Labour’s divided soul….
The truth of the matter is that ever since Labour lost power in 2010, it has been a Party-divided. In that sense, the Falkirk controversy is not unexpected, it is merely the bursting forth into public view a process that has been ongoing for some time. On the one side sits the likes of Unite, the trade unions and a gaggle of left groupings ranging the blood red Labour Representation Committee to softer shades of red like Next Generation and Labour Left. On the other, sits the standard-bearer for the parties liberal wing, Progess.
This is the real story that lies behind events in Falkirk. We are seeing an awful lot of hand-wringing and unnecessary and hypocritical moralising. Local Labour Parties, much like any other political party, are usually run by small, self-selecting and often self-serving elites. This is much due to the decline of political activism as it is any Machiavellian plots (that’s not to say such plots dont exist, they do).
In respect of the allegations of Unite rigging the Falkirk selection there is little hard proof on offer of the validity of these claims. We certainly should treat the testimony of Linda Gow with a distinct pinch of salt due to her obvious self-interest. The leaks of a ‘private’ internal Labour report seem to selectively target Unite.
Ed Miliband is widely seen as a weak leader by the electorate and this ‘crisis’ seems suspiciously convenient for him. He gets to ‘hang-tough’ against a trade union ‘bogeyman’ and meanwhile Progress and its close co-thinkers like Jim Murphy get a chance to do the same. Giving the shadowy maneuvers behind the scenes it would be utterly impossible to trust the findings of any Labour Party inquiry. Len McCluskey’s call for a indepedent inquiry is therefore surely the correct one:
If there are any wrongdoings in Falkirk, then let’s have an independent inquiry so that we can have the truth. We have no confidence whatsoever in the so-called investigation that has been carried out by Labour party HQ.
In the interests of openness it is the only right way forward. Anything less will only rub more salt into already gaping wounds.
2 responses to “Labour’s divided soul….”
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Robert on More heat than light… |
 | treborc on Shaking hands with yourself… |
| treborc on Supply-side socialism….. |
 | Julian Ware-Lane on Poor politics, worse economics… |
| Rob the cripple on A battle for Labour’s… |
Moments of Clarity 
Was Labour divided after 2010′ the two different strong wings of the Labour Party post 94 were Brownites and Blaitites, by 2003 with Tony Benn out of parliament, and Galloway and a livingstone not in the party at that stage, the left were a small force, and unions only contributed 30% of funds,
When Blair went and the a brownies critics were even jumping ship or alienated like Charles Clarke,the idea that Daivd !Miliband could have ousted Brown done a deal with Balls and united the post Brown,post a lair census, was unlikely,
The more right wing ends of the party Fabians, Progress were wither minimal or surprisingly backing Ed M, there were the likes of Dqivid a Blunkett ,Hazel Blears, backing Andy Burnham, or Peter Hain backing Ed M, many Blairite constituencies,didn’t think that David M had the killer instinct to be a modern leader, Blue Labour being another example o fate more fit of the party, not backing. David,
Apart from Ed M, lack of criticism against. The smears of unite,of Progress magazine, and rely ing on their money, there’s been no swing to the left, apart from a coup,e of people abstain g in the 2012 mayoral election there hasn’t been a SDP style split, I don’t buy the idea the parties divided,
Te other point I’d make is progress haven’t said a word about this trouble and Progress have supporters like Luke Akehurst who want to keep the union party link and Diane Abbott writes for them now
LikeLike
I’d ignore John he lives in another world, on some planet miles away.
I think your right, and sadly will the public fall for this bit o blarney between Labour and the Unions, I doubt it.
Miliband will have to define himself the old way by persuading the public he has the ability to run the county, which is hard after the mess of new labour.
But the bigger problem is the public do not see Balls as the chancellor really either, now Tom has walked out again, In the end the public which is still bothering to vote have a choice Cameron or Miliband, my own feeling it will be Cameron they will decide as in the past let them have another term, mainly because they will think Labour back to it’s bad old days.
LikeLike