Talking to the Tories
A few weeks ago, I said (quoting Newer Labour) this:
Unity is the most important quality of any political party, and the Blairites stand, increasingly, against it.
Some people in the comments were quite cross.
But today, I see this: Blair ‘talking direct to Tories’ to save bill
So, to the commenters, if, in this thread, you advocate expelling Kate Hoey for talking to the Tories about hunting, what then should we do to a Prime Minister who talks to them about education?
(I, in fact, advocate expelling neither, but I’m interested in what others think.)
I had a quick read of that Guardian article - and it doesn’t seem that there’s anything in it at all to suggest that Blair is “talking direct” to the Tories to “save” the Education Bill - unless you count answering the questions he answered at the Dispatch Box today.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t push Kate Hoey out either (certainly not before Bob Marshall-Andrews, anyway), but if she wanted to cross the Floor, I sure wouldn’t stand in her way …
Its a difficult one, cos, and I hate to admit this even to myself, but Kate Hoey is an easier target! That said I advocate expelling neither, but I think Hoey should be disiplined. With regards to the Prime Minister he is nearly at the end of his time as PM anyway, so his position is possibly rather academic
thing is this with Mr Blair he may or may not get his Bill through with Tory support.
Hoey on the other hand is the head of an organisation that actively sought to remove Labour MPs from office at the 2005 election and whose membership and supporters assaulted Labour MPs.
There is a world of difference between Mr Blair and the education bill and actively trying to undermine the very future of your government in office which is what Hoey is up to and has been for sometime.
Hey Antonia
Posted on the Simon Hughes thread then realised I was a month out of date! I’m a bit slow on the uptake of these things…
Kate Hoey seems just a bit two-faced to me. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. But then, I’m not Blair’s greatest fan at the moment either…
Like the site - nice to see you!
This can be handled very easily. Labour MPs - and activists and supporters - can simply ask themselves if they would vote for the Education Bill if it was being proposed by a Tory government. If the answer is no, then they should vote against it, or at least abstain.
If there is to be a change of direction in this respect we must first of all keep the show on the road. I am afraid that lurching to the left (however thrilling) will either lead to us ending up in a ditch or in a political cul-de-cac. Better to compromise with the other passengers (even if they are less enlightened) and gently steer them in a leftwards direction.
If this means pandering, to some extent, to their Thatcherised mentality regarding some of the things you dislike about the Education Bill and other public service reforms . so be it. At least you are then still likely to be in a position to edge them in the other direction ( through changes to the school curriculum. work-life balance measures, advertising controls, a rising minimum wage, Surestart, reducing the gender gap at work etc, etc).
Not as exciting as campaigning for a government defeat, I agree, but much more worthwhile in the long run , nevertheless.
What you must consider is that any PM will talk to the opposition to try and convince them to give their support to a bill. I doubt you can find one PM who hasn’t spoken to the opposition about at least one bill. It’s a part of politics as there will be occasions when the Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Lib Dems will go and speak to the PM about a Bill and talk about what they want to see in it and listen to what the PM thinks of their views and why he wants them to support the bill (for example the terrorism bill I believe Howard and Kennedy spoke to Blair). This is expected. However the PM didn’t stand on a platform in front of Countryside Alliance members after some had attacked Labour Members and so I don’t think the same argument can be said.
From what Tony has said over the past months on this issue in PMQs (as Cameron talks about it EVERY week) he doesn’t seem to be relying on Tory support, and from the things they were saying yesterday it does sound like they are looking for any little reason to pull support at the last moment.
Well said Lee
There is a world of difference between Mr Blair and the education bill and actively trying to undermine the very future of your government in office which is what Hoey is up to and has been for sometime.
I agree - a backbench MP with some opinions at variance with the Labour party in general, and a leader of the Labour party who is actively undermining our principles in the arena of education. There is a world of difference - one is of minor importance and a distraction from the real issues, and one is not.
Better to compromise with the other passengers (even if they are less enlightened) and gently steer them in a leftwards direction.
I can’t believe we’re still talking this shit after eight years and three general elections. We have some really tough problems in the UK - child, women’s and pensioner poverty, not enough kids coming out of education with the skills they need, not enough decent houses for the population - and, in what may be our last chance, we’re tinkering around the edges. If not now, when?
“I can’t believe we’re still talking this shit after eight years and three general elections”
Well “this shit” as your crudley put it (you have a tendency to swear when you disagree with someone which is not very nice)is actually why we have won 3 elections!
You do actually have to be in power and stay in power to make progressive change, which is what some in the party on the left wing fringe seem to forget or not want to recognise at all.
My blog, my rules - bugger off if you don’t like it, Dave.
My point is this: if, as Martin implied, the whole Blairite thing is just a ruse to get into power, when can we stop doing it and get on with WHY people elect a Labour government?
And will you stop all saying that I don’t value Labour in power and want us to get into opposition - I don’t. That’s why I’ve done eight hours on the phones this week, and the week before, and the week before etc etc. That’s why I was a general election candidate, approved by the party. That’s why we’re having this dicussion - because I’m worried that our relentless focus on the centre ground is losing us votes, and that someday soon that might just lose us an election.
You do actually have to be in power and stay in power to make progressive change, which is what some in the party on the left wing fringe seem to forget or not want to recognise at all.
