McDonnell in Oxford
Taking a break from meetings about local government, I finally made it to not one but two political meetings this week. You know, the sort with speakers who talk not about minutiae, procedure and practicalities. The first of these was the visit of John McDonnell MP to Oxford Town Hall on Thursday night.
To set the scene: Oxford Town Hall is one of those gloriously impractical Victorian buildings - the type meant to cow the working class and remind them their place isn’t here. The McDonnell meeting was in the main council chamber with its nasty wooden pews, designed apparently with the worthy intention of being so uncomfortable as to limit the length of council meetings. The audience numbered about 45: my eye for party members who have been out on the knocker this year spotted about eight leaflet Labour, and the rest I assume were of the pamphlet persuasion. There were also at least two members of political parties opposed to Labour present, of which more later.
In a cunning plot to foil my scheme to hear McDonnell and scurry off into the night, the other speakers went first. My colleague Cllr John Tanner started, speaking of his commitment to McDonnell’s campaign. He was doing fine, until the sharp intake of breath from the assembly in response to the statement “Gordon Brown has been an excellent chancellor” - uncontroversial in most circles, apparently anathema in this. There were two other speakers before the main act - an inaudible student who had recently joined the party precisely to vote for John, and Emmie, our city Unison convenor and former Labour council candidate.
Finally we got to McDonnell’s own speech, which to this reasonably receptive listener, was quite impressive. For a start, his venom was not directed entirely at the current leadership of the Labour party, an occupational hazard for our firebrands of the left, but also at the Tories. Perhaps it’s an indictment of the left of the party that he should need to say, and I should be so glad to hear “No-one should doubt my loyalty to a Labour government. I remember what it was like before”, but none the less, he said it and I was glad. He outlined his policies, as on his leadership manifesto, and picking up the areas of disappointment: “I look back on the last nine years with a depth of anguish at the wasted opportunity … it’s almost like a tragedy for the Labour movement”. Thankfully spent a little time on domestic affairs as well as the adventures of foreign policy, promising the almost unimaginable: a non-means-tested increase in child benefit to all families equivalent to the cost of full-time childcare. Not the most efficient way to make childcare affordable, containing as it does that huge subsidy to some families who could contribute at least part of the cost, but still, a policy which, if implemented, would have a huge benefit to poor families.
He also talked about the need to rebuild the coalition of broad-based support for the party. He mentioned the component parts of the coalition he envisaged: public sector workers, peace campaigners and environmentalists. This made me cross: don’t get me wrong, I want all of those people on our side, but if that’s it, we never get to run another government again. Where are the lower-middle classes in that? Where are the poor and the unemployed in that coalition? Of course, he may have been cleverly playing to his audience of people who attend political meetings, and up his sleeve he may have the strategy to win back the disengaged and hold on to middle England: I hope so.
On he went, through the bloodbath of early September’s leadership crisis (not the Sopranos, or Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, but Up Pompeii, apparently), to what happens in the first 24 hours of that socialist prime ministership: the breaking of the millitary alliance with Bush and the scrapping of Trident, and then he finished to a round of applause.
Having said that I was impressed by McDonnell himself, the questions and the audience were enough to drive anyone into the arms of another candidate. The chair was a guy with improbable facial hair from Witney CLP who clearly didn’t know the usual suspects placed in strategic positions in his line of sight, so we ended up with long minutes of tedious opinions and few focussed questions to John. Worse still, the chair thoughtfully picked two questioners who had no stake at all in the election, being ineligible to vote because of their membership of other parties opposed to Labour. McDonnell had said in his speech that at every meeting a member of the Socialist Party would ask “that’s all very well, John, but what happens when you fail?”. You would think that any listening member of the SP would be embarassed enough to keep quiet, but no, we were treated to his musings on the weaknesses of the Labour left at length. The chair also managed to call the deputy leader of the Green Group on the city council, who asked a pointless question about the internal party democracy of a party of which he is not a member.
Most of the other questions I heard (and I didn’t stay until the end) were of the variety: “John, I was sad you didn’t find time to talk about [insert pet issue] in your speech today. Could you tell us what you think about [pet issue]?” Needless to say, John was always eager to talk about [pet issue], and neatly promised their required policy changes. The Americans have a useful concept for this - being in bed with the special interests - and it seems by his enthusiasm for the concern of the questioner, he is just that, though I guess that’s better than snuggling down with the corporate special interests.
