look and hope they point a little of their gorgeousness in our direction.
115 - Er, surely that’s Xenaphobia?
RE 74, Snowflake I was thinking of your former rubber stampimg of anything market driven, seemed to me a bit of a let them eat cake attitude.
Why the Conservatives rather than the Lib Dems? See:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/06/youre-intelligent-chap-ben-why-do-you.html
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/06/ok-ben-howcome-you-ended-up-tory-as-68.html
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-it-mendacity-or-double-think-on.html
and also:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-are-functions-of-state.html
Which shows what I think the priorities of government are and in what order. They sort of preclude me being a liberal Democrat, because I would for example put social cohesion way ahead of unlimited immigration.
15. Nick
I am no foreigner. Just happened the hit the z button (right next the x button) by mistake. By the way, I’m English through and through. At least I put my country first. You put every other nation first before England and I really hope your Labour party pays the ultimate electoral price for it. Labour does not even recognise England as a country.
99. HF, I think the NEC makes policy only in opposition. In govt, the Cabinet makes policy. Also, I think, that while in opposition, the NEC elected/selected shadow cabinet members, but this power of course switched to the PM when the party entered govt. Not completely sure what the role of the NEC is when the party is in govt I’m afraid! I think it’s just admin, organisational issues and so on. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me will confirm.
Roger, are you, or are you not, “passionately anti-Zionist”? I mean, calling Israelis “wild animals”, if that’s what you did, seems a tad vehement?
118. Benedict, I’m not ideological. I’m in favour of markets where I think they will work, and not in favour, where I think they won’t work. eg I’m in favour of the market in higher education as I think that students are pretty shrewd about making assessments of their abilities, their future prospects and which courses are worth spending money on. I’m not in favour of private healthcare - I don’t think the market works in health because sick people are vulnerable, too ill to think clearly, and irrational (from a cost point of view) in that they will pay absolutely anything to get well and worry about the credit card costs later, - which is why they need govt to negotiate costs with pharamaceuticals etc. Health costs are low in britain compared to everywhere else, because a rational govt is in charge, rather than irrational patients who get fleeced by providers, as you see everywhere else.
Thanks Andrea a most informative piece. Hope the photo doesnt do you justice I thought you were younger but perhaps in Italy….
When did the NEC last do anything significant - the tendancy of the Labour party to allow their leaders to do whatever they want is a serious failing.
The idea of being in a party as a career move should not be underestimated. It is a problem that has grown because of the long periods of government seen in the past twenty five plus years. It has also been exacerbated by parties positioning themselves closer than previously seemed imaginable on the political spectrum.
There is a telling line from Alan Bennett’s wonderful play ‘The History Boys’ spoken by one of the main characters regarding their career as an adviser. They are asked about how they got into politics and reply ‘whose in politics? I’m in government’. The power is more importnat than the principle and, as you can see from posters here, the principles are out of thw window in order to keep a hold on the power that they have gained.
This now is hitting labour hard, firstly because the faint hearts are drifting away as the potential for power decreases, secondly because those who seek future power are less likely to join a party that is likely to be powerless for more than a decade.
Post Thatcher conservatives found that their ideological shift had left a party out of touch with its historical roots, it is only now that Cameron seems to be reaching back beyond that and towards its natural centre. This is the problem now facing labour, having left its roots so clearly and dramatically, does it try and make a complete (and no doubt bloody) break, or does it reach a compromise position with its past?
Parties cannot change as quickly as has been attemnpted by both parties without ramifications. The tories have had to confront this and now its labour’s turn.
120.”NEC elected/selected shadow cabinet members”
I think it was the PLP who elected the Shadow Cabinet back when Labour was in opposition.
UKpaul, 124, surely the last line should read - “The Labour Party has had to confront this and now it is the Tory’s turn.”
100.”I presume that despite the Treasurer being an NEC member, they don’t go through the party finances in much detail”
From Ann Black’s July report:
“However the NEC is personally liable for the debts, so it is in our interests to trust each other and ensure that all NEC members are involved in important financial and political decisions.”
So if they continue not to go throught party finances in much details, they’ll all to personally pay for the party’s debts