Labour elite abandon their support for Blair

[James]

Former Labour allies round on Blair

Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Monday August 9, 2004
The Guardian

Some of Tony Blair's oldest and closest ideological allies in the Labour party abandon their support for his leadership today, saying he is endangering the viability of the party, eroding trust in politics and embracing a market ideology largely indistinguishable from the Conservatives'.

The vehement assessment is made by Renewal, an influential quarterly Labour journal which has long advocated the modernisers' cause and for which ministers and Labour MPs regularly write.

Mr Blair attended a Downing Street seminar last year celebrating its first decade and is listed on its editorial advisory board, along with five other serving ministers: Patricia Hewitt, David Miliband, Ruth Kelly, Margaret Hodge and Alan Johnson.

There are three former cabinet ministers on the board: Alan Milburn, Robin Cook and Clare Short.

The editorial, marking a new disillusionment with Mr Blair on the part of hitherto sympathetic party intellectuals, is bound to cause concern in Downing Street, if only because of its impact on party morale.

There is no serious threat to Mr Blair's leadership and the bulk of the unions have, at least for now, buried the hatchet.

But the authors reject the recent optimism from No 10, saying: "The party hierarchy just does not realise what a large hole it resides in. The European results demonstrate the dealignment of political loyalties that has been accelerating under New Labour."

They say: "The dominant feeling in the electorate is not so much that there are no differences between the parties. Rather it is that two terms of office with massive majorities has not made enough of a difference and that the parties don't behave any differently when in power.

"Worse, our democracy has been eroded, there is no new politics and trust in politicians is at an all time low."

In a dramatic portrayal of the mood in the party, Renewal says: "What is at stake is not just the radical intent of a third term and therefore the prospects for victory at a fourth election, but the viability of the party.

"Recent results and events disturbingly echo the fall of the Tories. First you lose your active members (on current projections we will have no members by 2018), then your councillor base, finally after a moment of epiphany (like Black Wednesday) the fall amongst the wider public is frighteningly far and fast.

"In the party, members simply walk away in silence, leaving behind them an increasingly empty shell - frustrated and disillusioned but, curiously, not especially angry."

The editorial's authors say that "very large numbers of members and representatives" share their analysis, including their belief that Mr Blair is a leader more intent on marginalising the Tories than transforming Britain.

Reminding its readers that the journal was set up in 1993 in the wake of the fourth election defeat, the editorial states: "We did genuinely think that Blair would open up spaces to reshape and renew social democracy.

"We were wrong. Gradually that early promise of a new politics has receded and it is blatantly obvious that there is no point waiting for or wanting a better Blair."

They say the stakes are too high for the party to leave Mr Blair unchallenged, and urge the chancellor, Gordon Brown, to say more about how he would govern.

Admitting doubts about the chancellor, they nevertheless say: "It is undoubtedly the case that the social democratic successes of this government belong primarily to Gordon. If he becomes leader then the party will be more at ease with itself, the pace of redistribution could increase and the public sector will be safer from creeping privatisation."

The authors acknowledge that Mr Blair has divided and weakened the opposition in a way that a decade ago looked impossible.

"At every turn the strategy is to keep the Tories out of the ring. But the cost to social democrats is debilitating. Sure we have power, but are denied the means to do anything purposeful with it. This is the Blair Catch 22."

They also give a withering picture of the damage inflicted on the party by Mr Blair's decisions on Iraq. They write that New Labour has burnt so much political capital that it looks as if the second term will be remembered primarily for Iraq.

They say: "As it stands, none of the major rationales for the war stand up. There are no weapons of mass destruction, the country, the region and the world are not safer places, the lives of the Iraqi people are not safer and it remains an open question whether they are or will be much better.

"And the debris has inevitably fallen primarily on Blair, given that he took an unwilling and unenthusiastic party and people into the conflict.

"Tragically, Blair still appears to believe that if he can only explain it one more time, we will get it. But Tony, we get the message - we just don't accept it.

"Iraq is Blair's poll tax, a fundamental breach of trust, demonstration of arrogance and strategic blunder for which the party as a whole is paying the price."


Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1279153,00.html)

[monkeydust]

The Guardian?!?! I thought you'd prefer the Telegraph, James. :P

I saw this article today, and I think it marks a significant development in the Labour party, perhaps crushing Blair's thoughts that he was "back on track".

It seems that the Labour party is going the same way the Tories did prior to their downfall.

[James]

Wow, that was so funny i fell off my chair. Please, stop...


I think it is VERY significant if it means the Blairite Power Circle. I did note, however, that it said;

"There are three former cabinet ministers on the board: Alan Milburn, Robin Cook and Clare Short."