Anyway, John McDonnell’s eagerness to talk about party democracy and special interests meant that he only answered one of my two questions, the one on policies to end child poverty. The child poverty policies were fine if unimaginative and unspecific - focus on inequality, redistribute power and wealth, trade union rights are the way to a living wage, need to invest in council housing, oddly civil liberties and environmentalism were in there somewhere. However, not being a special interest, a representative of an entryist group, a representative of an opposition party, but merely a probably-Gordon- but-might-be-swayed-if-you’re-good and-by-the-way-I’ve-actually-got-a-vote voter, I was slightly disappointed that he didn’t answer my question about what the Labour government has done which he thinks is good, though to his credit he emailed me an answer the next day with profuse apologies (in short - gay stuff, devolution, Northern Ireland peace, minimum wage, foxhunting, but undermined by all the bad stuff).
So, where do I end up? Not convinced, to be honest, but then we’re still months off, and I hope to get to another meeting with him before the actual election. If I had one piece of advice to his campaign, it would be this: whatever you do, screen those people who have no stake in being at meetings about the Labour leadership out before the meeting, and have a chair with enough nous to call the right people. I might have voted for John, might still do so, but the other people that are supporting him really make me wonder whether I could. Too often the Labour left is accused of being disloyal, of collaborating with entryists and co-operating with those outside the party. It would be really useful not to confirm the prejudices of those who think that.
Hey Antonia - sorry you found my question pointless, but you should be used to that by now from EB, I would have thought…
My only comment on your piece would be that its difficult to hold a *public meeting* and then complain when people who aren’t ‘the usual suspects’ in internal Labour Party discussions ask questions.
The remedy would, of course, be a Labour-member only meeting, which would be perfectly fair. Not particularly fair to criticise people for turning up and taking an interest when the meeting is in public and open to all, though…
Best wishes,
Matt
P.S. Do you really believe that only Labour Party members have a stake in who is the next leader of the Labour Party? You may recall that they also become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom….
Antonia,
Unfortunately it’s difficult to prevent certain people from turning up (unless the campaign employed a couple of heavies which I’m sure you’re not suggesting!) The campaign is trying to reach out to as many people as possible, not least given the number of people who have left the Labour party. Restricting meetings to only existing Labour party members would fail to bring people back. Indeed, large numbers of people have already returned to the party because of the campaign.
Furthermore, it can hardly be said that the Socialist Party are supporting John - in actual fact they are circling like vultures and desperately waiting for the campaign to fail!
I’m really glad you came along though and finally had the opportunity to meet John in person. I also hugely respect the fact that you’re willing to be open-minded - hopefully we can win you over in the coming months!
Oh - I should also point out that the Chair was Brian Hodgson - Chair of Witney CLP, former Leader of the Oxfordshire County Council Labour Group and the Labour candidate who stood against David Cameron at the last election!
Owen
Whoops, my mistake - he wasn’t the candidate who stood against David Cameron - but the rest is correct.
Out of curiosity, did you count me as leaflet Labour or pamphlet Labour? I’ve delivered quite a few leaflets (including the bunch I picked up at the GC earlier this evening), but I’ve also been to Compass events in my time, and have been known to read pamphlets from time to time.
Hi all,
Chris - leaflet delivering trumps any amount of pamphlet reading, so on the basis that I have been out leafletting and canvassing with you, you get classified as leaflet.
Matt, I don’t think the meeting should have been open to the general public. I think it should have been open to Labour members and supporters, and certainly not open to members of opposing political parties. I think the Greens are nice and fluffy and all that, but at the end of the day, you’re not on the right side, and that’s that. I also would have thought you’d have had enough self-respect not to behave like some random leftist splinter group and hence stay away. And if you want a stake in who the next Labour leader is, join the party and use your vote. (You’d obviously have to pass a doctrinal test first, though ;-))
Owen - thanks for your comments, and particular thanks for getting me an email answer to my question. I know who the chair was, but stand by my view that managing to call the deputy leader of an opposing political group who by definition is not eligible to vote shows a lack of political judgement. And by all means get John to speak wherever you think you can get him votes - but recognise that for this loyal Labour party member and many others, who’ve stuck in there through thick and thin, courting the “left” outside the party and providing a platform for entryists and revolutionaries is unlikely to get our votes. I was very impressed by John - until the Q&A session. Perhaps you should ask for questions on paper rather than employing heavies? Anyway, best wishes for the campaign, and I really sincerely hope that John gets on the ballot paper to give members a choice.
