Unite ups the ante….
Len McCluskey’s interview in the Sunday Times will no doubt cause furore on the Labour right. It is the kind of interview only a self-confident and assertive union leader can give and its a sign of Unite’s growing assertiveness within the Labour Party. The significance for me was not so-much in the headline-grabbing disagreements over public sector pay nor the somewhat rhetorically over-blown implication that Mr McCluskey would want to start ‘purging’ Blairites (I don’t agree with ideological purges, as every regular reader will know) but in the strategic nuggets. Its campaign to bring Unite members into the Party and its role in the formation of Class were what really caught my eye because they show clear evidence of long-term, strategic deep-thinking going on right at the top of the union.
In terms of bringing union members into the Party, who can possibly object? More members means more activists and more revenue raised and a greater impact on the wider electorate. The fact that these members would seek to influence the people around them in a certain direction is surely a given and ultimately there is nothing wrong with anybody seeking to win a democratic majority for their arguments through persuasion. Ditto when it comes to McCluskey’s pledge to only support Labour candidates who are in broad agreement with the aims and objectives of the union and who come from manual labour backgrounds. Who, after-all could reasonably expect the case to be anything else? Selecting candidates from a more diverse pool of backgrounds also strengthens our ailing democracy as well, not just the Labour Party. Class represents a concerted attempt by Unite to be involved not just in lobbying, by wielding the financial stick, but to seek to persuade and develop a coherent policy agenda which is in line with its long-term aspirations.
However, in presentational terms, the interview also highlighted an area where the unions consistently fall short of the mark. McCluskey seems perfectly happy to give the Times the story it wants, sinister plot by the unions to engineer a putsch. Rather than frame the debate in a different, more subtle and democratic, fashion he all too often seems happy to play into the narrative the paper wants;
“Asked whether the strategy could be viewed as an attempt to take over the Party, McCluskey replied; Of course we are trying to influence the Party again.”
He should have challenged the very premise of the question, that bringing activists into the Party was some kind of attempted hostile take-over. It isn’t, but McCluskey never challenges the implied assertion that it is, in fact, he seems to happily concur with the questioner. In letting things like this lapse, he gives the impression of being more clunking fist than sincere champion of his members (the job he was elected to do). This is a shame and it is an area where Unite, and indeed the trade unions in general, need to catch-up with the political classes, who long ago relised the importance of getting the presentation, framing and narrative right. We are at a point of record disengagement with the political process and most of those people that do engage do not bother to investigate the marco-level nuances of policy of what people are saying.
The growing influence and assertiveness of Unite can only be a good thing for the Labour Party and the country in general which is crying out for a strong challenge to the failing austerity agenda, for alot more equality and a lot less liassez-faire. So, I welcome the broad strategic thrust of what McCluskey said, let’s see alot more of this assertiveness and hope it will transform the Labour Party back into one that is true to itself and its core values.
The Party of Full Employment….
In 1945, Labour’s election manifesto had this to say:
They say, “Full employment. Yes! If we can get it without interfering too much with private industry.” We say, “Full employment in any case, and if we need to keep 8 firm public hand on industry in order to get jobs for all, very well. No more dole queues, in order to let the Czars of Big Business remain kings in their own castles. The price of so-called ‘economic freedom’ for the few is too high if it is bought at the cost of idleness and misery for millions.
Fast-forward to 2012 and sadly, unemployment has become an accepted reality for far too many, those who are unemployed are dammed by politicians of all shades as being ‘feckless’ and ‘work-shy’. No regard is paid to the structural factors that cause unemployment in a social system that concentrates wealth and genuine opportunity in the hands of a staggeringly small amount of people. You may think this is a little bit too 20th Century but in 1993, Gordon Brown, hardly a left-winger by any standards said this:
Our aspiration now must be more than helping people to find work regardless of its quality or prospects, but ensuring full and fulfilling employment by expanding employment and training opportunities for all
In other words, a commitment to full employment is in Labour’s political DNA, left and right. Sadly, the kind of mechanisms he had in mind to ensure this were inherently unstable and unreliable. Even if the private sector were to grow exponentially, it would never guarantee full employment. Indeed, the quality of the jobs that are driving the slight fall in the current claimant count is poor. If you take the current governments approach then you will slightly increase those in work but because this is through a casualisation of the labour force this will be off-set by the churn, ie, the number of people who are dropping back into unemployment will off-set the gains you make elsewhere. In terms of the gains made by the Treasury, by more people entering taxation, these are off-set by losses in terms of revenue lost by cutting corporation tax etc. So, the policy is a self-defeating one, this is why Labour’s policy-makers in 1945 saw that the goal of full employment had to go hand-in-hand with building a strong state sector. Labour must stop going along with the neo-liberal attacks on the state sector and start to remember that it can be your friend and its flaws can be off-set by promoting co-operative ownership models. Furthermore, it is a false economy to trade-off jobs against wages and conditions as Mr Balls has been known to do.