But having said this, other members are traditional supporters. One can only speculate who is still supporting him.
But if it is the circle, then this is by far one of the most serious threats to his leadership (and everything "he" represents - such as the right wing of New Labour). I wouldn't be surprised if they actually get him to stand down in the very near future, whilst everything is "quiet" (politically speaking).

[YKTMX]

While I support any attempt to remove the warmonger Blair from power, I am still sceptical to the real goals of this group. They seem to be under the delusion that Brown will be any better than Blair. Let's look at Brown's record as a Labour Chancellor. He has presided over a "historically low tax" economy in which inequality has increased and the top of society has got even richer. He has invested in services but has no qualms in attacking public service and civil service workers. He supported the Iraq War, he supports a "pro-buisiness" agenda, he has a severe boner for the WTO, he supports Top up fees and actually created New Labour along with Blair - indeed many have said he was the leader of this project.

The Labour Party is a lost cause (if it was ever there to be won). The British left should look to form new groups now. There is Respect and the SSP, I support both these groups with criticisms.

[James]

No i disagree, i actually prefer the kez's to the galloways. I personally think we should focus on labour mainly - to me, respect is more of a warning shot across the bows of the labour party. No new group of leftists can emerge from the labour party, if there arn't any in the party to do the emerging!

[James]

also, i think a serious concern is the students. Those who in the past would have joined labour, are now split inbetween the liberal democrats (they have a rather left, active wing) and the "extreme" smaller parties - such as respect, SWP, SA, SP, CPGB, CPB blah blah blah

[YKTMX]

Why should we care if the Labour Party dies? It's history in the labour movement consists mainly of deceit, capitulation and betrayal.

George Galloway was kicked out the Labour Party, he didn't choose to leave.

Working class support for the party is dissolving at an incredible rate and if we don't offer a real alternative then other forces in society will i.e The Nazis.

[James]

But lets face it - Galloway is a fucking wanker (excuse my french). Don't forget what he was doing when all those iraqi's were being persecuted!

The labour party is deffinantly sinking: the question is whether it has taken in too much water, or if it can still be salvaged. I think it can: look at nature - life is a series of fluxuations. Labour will return - when the time is right. If it has the internal workings (decent left wing individuals).

[YKTMX]

But lets face it - Galloway is a fucking wanker (excuse my french). Don't forget what he was doing when all those iraqi's were being persecuted!

What? Protesting against Saddam Hussein while the Tories where selling him arms?

The Labour Party is a dead duck. Get used to it.

[James]

Galloway was more of a arse licker than Rummy!
Havn't you seen the interviews? He was d-i-s-g-u-s-t-i-n-g!

Let me guess, they left that bit out of the RESPECT leaflet...

[YKTMX]

Galloway was more of a arse licker than Rummy!


:rolleyes: The bit of the interview the Press "strangely" always show is when Galloway is praising the "indefatigability" of...the Iraqi people for surviving the genocidal sanctions regime.

You've been fish-hooked on that one I'm afraid comrade.

[James]

erm yes....
no you are wrong: i remember them showing it on a "have i got news for you", when gally went on there.

[YKTMX]

Listen, the right wing press has been desperate to find a link between Galloway and Saddam, they even fabricated material during the recent gulf war. They have failed to find one. Any information you believe you have to the contrary is wrong.

[James]

no, they simply showed a video of galloway meeting saddam - or do you think that it was a body double?
It was very funny, Ian and Paul took the piss out of him for it an awful lot - he didn't jump up and say "this is a capitalist plot".

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 10:17 PM
no, they simply showed a video of galloway meeting saddam - or do you think that it was a body double?
It was very funny, Ian and Paul took the piss out of him for it an awful lot - he didn't jump up and say "this is a capitalist plot".
Yes, I KNOW he met Saddam. To show solidarity with the Iraqi people, nothing more.

[Kez]

Well, this is good (and predicted) news indeed, however, what should be our role in all of this?

Blair is an electoral negative for the Labour Party candidates, out of their own deesire to win their seats, they want to get rid of Blair, if he is harming their chances (which the local and european elections as well as mayoral elections, showed).

The unions are clearly disgusted with Blair and want him (and the Third Way) out.

regular working class members want him out, and those who left the party also want him out of their party.

So what should we do?
We should agitate inside the party, we should use the opportunities inside the party to get rid of Blair as party leader. This can start at the lowest level at the local branch level, and at the same time we win people to our ideas, by showing the reasoning of why we should get rid of Blair.
Once we win the grass roots, the democratic functions inside the party will allow the local grass roots members to show their feelings nationally eg at conference.

