Skip to main content

Labour Traitors - Reid, Blunkett, Straw, Cruddas and Abbot

A new strategic betrayal 




We could have had a progressive coalition. We could have shared a rainbow coalition with the Greens. We could have had a truly national government with representatives from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together with the Lib Dems we could have had proportional representation.

Never in my life did I ever imagine that I could see Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell as heroes. But that's what they were. Shockingly, they did the right thing. They went balls out to broker a coalition agreement, while others sabotaged it for personal ambition or out of a desire for revenge. The least democratically inclined, most backward in Labour came out against proportional representation.

Unsurprisingly, three of the most authoritarian and anti-democratic former Home Secretaries in living memory scuppered the Lib Lab agreement:  David Blunkett, Jack Straw and John Reid.

______________________________________________

Shockingly, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell did the right thing. They went balls out to broker a coalition agreement, while others sabotaged it for personal ambition or out of a desire for revenge.
______________________________________________

A forensic linguist would have a field day with what Reid and Blunkett said. Reid was chatting about wreaking revenge on the Labour Party. Blunkett was talking about Harlots wandering Westminster's corridors. Who was wreaking revenge Reid? Tell us some more about these harlots you despise, Blunkett. Your zips are undone, by the way.

The Tories didn't destroy hope for a progressive coalition. The Blairites didn't destroy that hope. The SNP didn't destroy that hope.

While principled left wingers like Tony Benn were in favour of a Lib-Lab coalition, The faux left, Diane Abbott and Jon Cruddas, thinking they were playing a very clever game, allied themselves with the rogue elephants of the thuggish right of the Labour party.

Tell that to my brother and his friends who voted Liberal Democrat to send a message of protest to Labour for its right wing politics, only to discover yesterday afternoon that they had effectively voted Tory because Diane Abbott and Jon Cruddas helped destroy a Lib Lab pact. Don't think we'll forget.

The Scottish Labour tribalists concurred with thses traitors and then the rest, noses twitching in the wind, quickly followed - Andy Burnham throwing his cap in the ring.

The right-left Labour alliance hopes that the ensuing job loses and the suffering of the British people will help bring old Labour back. The right-left Labour alliance is a bet against the British people and their sabotage of a Lib-Lab pact will be at the expense of the British people. Simon Hughes apportions the blame accurately. These elements of Labour sabotaged a deal.

We must sacrifice our jobs and our families welfare now so that old Labour can regroup and reap the fruits of the anger and disaffection that the Tories sow. Except for one thing. The right left Labour alliance helped bring Cameron to power, and we should remember this strategic betrayal.

 I remember what I regard to be the key strategic betrayal made by Joan Lester and Neil Kinnock in the deputy leadership elections in 1981 when the pair of them voted Dennis Healey in instead of Tony Benn. Everything followed from that moment. Rightly, Neil Kinnock saw Blair as his heir. Blairism was the illegitimate child of Kinnock's betrayal. It's oversimplifying, but New Labour was the result of that betrayal.

_____________________________________


While principled left wingers like Tony Benn were in favour of a Lib Lab coalition, the faux left, Diane Abbott and Jon Cruddas, thinking they were playing a very clever game, allied themselves with the rogue elephants of the thuggish right of the Labour party.
_____________________________________

But when £6 billion pounds are being sliced off the education budget, and when teachers and other public sector workers are losing their jobs thanks to the bankers' profligacy, and when the Tories are making us pay for this profligacy in spades, then we should remember this moment and thank our new set of traitors.

Do they honestly think that we will look back at this moment and blame the Tories or the Liberal Democrats? Labour had the opportunity to lead a coalition and to lead the country to a new fairer electoral system where everyone on the left and right would be represented.

They chose instead to go into opposition and let the establishment reassert itself in the hope that the Tories will look bad as a result of deficit reduction measures, in the fond expectation that Labour will be back in four years. We'll see.

But we will not blame the Tories or the Liberal Democrats, we will blame them instead! The alliance between the old Labour hard right in the form of Edd Balls, John Reid, David Blunkett, and Douglas Alexander and Labour pseudo left; represented by Cruddas and Abott will be remembered for a long long time.

For the sake of their scheming, they have destroyed the opportunity to change the electoral system in Britain and to make it actually represent the voting intentions of the people of Britain.

As Polly Toynbee said today, this day does not mark the first day of Labour's renewal in opposition. It marks their Dunkirk. The Blairites, traditionalists and faux leftists have crossed blades. Let's close the curtains while they make mincemeat of each other. At the end of the process they will need someone electable, anyway. This probably means one of the slightly dotty Milibands will end up as leader's of the opposition. BFD. That's no "renewal."



By Phil Hall

Comments

DomzaNet said…
Gordon Brown's bottom line is "the values of this country". Is that a load of class-neutral old bollocks, or what?

Your bottom line is "progressive". So what is the difference between that and "the inevitability of gradualism", reformism and ecomomism?

"Progressive" can't be an absolute. It's wishy-washy, or worse. It's more than likely a fraud.

"Progressive" is never "balls out" for anything. "A better life for all"? Bollocks! When? How? When the bourgeois leopard changes its spots? When pigs fly?