Remember to post about Jon Cruddas!
who asked a pointless question about the internal party democracy of a party of which he is not a member.
A brief reminder: Internal party democrcay is the legitimate concern of ANY DEMOCRAT interested in the politics generally, not just Labour Party members. In an open meeting discussing these issues, it is entirely legitinate for anybody to ask those relevant and interesting questions - and whether the person asking it is member or supporter of another party is frankly irrelevant.
“pass a doctrinal test to join the Labour Party”
In the last few years every principle seems to have been broken.So I wonder what kind of test that might be?
Benjamin reminds Antonia of one of his opinions, which he presents as fact. Antonia disagrees with said opinion, but thanks Benjamin for commenting none the less.
Ian - the doctrinal test comment was a joke directed at a council colleague I get on well with, even if he’s from another party. On the internet, as it’s impossible to hear the tone of voice of the speaker or see their facial expression, it’s accepted custom to use emoticons to denote emotions. For more information about emoticons, go here.
I fully agree with Antonia. Non-party members have already expressed their satisfaction to allow a Labour party representative, as selected by labour party members, to be prime minister, and they’ll get their chance again in 2-3 years time.
Who that representative is is down to the party. This is how our parliamentary system works, and it would be good for party activists of whatever colour to get that message across rather than spreading the notion that the system is, or should be, quasi-presidential. Suggesting that the country lives or dies by one person is not going to help increase the membership bases of any UK parties, which in turn harms our democracy.
If non-members, democrats or otherwise, are not happy with how the internal party democracy works, this will reflect badly on the Labour Party as a whole, and we’ll lose standing the next time the entire public is invited to have their say. We also have a free press where the issue of the next Labour party leader has *already* been debated to an extent that is completely out of proportion with its importance. I wish the media would spend half as much time on child poverty.
Would be more appropriate to question if there is too much outside influence, not too little.
“a council colleague”-but is he a sea green man?
Well, I disagree with Antonia. As a non-partisan, I think any democrat should be allowed to make comment and ask questions in an open meeting about the democratic functionaing of a party - it has relevance to wider political affairs. Their opinion should not be automatically dismissed because they perhaps belong of different party. Are not some values shared?
Perhaps the Labour Party would love it if it was only a private business, but we should live in an open, democratic society - and if folk think the Labour does not live up those ideals in its own practice, they should say so. All this information is publicly available.
If non-members, democrats or otherwise, are not happy with how the internal party democracy works, this will reflect badly on the Labour Party as a whole, and we’ll lose standing the next time the entire public is invited to have their say.
I was just discussing this incident. Antonia hastily dismissed the comment about internal party democracy - we were not even told the point the person was making - we were simply told it was irrelevant and that person was from a different party. Not helpful. Can’t Antonia simply relay the comments clearly and let her readers decide?
I wish the media would spend half as much time on child poverty.
Yes, considering that the UK has still one of the worst rates of child poverty in Europe, in the developed world moreover, after nigh on a decade of supposedly social denocratic govt, I would agree with you.
Antonia
Thank you for taking the trouble to post such a full and informative account of the meeting. How do you justify your possible willingness to vote for a man who has spoken out in support of the IRA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell_(politician)
Somebody with those views shouldn’t really be in a mainstream political party, let alone standing for leader.
Yes, considering that the UK has still one of the worst rates of child poverty in Europe, in the developed world moreover, after nigh on a decade of supposedly social democratic govt, I would agree with you./
Well then, get a grip, decide on what your priorities are, join the Labour Party and stop spending time whingeing about the internal democracy of organizations you aren’t even a member of, and spend your time like the rest of us in the Party campaigning for an end to child poverty in this generation.
