THE STATE OF PRO-LABOUR BLOGGING
The absurdity of Iain Dale presenting himself as a knowledgeable commentator about British political blogging has been amusingly revealed by the latest “top 100″ of Labour supporting blogs, which includes a number of blogs, like Splintered Sunrise and Mac Uaid that are either actively hostile or indifferent to the Labour Party. Now I have to say that both of these blogs are among my personal favourites, and that I heartily recommend them, but surely they will be surprised to make this particular list.
Of course, a number of bloggers prefer not to be included in Iain Dale’s lists, such as the increasingly indispensable Liberal Conspiracy. But clearly anyone who already appears in Iain Dale’s ”left of centre” blog category has not opted out. So what sense can we make of the fact that Dave’s Part appears at #13 in the list of left blogs, but not at all in the list of labour blogs? Dave Osler, the proprietor, is certainly one of the better bloggers on the left, and a Labour Party member, and apparently Iain Dale knows him personally, so how come Dave was excluded from the Labour supporting blogs category.
Indeed given the inclusive definition of “Labour” that extends even to people hostile to the Labour Party, like Liam Mac Uaid, how come our own www.Socialistunity.com is not regarded as a “Labour” blog? We do at least defend some aspects of the government’s record, and have argued for a Labour victory at the next general election. in fact that makes us more labour supporting than some blogs by Labour Party members.
Of course these lists don’t *matter*, what is the problem is Iain Dale presenting himself as some sort of expert, when he doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.
However, where the list is interesting is in showing what a weak line up there is of bloggers supporting the Labour Party, although many of the individual blogs are excellent, the collective is weak.
For sure, political blogging comes in various flavours, so the frothy and inconsequential observations from the likes of Tom Harris MP are unobjectionable, and the anorak naval gazing blogs from the Westminster village like the Hopi Sen and Recess Monkey should certainly be avoided by anyone interested in actual politics. Blogs like Rupa Huq’s and Sadie’s Tavern are entertaining enough, and occassionally on the money. It is also interesting, but not necessarily significant, to note that there seem to be more women bloggers in the Labour category than in the other lists.
But what is surprising is that a number of the ostensibly Labour supporting blogs are written by people who seem largely opposed to the values and politics of the modern Labour Party, such as Harpy Marx, Stroppy Blog or grimmer up north. Mention should also be made of some other thought provoking and well written blogs, like Penny Red, and Obsolete, that do not seem particularly labourist. Labour List does a reasonable job of showcasing a diverse range of voices from the party, and you have to admire the indefatigablity of Luke Akerhurst, whose blog seems like an on-line reincarnation of David Warburton’s old right wing newsletter, Labour Forward.
However, what is signally missing from this list is much sign of the blogs being used as a forum for strategic thinking by Labour Party members. Think back into the party’s past of how various publications provided the sounding board for new ideas when there was a crisis, for example how the magazine Voice of the Unions provided a catalyst for the left of the party to outgrow the social conservatism and legacy of Bevanite corporatism during the 1960s, or how the journal Socialist Commentary in the late 1940s allowed revisionist ideas to coalesce before their more high-profile publication in the New Fabian Essays in 1952.
The Blairite paradigm has been damaged but not yet decisively defeated, and yet there is very little evaluation and discussion about how a progressive centre left government could do things differently. For sure, the Compass website publishes articles with such an agenda, but the debate is very sterile, and the admirable Soundings magazine has not developed an engaging on-line presence. The fundamentalist left, around Labour Briefing and the LRC come over to me as a reenactment society, entrenched around maverick MPs like John McDonnell, and yet have no strategy for widening their influence in the party, nor any credible argument for how a move to the left would benefit the whole party in electoral terms - surely there comes a point when their desperate rear-guard defence of Bennism has to face facts that society has moved on, and left them behind.
There needs to be a critical but positive appreciation that despite the paradox of Ken Livingstone losing the last mayoral election (on an increased vote!), the Livingstone administration in London is the only experience in recent years of the Labour Party both advancing left social democratic policies, and also growing its vote in absolute and percentage terms. So it is good to see Simon Fletcher’s new blog reaching the list.
The Labour Party is in deep crisis, and yet rumours of the death of its a substantial broadly progressive electoral base are exaggerated, and because the major trade unions continue to seek political representation via the party then it is not going to disappear. What it does need is an intellectual revival, and you would have thought that blogs would play a part in that (especially as they allow anonymity!), yet on current evidence, the self-critical assessments that are needed have not yet started to percolate.
