Over at Normblog, Alan Johnson of Labour Friends of Iraq after having a justified rant about apologists for the London bombers, asks a number of interesting questions.

He’s talking to “the community of bloggers that cluster around HP / Engage / normblog / Labour Friends of Iraq“, and I’d count myself as one of those, admittedly usually a rather silent one.

So far, so good: I’ve signed the Unite Aginst Terror statement, I’m a member of LFIQ, I’ve earned my spears in battle with the SWPers and shouted at the radio when some idiot blames Israel; this is making me angry with the apologists, but not challenging me so far.

Then something happens that makes me a bit queasy:

“Now, with words that will lose me my last remaining friends, I guess, let me say this. I agree with every word of Blair’s speech. It’s a bloody marvellous speech. Just what needed to be said. I could hardly say much else, could I?”

Maybe it’s brave for an anti-war Labour member like Alan to admit to this; certainly it’s not fashionable. I hope that I’m not as closed-minded as to dismiss anything that TB says because it’s him saying it. I certainly believe that by staying an active member of the Labour party and putting myself up as a candidate for that party, I have demonstrated that I’ll run with what Labour do right (which they do the vast majority of the time), and make clear my objection when they go wrong. (And just because he may be right on this, doesn’t mean that I’ve forgiven him for Iraq, or, for that matter, for privatisation, a rightwing immigration agenda and selling off council housing.)

But I question the use of Unite against Terror if it is to become a cheerleading squad for government policy. I got involved with LFIQ precisely because it offered another way for those of us who opposed the war, but don’t believe that pulling out of Iraq right now does any service to those struggling for democracy there - if you like, a middle ground between pro-Islamists and uncritical cheerleaders for Bush and Blair.

I’m lucky enough to have a great bunch of real-world friends to argue these issues through with, Dan, Jo and Tamanou, and what I’m saying is unashamedly influenced by them, particularly by this post at Trees for Labour.

I don’t think that it is apologising for the terrorists to say clearly that I do think that the war in Iraq contributed to a situation where the events of the 7th become a possibility, in that the mobilisation against the war played a part in radicalising young Muslims. The blame for the tragedy undoubtedly lies with the bombers and those who trained, equipped and encouraged them.

So, what were these questions? They’re here in full, and certainly the answer to many of them must surely be because we spend too much time talking to each other and not enough time talking to people whose views we might sway but who at the moment are just getting their opinions unchallenged from the large variety of apologist mouthpieces. The most interesting question is this:

• Why has the Labour Party stopped doing politics? If it’s because the party goes to sleep in government, well, listen up… It’s. Not. The. Normal. One. Term. Deal. Loosen up. Speak out, give interviews, write columns, organise vigils. Wake Up!

Firstly, I think you’re doing the party members a slight disservice. As a student, finding out about politics, I was involved in campaigns about student funding, against our local asylum detention centre, for LGB and women’s rights. I joined the Labour party because in each of those campaigns, the people who were most active and who I was most inspired by were Labour party members.

And that’s still the case - in Oxford at least, which is where I know best. Labour members propping up the credit union and the Close Campsfield Campaign and the local trades council and 1001 other local campaigns and committees. Yes, we’ve forgotten how to campaign as a party except around elections, but we created that party by our desire to win those elections. We told ourselves that “discipline” and “restraint” and “loyalty” and accepting leaders and policies that weren’t quite good enough, well, those were sacrifices that were worth making. Which another reason why the adulation of TB seems odd to me, because he’s the architect of that emasculation of local CLPs, and a policy that seeks to re-engage members with reasoned political debate and the struggle for democracy needs to reach out to those very people that some pro-war leftists profess to despise - the members and no-longer members who are still furious with TB.

So I guess I’ve come full circle. Is praise of TB the right tactic to win the support of those we need to? And politically, given the diversity of views on other issues, not least the war, from which LFIQ members come, is it right? And when, in all the criticism then praise of TB and the praise then criticism of Ken, are we going to realise there is no wonderful leader on a white charger who will show us the way? That it’s always going to be up to us?

Okay, so having got that off my chest, now I’d better get out for the evening shift for today’s bye-election.