Similarly, Britain’s economy has stopped producing things. It has relied too heavily on a over-mighty financial sector and this is a fundamental structural failing. Britain’s productive economy has been decimated by decades of ideological battering, first by the Conservatives, then by a Labour government that did not enough by a long-shot to address this issue. Promoting full employment is an antidote to this chronic imbalance. Valid comparisons do exist between the current state of the economy and the national omnishambles that faced Labour as it entered office in 1945. Obviously, we have not just been through a World War and this structural crisis is somewhat different to the Great Depression (though not in the degree of its severity). However, getting people back into sustainable, long-term work is one of the solutions. Once again, Labour should revive its historic commitment to full employment, a core Labour value that has served us and Britain well in the past and can again.
The Folly of Johann Lamont
Johann Lamont certainly caused a major Twitterstorm in the Labour Twitterverse last night. Her speech, calling for an end to a “something for nothing” culture provoked predictable hostility and equally as passionate support. Let’s start with what Lamont wasn’t doing. She wasn’t starting an open-ended debate. She certainly wants to see both free university tuition fees and free prescriptions ended, at the least. Witness this statement:
I know that there are families, working hard, on average or above-average incomes who feel they pay enough and are attracted by policies like free prescriptions, free tuition fees and the council tax freeze. I know where they are coming from, but I ask them to look at how they are paying for those free things.
What price your free prescription when an elderly relative spends five hours on a trolley in A&E or the life-saving drug they need isn’t available at all?
What price free tuition fees when your neighbour can’t get a place at college or when university standards are now lower than when they went to uni?
The questions are emotionally loaded, rhetorical, and designed to lead the listener one way and they are prefaced by an appeal, an appeal to what she regards as her target audience to listen and consider the following questions. Anyone who cannot see that this is what Lamont wants is being willfully naive. The most objectionable aspect of her entire speech is actually the emotional blackmail and the browbeating. Who could possibly want an elderly relative to spend five hours in A & E on a trolley? Sadly, this morally repugnant approach has been on show before. Ed Balls pioneered it with his ‘pay-freeze for jobs’ line which he has plied us with so many times it is becoming distinctly out of fashion. It is the shape of things to come, we can expect alot more of this from a Labour leadership still wedded to austerity.
It is however, deeply blinkered and counterproductive. Lamont wants to end free fees, oblivious to the huge economic benefit it is to Scotland’s economy. Oblivious to how much it means to families of all shades that their aspirations are not taxed through the nose. Equally, she is oblivious to the benefits to the health of a nation (and therefore the benefits to the economic health) of free prescription charges. She is equally politically oblivious and has gifted both the SNP and Independence Yes campaign a massive shot in the arm so her opportunism will turn out to be as fruitless as it is souless.
The self-defeating logic of the capitulation to austerity all in one glorious display of economic ignorance. It gets worse for Labour. If it persists in pursuing the austerity agenda, even mildly, even in prettier language it’s reforms will be rendered pretty pointless and totally impotent. Furthermore, it makes an absolute mockery of our narrative criticising the governments economic program. ‘Predistribution’, even much-hyped, ‘soak-the-rich’ tax rises wont make any impression on the deficit while the state continues to bleed demand out of the economy by pursuing austerity. A clear, unequivocal, statement of the opposition to austerity is not just a matter of principle, it is a lynchpin of Labour making a success of Britain’s economy. This is the reality that Labourite ‘wets’ on the austerity issue dont want to address. It’s an issue the left now needs to address by constructing a blueprint an entire alternative economic strategy and fighting for that programme within Labour’s ranks. This is a matter of urgency both from the perspective of the Party and the country, it is a challenge opponents of austerity can no longer, we certainly cannot rely on our current leadership to free Britain from the shackles of austerity.
Re-framing the welfare debate…..
