This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Blair]

Having finished the New Labour documentary on the BBC it was quite interesting and enjoyable; but not exactly ground breaking.

The least interesting episode was by far the one on Iraq; because well we all know that story & how it went down.

It's very easy to see how the most toxic element of Labour politics; teams briefing on behalf of their bosses was made even worse & really became a culture in these years. Both Blair & Brown were even in 2006 &  2021 (assuming that was when the interviews were filmed) extremely close politically & personally- but the countless number of tragedies & disasters for New Labour all come from the endless blue on blue between junior aides, ministers and other people becoming obsessed with 'doing the other side in'. It's something that both Ed Miliband & Keir Starmer clearly know is toxic yet errr both leaders have either been powerless to stop it or actively indulged in it.

My last note was that the short time focused on Blair's 'public service reforms' made it appear as pointless & futile as it was- part of me wonders whether Blair did it purely because after giving huge sums of funding to both areas he felt there was nothing left for him to do other than start reforming for the sake of reforming. Either that or he actually believed it.

 

[Blair]

It did, also absolutely, confirm the theory about the Labour party being obsessed with itself, creating myths & making everything rather rather melodramatic- Peter Mandelson was in tears at one point when interviewed about his sacking, which isn't a surprise when you realise he spend about three decades of his life invested in this.

You don't seem the same sort of sentimentality in the Conservatives except for those who still bang on about Mrs T getting deposed. We're a party that rather loves the idea of a documentary getting made about our quest.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It did, also absolutely, confirm the theory about the Labour party being obsessed with itself, creating myths & making everything rather rather melodramatic- Peter Mandelson was in tears at one point when interviewed about his sacking, which isn't a surprise when you realise he spend about three decades of his life invested in this.

You don't seem the same sort of sentimentality in the Conservatives except for those who still bang on about Mrs T getting deposed. We're a party that rather loves the idea of a documentary getting made about our quest.

You can argue while removing Thatcher did help the Tories to remain in power, it also did lead to divisions in the party that blew the party up in the mid-1990s and resulted in the Tories being all but dead from like 1995 to 2006

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Both Blair & Brown were even in 2006 &  2021 (assuming that was when the interviews were filmed) extremely close politically & personally- but the countless number of tragedies & disasters for New Labour all come from the endless blue on blue between junior aides, ministers and other people becoming obsessed with 'doing the other side in'.

15 years on the Blairite/Brownite stuff seems just, like, why?

[Blair]

Both Blair & Brown were even in 2006 &  2021 (assuming that was when the interviews were filmed) extremely close politically & personally- but the countless number of tragedies & disasters for New Labour all come from the endless blue on blue between junior aides, ministers and other people becoming obsessed with 'doing the other side in'.

15 years on the Blairite/Brownite stuff seems just, like, why?

Very much so; the documentary ends with Brown, Mandelson, Balls, Ed Miliband & Alastair Campbell in No.10 on the day that Brown leaves.

There's certainly a sense that New Labour really only reformed & put the egos to one side when it finally dawned on everyone that they could actually lose and that yes, they really had messed it up.

[CumbrianLefty]

My last note was that the short time focused on Blair's 'public service reforms' made it appear as pointless & futile as it was- part of me wonders whether Blair did it purely because after giving huge sums of funding to both areas he felt there was nothing left for him to do other than start reforming for the sake of reforming. Either that or he actually believed it.

Afraid there is bad news for you there - yes he very much did and indeed does believe it, not just that but his disciples at Progress et al continue to incant over "public sector reform" to this day

[Blair]

I was going to make a joke about legal advice last week… yet again relevant today.

[CumbrianLefty]

Both sides claiming this latest development heralds THEIR FINAL AND COMPLETE VICTORY.

Why, of course.

[Blair]

What’s the deal with this new future candidates program?

I know people who’ve been rejected and accepted yet no one really seems to understand what it is (my assumption is glorified training for being a PPC)

[CumbrianLefty]

Looks like another party right factional thing, frankly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What’s the deal with this new future candidates program?

I know people who’ve been rejected and accepted yet no one really seems to understand what it is (my assumption is glorified training for being a PPC)

Yes, it's a (screened/vetted) training scheme.

[CumbrianLefty]

Which appears, as I said, to have been used in a rather factional way.

[Alcibiades]

This is an interesting read from Neal Lawson regarding the PR motion at the recent conference. He argues that the leadership clinging to its support for FPTP is the result of a sclerotic “us vs them” machine psyche deeply ingrained within both the left and right of the Labour Party, which views an eternal guarantee of second place as preferable to unseating the Tories if that entails smaller parties having an increased presence. I’m sure that some here will take issue, though, with his assertion that FPTP presents a long-term structural disadvantage to Labour.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, except that the "leadership" is far from monolithic in this matter - Starmer himself is a backer of electoral reform. It was the unions who voted it down at last month's conference - but maybe taking full account of that doesn't fit Lawson's not untypically simplistic narrative?