We cannot ignore the party which has the largest number of workers inside it, that is simply a secterian approach, not to say this couldnt change, but at the moment the situation is so that we should work inside the party in order to get to the workers.

Once the workers win inside the party, there will be a party split most likely, such as the gang of four (SPD) in the 80's, with a right wing faction leaving the party.

As for Galloway, he is a deranged nutter who the SWP gave a lease of life, if you want to give solidairty with iraqi people you go see the people, not the scumbag dictator who is persecuting and murdering them. Like as if one of us went to see Hitler and got photographed with him and claimed it was solidarity with the German uunionists and jews...

[James]

I personally don't expect new labour to die when Blair leaves - i think it will take another couple of years for this to happen (requires an alternative to appear within the party).

But, say if tomorrow new labour was going to die - who would front the new, old labour? I'm quite unaware of anyone in the party who has a seat who could do this.

In the next cabinet i'd prefer to see Peter Hain (sp?) as PM rather than Brown, and i'd like to see Cook back in the foreign office.

[YKTMX]

As for Galloway, he is a deranged nutter who the SWP gave a lease of life, if you want to give solidairty with iraqi people you go see the people, not the scumbag dictator who is persecuting and murdering them. Like as if one of us went to see Hitler and got photographed with him and claimed it was solidarity with the German uunionists and jews...

Oh, that's spurious nonsense. The clear and obvious diffirence is that the German nation wasn't constantly attacked by genocidal sanctions and air attacks and the Brits and the U.S supported Saddam during his worst period!

Trotting off second rate ring wing verbiage to attack a comrade doesn't do you or us any justice Kez.

[Scottish_Militant]

Galloway is an idiot, he refuses to accept a "workers wage" as an MP, he is a crown loving monarchist, and above all a complete hypocrite who contradicts himself from one week to another.

His SWP/RESPECT adventures are nothing more than pocket lining publicity stunts, he also rejects the right of women to choose on the abortion issue and supports the idea of seperate schools for muslim children.

Why anyone would see this as 'socialist' is beyond me

[Kez]

Galloway never was a comrade of mine and isnt to this day, i only consider socialists as comrades, not nutters.

As for new labour, it wont end with the end of Blair, but with a complete removal of such scum from below.

It is interesting to note the new NUS president is a left wing Labourite and managed to win the presidency. She won on a platform which included fighting inside the Labour party to win it back if im not mistaken, it just shows the secterians up as so detached when they claim the workers want nothing to do with the Labour Party.

[YKTMX]

Secterianism is definetly on show here and it isn't me displaying it.

Trying to "Reclaim Labour the Party" is an excercise in political self-emasculation. What if you succeed and Blair is replaced by Brown and a few more "leftish" MP's get elected. What happens then? Re-instate Clause 4? It is all a big reformist merry go round with people harbouring delusions they should have abandoned decades ago.

The Labour Party is being deserted on mass by the working class.

Enjoy the sinking of the ship, you'll have a great view.

[Kez]

"Secterianism is definetly on show here and it isn't me displaying it."
-it clearly is, as you have no unnderstanding as to where the workers are operating.

"What if you succeed and Blair is replaced by Brown and a few more "leftish" MP's get elected. What happens then? Re-instate Clause 4? It is all a big reformist merry go round with people harbouring delusions they should have abandoned decades ago."
-You push for replacement of Brown, uuntil you have a Leftwing leader, if not a socialist, radicalising the membership.

"The Labour Party is being deserted on mass by the working class."
-So you admit it is a party of the working class? Dont say it to loud, you may be expelled from your sect.

"Enjoy the sinking of the ship, you'll have a great view."
-We shall see

Your Fraternally in struggle, or should i say...Allah Akbar
Kez

[YKTMX]

it clearly is, as you have no unnderstanding as to where the workers are operating.

Yes, and you do...Maybe about 30 years ago!


-You push for replacement of Brown, uuntil you have a Leftwing leader, if not a socialist, radicalising the membership

Oh right. Wonder why know one's thought of that before!


-So you admit it is a party of the working class? Dont say it to loud, you may be expelled from your sect

:lol: Yes, the LP is being deserted on mass by the working class, that clearly shows the flaws in my argument.


Your Fraternally in struggle, or should i say...Allah Akbar

Oh, and a nice piece of Islamaphobia as an afterthought. Good work...Comrade.

[Kez]

hehe, if anyone questions your relationship with the muslims then its "racism" or "islamaphobia"

so if i question why RESPECT meetings were split in males and females in seperate rooms, its islamaphobia? some "socialists". i always thought males and females should be equal...

anyway.

tell me where working class are operating today?