Ben - the meeting was to promote a candidate for the Labour leadership. Only members of the Labour party, parliamentary representatives of the Labour party, members of socialist societies affiliated to the Labour party and those paying the political levy to their Labour-affilated trade union will be eligible to vote. Other people don’t have a stake in the election.
I think the chair of the meeting was a numpty for calling on the local deputy leader of an opposing political party to speak; I think John McDonnell was a numpty for addressing the man’s points at length, despite the fact that said Green party councillor had make clear his affiliation. It’s basic good politics not to allow questions from those hostile to you to divert you from your path - in this case winning a leadership election. The idiocy was compounded by McDonnell, having spent all this time answering the question of one who could not vote for him, not managing to answer the question of one who was, by the sounds of things, one of the few undecided voters in the room. It was a demonstration of lack of political skill, and despite his excellent speech, made me wonder whether I could vote for him.
On the point about presenting the facts and allowing my readers to decide, sorry mate, no luck here. This isn’t a news site, but an opinion blog.
(Oh, and in case anyone is confused, the Green party member who asked the question about internal party democracy is Cllr Matt Sellwood. His is the first comment on this thread, and he blogs here.)
Paul - thanks for the link, which I hadn’t visited before. I really don’t know what to think about the comments quoted there from John McDonnell about the IRA.
Tim - well, quite!
It’s not a question of either / or, Tim. As regards internal party democracy, I was only commenting on Antonia’s specific comment.
Look, its been a long time since I could count myself as “solid” Labour person, despite coming from a solidly Labour area (South Yorks, although I do not reside their now.) I am afraid the years of Blairism have taken its toll, old boy, although if push comes to shove I would vote Labour in marginals over a Tory.
Ben - the meeting was to promote a candidate for the Labour leadership. Only members of the Labour party, parliamentary representatives of the Labour party, members of socialist societies affiliated to the Labour party and those paying the political levy to their Labour-affilated trade union will be eligible to vote
Fair enough, but I thought it was a public meeting. It sounded like a public meeting if other folk were there. If his point was a genuine one about internal party democracy, its fair enough to answer it, considering its links to points of wider concern.
Of course I take your point about Labour Party members being the only folk elligible to vote, so perhaps McDonnell could have kept his comments shorter. However, he may think its an important issue.
Benjamin: you ‘facts’ are demonstrably wrong. Britain did have the worst child poverty rates in the EU in 1997, but by now it is about middle, and has had the largest decrease in child poverty in the industrialised world since the late 1990s.
Check out the UN’s view: http://www.unicef.org/brazil/repcard6e.pdf
Whether the fact that this decrease in poverty, like those in the late 1940s and mid-1960s is connected with having progressive social democractic governance is for the electorate to decide.
It’s not a question of either / or, Tim.
It is a question of either/or, you numpty! You have a finite amount of time to spend (or waste) in this life, so worry about poverty, injustice, hatred, oppression , racism, bigotry and misogyny. Don’t waste your time worrying about the procedures of other people’s organisations: in fact, go one better, and stop worrying about process altogether and instead focus on outcomes. Become a politician rather than a lawyer, and best of luck to you.
As for the “terrorist” thing, I think Joh has been misquoted. He said that “the deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a tragedy” but blamed the origin of the conflict on the British occupation. He does, of course, come from a Republican background. In the case cited John was speaking about the IRA/INLA prisoners’ hunger strike in the early 80s, which didn’t harm anyone but the hunger strikers themselves. Saying that someone like Bobby Sands willing to starve himself to death for his fellow prisoners was “heroic” is a statement of fact, however wrong the actions that got him into prison were.
Oh, by the way, what John actually siad can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,969028,00.html
Thanks for that link, Mike. John McDonnell’s speech at Bobby Sands commemoration used the truth in order to bring about reconciliation. I thought it was honest and admirable.
Like John, I thought/hoped that Blair’s legacy would be peace in Ireland, and was able to stick up for Blair on this whilst criticising him on other issues. No chance that this is how he’ll be remembered now , unfortunately.
To sum up-McDonnell has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the Labour Party leadership.