An awful lot of the welfare debate gets lost in the irrational discourse promoted by the media and politicians alike. The left is falsely portrayed as favouring large and lavish welfare spending while the right pretends it is all about cutting the welfare bill when in fact its economic policies drive it through the roof. As a left-winger, a socialist, I do not want to see a large welfare bill; a large welfare bill means many people are out of work, working for poverty pay, paying extortionate rent for sub-standard housing, etc, etc, all things that I am actually against and I want to see eradicated. I want to cut the welfare bill because I want to see jobs for the people that can take them, people being paid a decent, living wage and everybody having a basic entitlement to being housed in liveable conditions. The fact that the state is forced to step-in on so many occasions is not, for me, a comment on peoples inherent fecklessness or a ‘dependency culture’ but in actual fact a sad commentary on the failings of capitalism as a social system.
Welfare is going to be a big issue in the next Parliament due to Geroge Osborne’s much-touted plan to cut £10billion more from the welfare budget. No doubt this is as much politically as fiscally motivated because it is one area where the general thrust of government policy is actually quite popular. Polls have been published which showed opposition to welfare cuts for the disabled but the attitude towards those who are unemployed is actually dramatically hardening. The pronounced opposition to cuts for the disabled and the governments harrying of those on disability benefits in general is pretty unsurprising, especially as these surveys were conducted in close proximity to the successful Paralympic Games. What we are actually seeing is a growing division in the public hive-mind between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor – with something similar happening with their view of the rich incidentally – support for those viewed as ‘deserving’ remains strong but woe betide the undeserving.
So, how does the left respond? Firstly, it has to make the point that the welfare system does not exist to make a moral judgement as such. It’s purpose is to ensure that no citizen falls below a certain, bare minimum standard of living. It should perhaps be noted however, that the current construction of the welfare state does lend itself to implying a moral judgement is there to be made, rather than being geared towards that general goal, its stated purpose is actually to intervene only in narrow, rather tightly-defined circumstances, ie, those of dire need. Obviously, then whether you support it can become a matter of how dire you think somebodies need is and indeed if you think they are doing everything they possibly can to steer themselves out of that position. Secondly, it needs to be making the point I made at the very top, that a high welfare bill is not actually what we want at all, I would much rather have a sustainable economy that provides enough well-paid jobs to go round than a billions of pounds welfare bill. Thridly, and finally, it needs to develop policies that address the real causes of high welfare spending and indeed ‘welfare dependency’ at root-cause ie, a big cause of a high Housing Benefit bill is out of control rents so we need to look at rent controls. The big plus is a policy of rent control, for example, does not just benefit those right at the bottom but those in work as well, those at the bottom, middle and even middle-top, so it will have broad appeal and by addressing a real social issue for many householders avoids the charge of only about helping the public, mistakenly, view as ‘scroungers’. It also makes the position of benefit claimants relative to those who aren’t claiming and thus will undercut the right’s infamous ‘divide and rule’ stratagem by giving people a focus on a problem they have in common. Welfare is one of the issues that the left has to recognise it is losing the argument on and the only way to win it back again is to take the best of our values and frame them in a way which intersects with the public mood, not by adapting to it, but listening too it and seeking to change it. If we don’t do this then the outcome is simple, the right will win the day, and our most neediest citizens will suffer for our inability to both adapt and be principled (something that is possible in politics) all at the same time.
Crunch time in Manchester….
A Party Conference, Francis Urquhart informs us in House of Cards, can be many things. In the case of the Liberal Democrats this week it has obviously been a wince-inducing death-rattle of sheer irrelevance, it also has had a smidge of being about the pretenders to Nick Clegg’s tarnished throne auditioning for the poisoned-chalice position of Party leader. The Conservative Party sally to Birmingham is likely to be equally as angst-ridden, fraught with the barely contained internal tensions which are increasingly springing into full public view. Any momentum gained will most likely quickly halted by the declaration of the Corby by-election result.
Therefore, for Labour in Manchester, this is a key conference because far-from rolling round the rim of the political abyss this is its chance to show itself as a government-in-waiting. Obviously, our polling position is healthy, but nobody seriously expects this rude health to last, let alone translate directly into the actual result of the next election. So, this is a Conference of consolidation and showing we are ready to march forward. Specifically, we need to make progress filling in the blank sheet of paper which constitutes our policy commitments. This should be a sober conference and one that works hard to set down the tracks for the policy train to travel on.