"Oh right. Wonder why know one's thought of that before!"
-they have, try going talking to union members and real workers, not just your party hack and middle class twats from RESPECT.

"Yes, the LP is being deserted on mass by the working class, that clearly shows the flaws in my argument."
-so is the LP a workers party in your eyes or not?

[Louis Pio]

hehe, if anyone questions your relationship with the muslims then its "racism" or "islamaphobia"

One get the same pathetic attacks from the danish swp, must be ingrown reaction in that party instead of answering critique.

How can anybody see Galloway as an alternative? As it has already been said he is against workers mp's on a workers wage. Something the left in labour always fought for. Now suddenly when SWP try to make a leftreformist party were they (the r-r-r revolutinaries) is the majority, that demand is suddenly secterian.
Something is rotten on the left and it's called SWP oppotunism.
RESPECT is absurd, SWP make up the majority but vote against socialist policies. Just to suck up to some reformist wing there almost isn't there. The sucking up to reactionary fundamentalism is even worse. Instead of reaching workers of arab, turkish etc. decent as workers they choose to reach them as muslims. The SWP line must be something along this "working class muslims are stupid, they can't see the need for socialism. Let's reach em through religion".

Quite interesting article. It seems labour could split at some point. Everything is not as static as some people seem to belive.

[YKTMX]

""Oh right. Wonder why know one's thought of that before!"
-they have, try going talking to union members and real workers, not just your party hack and middle class twats from RESPECT.



Excuse me but fuck you. I actually live amongst "real workers", I don't have to "go anywhere" to talk to them.

I'm not actually a member of Respect, I live in Scotland, so your bile is misdirected.


so is the LP a workers party in your eyes or not?

Some members of the rank and file and T.U bureaucracy still have sentimental attachments to it but it doesn't matter if they're a workers party "in my eyes". It only matters if workers actually think the Labour Party represents their interests and increasingly they don't.

It is not a workers party because workers are not represented in it's leadersip, policies, legislation or increasingly, in the membership.



hehe, if anyone questions your relationship with the muslims then its "racism" or "islamaphobia"

so if i question why RESPECT meetings were split in males and females in seperate rooms, its islamaphobia? some "socialists". i always thought males and females should be equal...




"The Muslims"? What is this group "the Muslims"? You'll need to explain yourself there comrade. I thought the Muslim community had classes and diffirent attitudes like any other group in society. You apparently know diffirent.

What exactly is your contention? That because some of the Muslim community hold conservate views about sexuality we should not do buisniss with them?

I think we should engage the Muslim community since they are deserting "your party" on mass because of the war.

Oh, by the way, how did that thing go? The war I mean, by your calculations all the "grass roots pressure" should have stopped the war. Bloody theories eh?

[Kez]

"I'm not actually a member of Respect, I live in Scotland, so your bile is misdirected."
who you a member of?

"It is not a workers party because workers are not represented in it's leadersip, policies, legislation or increasingly, in the membership."
-correct. It is a bourgeoise-workers party, in that it is led by ruling class, but its members are working class, it is these workers we must intervene with.

"What exactly is your contention? That because some of the Muslim community hold conservate views about sexuality we should not do buisniss with them?"
-of course we should, but only as workers, we should not bend our principles (or throw out in the case of respect) to any religious grouping just to get their votes, that is a disgusting opportunist tactic, one which only the cancerous grouping which is the SWP would employ.

As for grass roots pressure, if im not mistaken it forced Blair to talk to Bush to avoid wars with Syria and Iran, and cut short Britains involvement in iraq to a lesser extent.

[YKTMX]

who you a member of?

I'm not a member of any party but I support the SSP in Scotland.


correct. It is a bourgeoise-workers party, in that it is led by ruling class, but its members are working class, it is these workers we must intervene with.

Yes, I agree! But not by holding them within Labour! We must argue for an alternative outside New Labour!


of course we should, but only as workers, we should not bend our principles (or throw out in the case of respect) to any religious grouping just to get their votes, that is a disgusting opportunist tactic, one which only the cancerous grouping which is the SWP would employ.

Hypocrisy alert! It is your argument that we should involve ourself with the LP membership EVEN THOUGH it's leadership is reactionery. That it EXACTLY the position of Respect with regards to sections of the Muslim community.

The left had to offer "Muslims" an alternative because they knew that a vote for the Labour Party was a vote for slaughter in Iraq.


As for grass roots pressure, if im not mistaken it forced Blair to talk to Bush to avoid wars with Syria and Iran, and cut short Britains involvement in iraq to a lesser extent.