Just wanted to say 8 leaflet labour and 37 pamplet labour is a slightly better ratio than the party as a whole imo; generally I’d say about 1 in 6 are leaflet
Having helped organise John’s Brighton meeting I sympathise with the difficulty faced by the Chair in Oxford in dealing with the “usual suspects” - I think you should hold on to what you thought about what John himself had to say
Antonia - I went to the John McDonnell campaign launch meeting in Manchester and the chair there was a bit clueless too . Yes, there were nutters from the far-left there and they were a pain but at the same time I was glad to see them in a way. Why shouldn’t they be welcome? We’re trying to re-engage the disillusionned and disaffected.
I think New labour have managed to sanitise political discussion so much in the past 10 years that it seems, well, abhorrent to some comrades not used to really open debate if surreal views creep in - or someone drones on ad nauseam. What would you prefer ? The kind of stage-managed horror we see at Conference where hand-picked clones congratulate the Govt with sickening sycophancy and read out speeches written for them by a Ministerial bag-carrier.
The point about John’s campaign isn’t who attends his meetings, but the policies he’s espousing.Do you agree or not? Do you really want a Leader whose best friends include the CBI .Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre? Is a Govt committed to more privatisation and nuclear weaponry REALLY what you want. Brown is just Blair without the charm.Whichever way you vote, a Brown coronation would be dire for party democracy. Far more so than any beardy weirdy who doesn’t know when to shut up. We need John to get on that ballor paper! Hope you vote for him.
Yours,Susan Press, Calder valley CLP
Never voted in a leadership elections before but it’s my understanding that there’s not much that non-MP members like Antonia can do to get him or any other candidate on the ballot paper…
actually, there is, Jo. Lobby your MP, talk the campaign up, we need positive stuff - we don’t have loads of chums in the media like Cruddas, who is acceptable to many as the Billy Bragg of the contest.Likewise Alan Johnson. Nice but unthreatening to anyone in the labour establishment. Does it really matter who is Deputy Leade? Not really. But the more Labour members express support forMcDonnell ,the more chance we have of MPs nominating him. Then we can ALL vote. Hope that clarifies what Imeant.
I think Cruddas has more friends in the unions than the media.
well, in that case maybe he gets my vote! John McD certainly has - if it weren’t for trade union and CLP support he really would be wasting his time…..the NUJ hiierarchy is quite supportive though.
Hi Antonia,
This was an interesting review. I don’t really agree with you that John should just be doing closed meetings for this: although only party members and trade unionists have a stake in the decision (in so far as I take that to mean a vote!) were it to happen tomorrow, this campaign is to engage people who have been switched off and disillusioned, as well as to convince labour activists. Of course it’s unfortunate if one of your questions didn’t get answered, but it sounds like you got your answer in the end. And of course as far as building momentum for John’s campaign is concerned, that’s also about getting the message out there more generally (as you know, most party members don’t go to closed or open meetings!!).
I think, once a decision has been made that its an open meeting, it would rather go against some of John’s stated principles about democracy, inclusivity, etc. if there were then underhand attempts to manage the q&a session in his favour. That rather smacks of an Old Blairite Labour tactic which we’ve moved on from (I’m sure we all remember written q&a sessions where important policy questions weren’t read out but ones about tattoos or favourite pop groups were…)
I’m glad you were impressed by John’s speech. None of us can choose our audience nor the questions we have to answer, but we can show that we are dedicated to attempting to answer the questions of all comers in as passionate a way as possible (and, where people are accidentally missed out, they are sent a kindly email…)
I left the party over Iraq. Along with many others. And, to be honest, I haven’t seriously thought about returning.
Yet I’m not on the left. I’d say I was in Party terms, right wing on economics and a social and cultural liberal. And there is plenty which the Government has done which I approve of.
For me, foreign policy, lukewarmness towards Europe, and an obsession with the private sector are Labour’s downfall. But will the left give me what I am looking for, which is a return to more identifiably Labour values? Foreign policy - well, not necessarily, as they do appear to be a bit iffy on human rights abuses if carried out by an ‘acceptable’ regime. For all his faults, Eric Heffer was a sterling critic of Soviet excesses. I don’t hear the same critique of current tyrannies from many on the left.
Similarly, many on the left retain a hostility towards the EU.
As for the involvement of the private sector, I think this is simply something which has not been thought through. The left are perhaps sounder on this issue than the others.