More than that needs to be done though, we need to show we have a fresh vision for Britain and by-implication contrast that with the tired feel of the governing Parties. We need to show we have a narrative that encapsulates our core values, expressed in detail in our policies, which gives the Party and the country the lift that both need. We need to show that we have a collection of clearly defined ideas which can come together to form an enchanting symphony to captivate our electoral audience. At this time, all these things are lacking, and their absence is what makes the strength of our polling position somewhat illusory in nature. We need to distance ourselves from talk of fraternisation with the ailing Lib Dems and show why Britain should elect us to govern in our own right. This is the challenge that we all have before us and what awaits those lucky enough to be actually in Manchester for the event itself. It’s a big one to be sure, but then again as a Party we are often at our best when the size of the challenge is greatest. With the political weather inclement as it is, this could well be the last chance we get to show ourselves in this light, so lets make the most of it, and as a Party lets extend our best wishes to delegates in Manchester for their success.
Turn the guns on Cameron…..
Any normal Prime Minister, one with even the slightest modicum of political sense, would have ditched Mr Mitchell as quickly as a hot coal based solely on this fact alone, but not David Cameron. Mr Cameron has displayed this shocking and vainglorious arrogance before, by clinging onto Coulson, by clinging onto Liam Fox, and now by clinging onto Mr Mitchell. This man maybe not for turning but it is not solid ideological conviction that drives him, its arrogance and pride. He will U-turn on a policy that isn’t playing well with the focus groups as quickly as you can say Jimmney Cricket, but if something threatens his ruling social elite, his Old Etonian Boys network that he has running the country, hell no, Mr Cameron is as solid as a rock. It isn’t just the opposition saying this, it’s not just the media, it’s even not just the country who, in poll after poll, tell their questioners that they think Mr Cameron is out of touch and doesn’t understand them, but that feeling is rampaging through the ranks of the governing Party.
This is why Labour must turn all its guns on Number 10 over this; it must unpick the complex and muddled web of deceit that is issuing forth both from Number 10 and the potty-mouth of Mr Mitchell. It must ram home the message, this is a question of character, not just of Mr Mitchell but of Mr Cameron himself and his ruling elite. Thus far all we have done is ask inconsequential questions that don’t really being to penetrate the fog of the smokescreen being thrown up around to allow Mitchell to get away with this. It’s time to stop beating around the bush and go for the jugular, go for the kill and do some lasting damage to the man at the top of this crooked and creaking tree, the Prime Minister himself.
When sorry isnt enough….
Sorry is a big word to say in politics. The admission that you have got something so totally wrong that you have to publicly abase yourself before the electorate is not one any politician likes to make because apart from anything else it pangs the semi-mythical cloak of alleged infallibility that you wrap yourself in and makes you look well, very human indeed. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. However, for it to work it’s always generally a good idea to be clear in your own mind that you were wrong in the first place.
Sadly, neither Nick Clegg nor Andrew Mitchell actually truly do believe they are in the wrong. Clegg in his now much lampooned Party Election Broadcast clearly is running through his head the Blairite dictum that the ends ultimately justify the means. He, apparently, is sorry for making the pledge not to raise tuition fees but not actually for raising them. This is a bit like somebody standing up in court and proclaiming regret for breaking in entry but not actually saying sorry for spiriting your HD TV out of its resting place, down the road, and onto the local black market. Clegg’s apology is less a sign of him turning a corner and more a rather whiny and low-key death-rattle. The parodies prove that, nobody is seriously going to look at Clegg without thinking of the Poke video.
Mitchell, meanwhile, isn’t sorry because he doesn’t see how he has done anything wrong. His version of events, that he didn’t really call a police officer a “moron” and a “f***ing pleb” has actually been flatly contradicted by none other than Mr David Cameron who deemed what he said as “inappropriate and wrong”. Obviously, joined up thinking is at as much a premium in the Conservatives communications department as it is in the rest of the Party. Words really do fail you when it comes to Mr Mitchell’s tirade, arrogant sense of entitlement is a phrase that springs to mind but barely does the man let-alone the government justice. He is quite correct in one thing, not only do the police not run the government or the country but neither actually do the people of Great Britain.