Isn't it time you signed up to be a revolutionary, Phil?
Philip Hall said…
"When the bourgeois leopard changes its spots? When pigs fly?"


Progressive is not my bottom line. However, doing anything that causes a Tory government to come into power reflects badly on the so called left of the Labour party.

What is required at this conjuncture, in my view, is support for a new electoral system. To be seen to be acting responsibly and morally.

At the same time you can fight against Capitalism and the "bourgeoise leopard" and raise class consciousness and help ordinary working people become the subject of history.

I don't see the contradiction. You have to do what's right. At this conjuncture opposing the Tories is the right thing to do.
DomzaNet said…
In "The Leopard", by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, there is a moment when one of the characters says: "Everything must change so that everything may remain the same".

I think that changing the electoral system in Britain will be like that. Everything will remain the same.

I think the right thing to do is to build real democratic mass organisations among the people. Bourgeois democracy is not much use in itself, but it provides an opportunity to build mass organisations. It's the right thing to do.

The vanguard party is only an association for organisers.
Philip Hall said…
I can't argue against that. But what I can say is that the people in those mass organisations will hold you responsible for the consequneces of your actions. If you help cause the Conservative party to come into power resulting in the loss of 500,000 public sector jobs instead of the retention of most of those jobs, then try people that it's not your fault but merely a feature of Capitalism and that the system is at fault.

It is, but if you precipitate such a situation then you will be held accountable for having done so. This is what the faux left in the Labour party and outside the Labour party like to ignore.
DomzaNet said…
I don't think so. People in mass organisations will be responsible for what they do.

You are stuck in a groove where you imagine yourself (or yourself made large as the Labour Party) as an intermediary between "the people" and "the state". Whereas it is only when the people have agency via mass democratic structures of all kinds, that "the people" have a collective subjectivity at all. Not through you as their avatar.
James Tweedie said…
Is all this not in any way the fault of Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democratic Party as a whole for jumping into bed with the Tories? And doesn't that blow Mark in History's argument that proportional representation would result in a 'natural coalition of the centre-left' right out of the water?
James Tweedie said…
And were not both Labour and the Lib-Dems promising swingeing public sector cuts?

I'm not trying to be a Pollyanna, but it was going to be bad news for the ordinary Joe whoever won.
Philip Hall said…
Speaking of which our union, the University and College Union (UCU) is just about to have a mass meeting in which we are going to discuss the proposed cuts of staff members from every single department of the college.

This place is going to be a powder kegg.

The DAY after the election of Cameron our management have become emboldened. 15 lecturers from the IT department alone to be cut.

Popular posts from this blog

A warm welcome

. Why blog on ARS NOTORIA? I have set up this website,  ARS NOTORIA ,  (the notable art) as an opportunity for like-minded people like you to jot down your thoughts and share them with us on what I hope will be a high profile blog. . ARS NOTORIA is conceived as an outlet: a way for you to get things off your chest, shake those bees out of your bonnet and scratch that itch. The idea is that you do so in a companionable blogging environment, one that that is less structured - freer. Every article you care to write or photograph or picture you care to post will appear on its own page and you are pretty much guaranteed that people will read with interest what you produce and take time to look at what you post. Personal blogs are OK, but what we long for, if we can admit it, are easy-going, loose knit communities: blogging hubs where we can share ideas and pop in and out as frequently, or as seldom, as we like. You will be able to moderate and delete any of the comments made on 

Phil Hall: The Taleban are a drug cartel disguised as an Islamist movement

Truly the Taleban could have arranged as many bombings and terrorists acts as they liked in the UK. There are many Pashtun young men and women in cities in the UK who still have large extended families back in Afghanistan and who could be forced into doing something they should not. But guess what. So far there have been no attacks by Afghans on British soil. Why? It is a mystery. News comes from Afghanistan and the recent UN report that the Taleban and the drug trade are intertwined and that now the Taleban, who are mainly Pashtun, are officially in command of an international drug cartel.  News comes from Afghanistan that Taleban drug lords go to Dubai to live high on the hog and gamble and sleep with women and luxuriate in all the that the freedom to consume has to offer, while their footsoldiers, peasant fighters, are deluded and told that they are fighting a patriotic religious war.  And though they are told they are fighting a religious war what really matters to them in tr

Our Collective Caliban

At the risk of seeming digitally provincial, I’m going to illustrate my point with an example from a recent Guardian blog. Michel Ruse, who is apparently a philosopher, suggested that, whilst disagreeing with creationists on all points, and agreeing with Dawkins et al on both their science and philosophy, it might be wiser and more humane (humanist, even) not to vilify the religious as cretinous and incapable of reason. Which seems reasonable, to me. According to many below-the-line responses he is a ‘half-baked’ atheist, ‘one of the more strident and shrill New Apologists’ and, apparently, “needs to get a pair’. And that’s just from the first twenty comments. A recent article by a screenwriter at a US site was titled ‘Why I Won’t Read Your Fucking Screenplay.’ Tough guy. I wonder how his Christmas cards read. I’m going to sound like a maiden aunt dismayed by an unsporting bridge play and can perhaps be accused of needing to ‘get a pair’ myself (although, before you