[Blair]

This is an interesting read from Neal Lawson regarding the PR motion at the recent conference. He argues that the leadership clinging to its support for FPTP is the result of a sclerotic “us vs them” machine psyche deeply ingrained within both the left and right of the Labour Party, which views an eternal guarantee of second place as preferable to unseating the Tories if that entails smaller parties having an increased presence. I’m sure that some here will take issue, though, with his assertion that FPTP presents a long-term structural disadvantage to Labour.

I gave up at the part quoted below; which is the most frustrating part I find with the many pro-PR arguments ( even though I would have voted for the PR motion fwiw!) I frankly think it's wrong to assume PR locks the Tories out of power and equally think its short sighted for people on the left to think that a 'progressive' coalition made up of 65 Liberal MPs would be that good.

I also doubt the premise that Starmer could have leant on the unions to back it; he'd already done quite a lot of it!

My purpose here is not to debate the merits of PR, but to understand why the Labour Machine refuses to adopt a voting system that might well lock the Tories out of power, in the way that FPTP increasingly does to Labour. The Labour Machine—that is, the leadership, officials, unions, most of the MPs and many of the commentators they lunch with—is unmoved, it seems, by the advantage the Tories derive from FPTP.

I also know its a rather boring & reductive point but I'm very happy to talk about PR once we have a mechanism to actually introduce it- the reality is that it would need to be done via a referendum (thanks Nick) & I'm not really sure that the pro-PR side is ready for that.

[Blair]

I will agree with the basic point though that PR would likely split the Labour Party up; but I also think it would just give power to a small number of ego-centric groupings that are trapped in the main parties under FPTP.

I don't understand why activists don't just aim for the UK to go for STV? It seems to work miles better with our system.

I also, for the love of god, don't want to imagine how a regional list for PR would be selected within Labour. It would be so viciously inept.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, saying "Labour must endorse PR to win power" is all well and good - and I have long supported that, so not going to complain - but they will still have to re-enter government via FPTP first!

[afleitch]

Yes, saying "Labour must endorse PR to win power" is all well and good - and I have long supported that, so not going to complain - but they will still have to re-enter government via FPTP first!

I mean, Labour promised to abolish the Lords a century ago and here we are.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well yes, hard to deny Lords reform was a failing of Labour when last in office.

[afleitch]

And PR, which was in their 1997 manifesto because they accepted that the centre left were out of power for 18 years because of FPTP. But then they got a landslide because of it. So they then ignored the findings of the Jenkins Comission.

It doesn't bother me if Labour support PR or not because I don't believe they would ever implement it.

[CumbrianLefty]

"they won a landslide because of it"

Well that's part of the problem. it was a very minor part of their 1997 win - had it been a major factor the pressure to deliver would have been that much greater.

Blair remained personally sympathetic even after winning a landslide, but faced with the prospect of literally tearing his own party apart over it decided discretion was the better part of valour - and that there wouldn't be many votes lost in not pursuing it (and he was right)

If your overall point is that we can't rely on Labour or indeed any other party delivering on electoral reform by themselves, you are likely correct. A broader campaign is surely going to be needed.

[Blair]

Yes this was my point- we would still lose a referendum on PR!

[Pericles]

Yes this was my point- we would still lose a referendum on PR!

Exactly, this thing is a sideshow because unfortunately I think the British people will just reflexively vote against always having hung parliaments. Labour just needs to make their coalition both broader and more efficient, while there are good reasons for PR some of the advocacy for it comes across as trying to escape this.

[Blair]

I think some of my hostility comes from the fact that some people have been campaigning for this for years, yet other people only became interested after 2019. The Venn diagram between FBPE and ‘progressive alliance’ is quite large.

Yes this was my point- we would still lose a referendum on PR!

Exactly, this thing is a sideshow because unfortunately I think the British people will just reflexively vote against always having hung parliaments. Labour just needs to make their coalition both broader and more efficient, while there are good reasons for PR some of the advocacy for it comes across as trying to escape this.

I think it’s sadly even more reactionary- people will vote against any reform that costs money and which empowers political parties.

The campaign would just say ‘we should spend money on our NHS not voting reform’, while saying it would allow corrupt politicians to stay in office through the list system.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes this was my point- we would still lose a referendum on PR!

There are a number of populist tricks that could be used to win one if the right sort of scheming bastards were to run the campaign. Of course the problem is it would probably be idealistic wonks instead.

Though I'm not sure if a change to the voting system would require a referendum: there's certainly no constitutional requirement and as for the political aspect, in the end most people don't care about electoral systems and if you just rammed it through, well, what chances of it being reversed? The problem for Labour on the issue is that the unions (or, rather, the General Secretaries and the Execs) don't like it as they're fearful that electoral reform might then be imposed on them.