Mr Mitchell has however spared one mans blushes. He has buried under his foul-mouthed tirade yet more pear-shaped economic figures from the artist currently known as Calamity George Osborne. Under the veil of the omnishambolic attempts of the government to actually run the country this is the news that will have the greatest long-term impact. It is quite clear that the next election will be fought on the terms of continuing austerity. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be wedded to having no choice but to continue down this dark path. Labour should be offering a clear break, making a clear statement that they will not continue with this policy or try to save its face. A radical change of direction is the only thing that can save Britain’s economy from being sunk without trace for decades. So, as we approach Conference season, let’s hope that is what we are going to hear from the top-table, because anything else would leave more than messers Clegg, Mitchell & Co owing Britain a sincere apology.
In praise of….Malcolm Tucker
Armando Iannucci’s The Thick of It is back to its brilliant best. True, last night’s episode probably made uncomfortable viewing for Labour supporters as it bit close to the bone of the Party’s drift. However, it also illustrated the desolation and emptiness of the wasteland of political opposition. Meanwhile, the Coalition emerged far from unscathed from the first episode last week. The brilliance of The Thick of It is precisely that, it bites close to the bone and takes the real and make it look as ridiculous as it often is.
Malcolm Tucker is still the anti-hero who gets the most laughs (although, Peter Mannion and Stewart are fast catching-up). He is an anti-hero with a heart though. We have seen flashes of Malcolm, the Party-loyalist before, in his rallying speech at the end of the third series and it becomes most apparent when he talks in hostile tones about the opposition who are only ever described in a trademark volley of sweary invective. However, in last nights episode, his simple proclamation that he wants to depose the useless Nicola Murray to get back into power to help people is heartfelt. Sure, he misses the overload of missed calls on his mobile, but there is more too it than that.
Malcolm loves his Party and he is a Labour man through and through. This doesnt mean loyalty to the fictional Murray and her feeble attempts to court ‘quiet batpeople’, but loyalty to a set of values and principles. It seems odd to use those two words in the same sentance of the Malcyivellian Tucker but that moral underpinning is definatly there and in that sense, he represents the two contradictory sides to this Party, the best and the worst, the craving for power to do good, but also its strong ethical core.
I, for one, hope we see more of this Malcolm Tucker as the series progresses and indeed more of Malcolm’s kind-of Labour Party, in the best possible sense.
Poverty of aspiration?
I have a confession to make. I was never present around the Miliband’s dinner table nor present at any of their semi-legendary political meetings. However, certain comments made by Ed Miliband in his interview for the Daily Telegraph today make me question whether he was present either:
“My Dad was sceptical of all the Thatcher aspirational stuff,” he says. “But I felt you sort of had to recognise that what she was talking about struck a chord. I want to save capitalism from itself.”
It is hard to know where to start with this. Firstly, it should be said that the late Ralph Miliband was entirely correct to be skeptical. Mrs Thatcher had a narrow and essentially ideological definition of what aspiration was and indeed is. Her definition was focused on individuals ‘getting-ahead’ but this is an aspect of aspiration. A more fully rounded definition is not just aspiration for oneself but also the deep-seated desire to better your own lot and also the lot of your surrounding environment and indeed those around you. Secondly, and this flows from the first point, her policies were deeply flawed and may have held superficial appeal in the short-term but in the longer term have directly contributed to the current malaise Britain finds itself in. She did ‘strike a chord’ but hit the wrong note.
For somebody whose reputation is as a thinker is quite prestigious, Mr Miliband’s interview is a veritable Swiss cheese of contradictory ideas. He makes the mistake of seeing just the creative side of capitalism while failing totally to grasp that it also has a wildly destructive and chaotic side. He makes the mistake of assuming, rather oddly, that capitalism is aspirational and can fulfill peoples aspirations. Anybody with experience of working within a capitalist context will grasp the basic truth of the point that capitalism is anti-aspiration, under it, the aspirations of the vast majority of people remain unfulfilled. It is like the way wealth is the province of the few, ability to rise through the ranks is restricted to a tiny minority and they are usually those who have some kind of inbuilt advantage in any case. Capitalism, as a system, simply cannot fulfil the aspirations of the many, it is dependent on opportunity being restricted to the few. It cannot even now fulfil the aspirations of the sons and daughters of the middle classes, let alone the poor. If you don’t believe me ask the graduate who is leaden with debt and also propping up their local dole que and this is why the middle classes are becoming increasingly radicalised.