And what those not on the “left wing fringe” refuse to recognise is that having power and then not making progressive change - indeed, actually doing things that are regressive - is a complete waste of time. At least in Opposition, Labour was able to put the brakes on Thatcherism, to successfully defend some progressive changes of the past - whereas in government, New Labour has pushed Thatcherism on at full speed. Blair is going to be remembered as the biggest waster in British political history, a man so wrapped-up in fear and admiration of the Tories that he pissed-away three landslide majorities - unless, of course, the whole thing actually has been a brilliant Tory confidence trick, and he’s going to come clean about it in his memoirs.
What will lose an election as sure as night follows day is going away from the centre ground.
Presumably as a candidate at the last election you were happy to funded and supported by the party and be elected on its manifesto?
The party hiearchy know that elections for labour are only won by sticking with a platform that means enough people who first voted for us in 97 stay with us.
That is the only way to ensure that we can keep pushing things in a progressive direction.
The Tories would dearly love to unpick all the progressive measures we have introduced.
The UK electorate is on the whole very right wing, aspirant and so on, so it is not by luck that we have had 3 terms, it is because the party reinvented itself to be one that was trusted with the economy, wanted to challenge and progress the country and appeals to a wider section of the population.
The Democrats regonised long ago as did New Labour that you have to be in the centre to win elections, thats why Clinton remains a staunch fan of Tony Blair and the New Labour project.
The Dems seemed to have lost their way a bit and will only get back in power if they appeal to many of the areas that Clinton reached but Kerry failed to.
“it is because the party reinvented itself to be one that was trusted with the economy, wanted to challenge and progress the country and appeals to a wider section of the population”
fine but the problem is we’re not; we are not challenging the country with our progressive policies or ethos we’re focusing on appealing to the popular mood of the country.
And while there is no clear ground between the Tories and us, discernable to non-political hacks, we will lose ground with Middle England and alienate our activists.
There are key pieces of legislation and policy that should have been implemeneted by a Labour Government and it is a disgrace that they haven’t been.
Dave - Presumably as a candidate at the last election you were happy to funded and supported by the party and be elected on its manifesto?
I was funded by Oxford West and Abingdon members’ fundraising, and stood on the Labour manifesto, but I made it clear where I did not agree - on Iraq and top-up fees for example - and where I really did, such as on the improvements in gay rights, action to tackle poverty and women’s inequalities, and international development.
Or not elected, as the case may be
The party hiearchy know that elections for labour are only won by sticking with a platform that means enough people who first voted for us in 97 stay with us
Dave, you’re right: lots of previously-Tory voters voted for us in 1997, and we do need to hang on to them. But lots of liberal (small-L) -minded people did too, and we need to keep their votes. We should also not be unaware that traditional labour people need to be sure that we’re still tune with their concerns. So no, I’m not in any way advocating a return to 1983-style policies, but let’s make sure we know whose votes are most important to us, and whose votes we need to win. There could be a virtous circle here of ensuring that we keep on board the 1997 voters *and* do the right and the Labour thing.
“The UK electorate is on the whole very right wing”
I don’t agree with this, and it’s been interesting that it isn’t the progressive things that Labour did which are unpopular - no one says that they stopped voting Labour because of the minimum wage, the tax credits, banning fox hunting, the equalisation of the age of consent or more money for schools’n'hospitals.
This thing about staying in the centre ground versus going back to the left is a complete red herring. Tony Blair has taken plenty of unpopular decisions, but it seems like he’s only ever willing to do so in order to help his powerful friends. I think we would get more support if we did things which benefited most people but which the rich and powerful don’t like.
Take care
Dan xxx
T.Blair got the lowest governing party vote in history, Dan and others, because of guys like you (aided and abetted by the left-wing press) who caricature everything he does as right wing. Small wonder that progressive people found it difficult to turn out for him this time. Isn’t it just possible that he and his ministers are going for these reforms simply because they consider them to be right (not right-wing) in terms of what works best to achieve our goals in a society dominated by other values?
George, I think you’re mistaking us Labour lefties with the SWP and their mates. They call TB right-wing. We call him centrist…
“no one says that they stopped voting Labour because of the minimum wage, the tax credits, banning fox hunting, the equalisation of the age of consent or more money for schools’n’hospitals.”
Oh I promise you they did. Possibly not many in Oxford, I’ll grant you…
Though that’s not necessarily an argument against doing them.
The Dems seemed to have lost their way a bit and will only get back in power if they appeal to many of the areas that Clinton reached but Kerry failed to.
I was wondering why Kerry polled well over ten million more votes in 2004 than Clinton managed in either 1992 or 1996. This must explain it.
Kerry may have polled more votes but he didnt get to all the areas that Clinton did, so therefore no power.
The Kerry campaign was identified by too many americans as left wing, especially in those areas he had to reach.
Clinton only got in first time round because the right was split between Bush and Perot.
Another difference is that the Republicans have got better at taking advantage of bigotry.
Labour members should get behind their leader, yes. but their leader should do his utmost to support them, and their cause.
Blair is locked in a constant battle with the labour party, because he chooses to define himself and his policies against the party, and all too often, the party’s wishes. Cynical me, but I think this is deliberate… It helps Blair to stay in power, as it pleases the right wing press, who still dominate British political consciousness, although this is changing, with the advent of Cameron, who makes the Mail and Express largely irrelevant.
The problem is that thanks to this antagonistic approach, the government stands, but is a pale shade of what even a ‘New’ Labour government should look like. As long as this goes on, Labour is not in power anyway, it is subservient to the wishes of the executive and the Whip.
We’re in this together. The sooner everyone sees this, the better. Labour has been making sacrifices since 1994, and rightly so. Now it’s up to Blair to reciprocate.
Everyone Join Compass!