Oh god, how pathetic you sound.

[Louis Pio]

That it EXACTLY the position of Respect with regards to sections of the Muslim community.

No there's a difference. SWP/RESPECT want to reach them as muslims on "muslim politics" (what the hell that is :huh: ). So they bow down to all the prejudices of the leadership of MAB.

[Scottish_Militant]

It is all a big reformist merry go round

One of the leading SWP and RESPECT people recently said that their task was to 'create a new mass reformist party'

would you disagree with this, and does it change your views on the RESPECT adventure?

[YKTMX]

The problem with the Labour Party is that has now ceased to be even a "refomist party". It now represents all of the most reactionery forces in society and it's "grassroots" membership is viewed as both an non-entity and a nuisance by the leadership.


No there's a difference. SWP/RESPECT want to reach them as muslims on "muslim politics" (what the hell that is ). So they bow down to all the prejudices of the leadership of MAB

Absolute nonsene.

This is from the founding declaration of Respect.


Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship

[Louis Pio]

Absolute nonsene.

No they still do it. I take it you don't have any experience with RESPECT other than what you read on their website?

What do you call it when MAB calls for a vote to RESPECT because they are "muslim party", what do you call seperate entrnaches for women and men?

The point here is that SWP obviously views muslims workers as stupid. Or else they wouldn't hook up with MAB instead of reaching people through their union and work.


The problem with the Labour Party is that has now ceased to be even a "refomist party". It now represents all of the most reactionery forces in society and it's "grassroots" membership is viewed as both an non-entity and a nuisance by the leadership.

As has happened a thousand times before. Now the deal is that instead of voting for RESPECT most people choose not to vote. This is why it's odd SWP chooses to go on a election adventure instead of focusing on unions. It seems they try to find a shortcut yeat again.

[h&s]

Has no-one thought that we could actually form RESPECT? They are a young, and spineless, party, and have not yet got any real supporters. If true left-wingers were to join surely we could use them to do what we want. That way working-class people would vote for them due to them having our policies, but we could still keep up the image of being a middle class party to get those classes to vote for them. Its all very good critisising them for being weak and stupid (as they are) but that very fact could give us a chance to hijack them.

[Louis Pio]

Well you dunno SWP then :D
RESPECT is all SWP's thing, they formed it and they control it. And actually they are scared that other leftwing people would try to take it over. Their leadership even blaimed a local SWP branch, saying they had allowed people from workers power to gain control of a branch. Now if they reallt was serious about RESPECT being broad they wouldn't care, but the point is they think they can score big on it.

Besides from that I don't think it's as easy as you say. If that was the case why haven't some of the "alternatives" on the left of Labour had any succes?

[h&s]

Well if they&#39;re that power-hungry I don&#39;t think they deserve any &#39;Respect.&#39; I was under the impression that Respect were a bunch of green hippies and middle-class do-gooders, but that&#39;s the media for you.... <_<
Anyway, I really doubt we could make any serious gains through the current system the way things are now. We should use the &#39;democratic&#39; system to promote our cause, and that&#39;s all its good for. To actually gain power, revolution is the only &#39;serious&#39; solution, although how that will ever be possible is beyond me...

[Louis Pio]

Well it seems the political activity at this point is in the unions.
That&#39;s why I think it&#39;s insane for revolutionaries promoting a left reformist electoral front like RESPECT. Voter turnout in Britain are low, last time RESPECT won a council seat only 29% voted. The thing to do is work in the unions and go from there. Instead of trying to build some left reformist party which supposedly should take over Labours role.

[James]

Labour should not be written off - it will only die if everyone leaves it (like respect wants).

Labour have done much for the cause since coming to power: lets not forget this.
e.g.
gave GCHQ trade union rights again
social chapter signed
unfair dismissal protection after 12 months - down from 2 years
right to 11 hours of rest a day for all night shift workers
legal protection for workers taking strike action
new rights to protect whistle blowers
devolution
more and extended maternity and family rights
the new deal
national minimum wage
house of lords reform
free eye tests for over 60s
£1.6billion extra for 3rd world aid and international development (largest ever increase)
banning of anti personnel mines
1 million UK landmines destroyed
writing off debts of many countries
ban
more than 1 bn invested in renewable energy (i think a white paper is due on this)25,000 hectares of green belt created since &#39;97
policy of using brown field before green field
country side and rights of way act - opening up of countryside
new £400 winter fuel allowance for OAPs

Now contrast that with what would happen if you vote respect instead: tories would get in. Enough said really.

[Kez]

this of course under scummy Blair, not true Labourites, who would go much further, radicalising the working class.