Moving on, his attitude to being rich is unclear. I have noticed that when Ed is in trouble at Prime Ministers Questions he reverts to a standard line of attack – attacking the ‘tax cut for millionaires’ – and we hear that Labour may well propose a new wealth tax, yet the Labour leader tells the Telegraph he does not want to make ‘moral judgments’ on the rich. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Saying the rich should pay a greater amount of tax, have a greater social responsibility (because their riches come from accrued social wealth), is a moral judgment. Mr Miliband seems to be blissfully unaware of this contradiction in both his thinking and practice though. You are left with the rather unappealing impression that his spoken word depend not on what he actually thinks but which newspaper he happens to be speaking to at any given moment. Either that or he genuinely doesn’t know what he thinks, neither of these inevitable impressions are that helpful.
Speaking frankly, it befoules the legacy of both his father and this Party to have the man speak in such plainly ignorant, broad-brush terms. Indeed, it makes me queasy about his entire character when I remember the Ed Miliband who spoke so proudly of his father and family heritage during the Labour leadership contest and now see him speaking of his fathers entirely correct ‘skepticism’ in such a disdainful manner. Is this what it has come too Ed? I sincerely hope not, not just for the sake of the Party but also your own personal sake.
A stab in the back….
Nick Clegg, apparently, is open to the possibility of forming a coalition with Labour after the next election. He should be so lucky, not even our leadership is daft enough to form a coalition in which toxic Nick plays any kind of role. One of the most interesting and depressing, from a Labour-supporting point of view at least, lines of thought this whole episode opens up is what exactly are the Labour leadership thinking?
Of course, there will be an element of mischief-making involved; talking-up the possible and a dalliance with the yellow peril can only sour the increasingly strained romantic relations between the two governmental bed fellows. For Clegg, as well, he probably imagines such talk may strengthen his hand when it comes to influencing the increasingly restive Conservatives; ‘look, I have got other options’ says the notoriously flirtatious Mr Clegg. I doubt this will impress a Conservative Party that is already looking to junk its partner at the earliest possible juncture. Meanwhile, such a strategic gambit is not without its negative implications for the Labour leadership.
Although on the surface it appears to be a win-win, it is likely to alienate a significant proportion of its own activists. Certainly, those who are standing against Liberal Democrats in the upcoming election are likely to be decidedly nonplussed. However, hostility to the idea of a Coalition with the Lib Dems is however more generalised and comes from all quarters, from those recently returned to the fold, from a skeptical left that can hardly have failed to notice the contrast between the cold counsel given to the TUC and the unions compared to the warm-words for Vince Cable and, finally, from the Party-patriotic and tribalist right. LabourList‘s recent poll, finding 57% opposed to the idea of a Coalition, is likely in my mind to be indicative of how the majority of the Party feels. So, why rock the boat?
Well, for me, the answer is simple. It isn’t about short-term strategic gain (though that is obviously a plus), but more about the long-term ambition of the higher echelons of the Party to reforge the old Liberal Party, finally marginalise or even vomit-out the unions and rid the Labour Party of any last remaining flecks of red in its flag. I don’t think Ed Miliband substantively diverges from that agenda. Let’s place our cards on the table. Labour’s grand-economic plan is not to end austerity. In fact, every public proclamation of Mr Balls and Mr Miliband has told us that they intend exactly the opposite, to continue with austerity and come the election there will probably be a committment to stick to the Coalition governments spending targets. Our economic narrative is different in emphasis but not in substantive content. ‘Pre-distribution’ is obviously intended to provide ‘progressive’ gloss t0 a continuation of the slash-and-burn hack job we have seen done on Britain’s economy. From this angle, a Coalition with the Lib Dems becomes even more appealing, it would marginalise Parliamentary dissenters on Labour’s benches and give the leadership a convenient human shield to deploy when it comes to justifying itself to the membership.
All-in-all then an alliance with a ‘reborn’ and ‘rebranded’ Liberal Democrat Party looks like a win-win for the leadership. Sadly, I am convinced that if they were asked, hand-on-heart, what they would prefer I suspect many within Labour’s leading circles would prefer this outcome to Labour winning an outright majority. They will bank on the Party faithful’s desire to be back in office to railroad a deal through. However, this would be the ultimate stab-in-the-back to both the Labour membership and its supporters at the polls. Many will say this is a question that can only be answered in the future and in some senses that is right, however, the fault-lines are appearing in the here-and-now over this issue and they could well define and shape the future trajectory and course of the Party in a major way.
Moments of Clarity 
Recent Comments