So exactly which bit of the “Labour” Party is even remotely ’socialist’ then?
The Labour Party has more in common with the National Socialists of 1930’s Germany than with “Socialism”.
You seem to have missed that point; but don’t worry . . . the electorate haven’t.
Comment by Silent Hunter — 15 September, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
More lazy and groundless attacks on the left of the Labour Party from those near its centre. How original.
File next to: John ‘waste of column inches’ Harris.
Comment by Rory — 15 September, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Rory, my criticism is that to me, you seem to have ” no strategy for widening [your] influence in the party, nor any credible argument for how a move to the left would benefit the whole party in electoral terms “
This wouold be an opportunity, rather than simply saying it is “lazy” to argue a strategy for how the left culd increase its infleunce in the party, and how that would help to win elections.
Failure to engage convincingly with those questions is part of why the hard left is so isolated (witness the fiasco of McDonnell not getting enough nominatioons to stand as leader - becasuue he couldn’t convnce enough centre-left MPs to nominate him)
Now you can simply dismiss such criticism as being from people you are not interested in having a debate with, fair enough, but that is not a strategy for advance; that is a strategy of despair.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 September, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Yeah Rory,
I’m sure you will be able to ‘file’ the Labour Party in the same place after the GE.
Groundless attackes eh?
Illegal War in Iraq ring any bells for you?
I.D Cards? . . . Trident? . . . Privatisation of the NHS? . . . Police State? 1984?
No; clearly all groundless attacks on New Stassi.
Comment by Silent Hunter — 15 September, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
It is lazy thinking to talk about the “fundamentalist left”, a “reenactment society”, “maverick” John McDonnell without explaining exactly which aspects of what you describe as Bennism need to be abandoned and moved away from.
If by ‘increase its influence in the party’ you mean ‘trying to convince the likes of James Purnell of the virtues of socialism’ then forgive me if I’d rather spend my time talking to more worthwhile targets.
And nobody wants to rehash the arguments from three years ago, but I’m sure you are aware that John and Jon shook hands on an agreement over nominations, which Jon then reneged on. That was the reason John failed to get the required nominations. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the antipathy within the PLP dates back to that era.
Now let’s hear your “credible argument for how a move to the left would benefit the whole party in electoral terms”. As distinct from the presumably incredible arguments which we make in our CLPs and other forums every month of the year.
Comment by Rory — 15 September, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Rory,
I am not privy to JOn Cruddas’s calculations.
personaly I was very pleased that he did not endorse mcDonnell, as it made it much easier to argue for a credible left challenge for the deputy leadership, which was not linked to a non credible challenge to Gordon Brown.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 September, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
“But what is surprising is that a number of the ostensibly Labour supporting blogs are written by people who seem largely opposed to the values and politics of the modern Labour Party, such as Harpy Marx, Stroppy Blog or grimmer up north.”
Erm Andy, I can’t really speak for the others but it is rather weird you have put ‘politics of the modern Labour Party’… Frankly, that should be replaced with ‘New Labour’… And indeed, I am against the neoliberalism, marketisation and war mongering of NL.
But Andy re SU, who other than me is a LP member to allow inclusion? Though in saying that, you have probably defended the Government more times than me, maybe I should swap you my LP membership card.
Oh, and give it a rest re ‘fundamentalist Left’ and the ‘Maverick’ John McDonnell. And strategy…. well some blogs have been trying to put forward ideas and strategies for the left…shame you missed off the excellent Though Cowards Flinch and Bickerstaffe Record.
And much of the ’strategy’ being argued from the ’soft left’ is recycled NL from Cruddas/Purnell wing.
And on my own blog I have tried to put forward my own thoughts, and strategic ideas but obviously missed you those and the interesting debates that went with them.
Actually, I’ll leave it there cos Rory # 5 says it all for me.
Comment by HarpyMarx — 15 September, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I hadn’t even realised I’d been included on the “Labour” list. I’m not sure how I managed to come 60th on the left-wing list and 30th on the Labour list, but I think it just seems to show Iain Dale’s crack pot system of counting the votes and assigning allegiance. I’m sympathetic towards Labour, but by no means a supporter.
Comment by septicisle — 15 September, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
# 3
Yo Andy!
Is that the same vile McDonnell who praised the selfless and heroic IRA volunteers who made the ultimate sacrifice for a United Ireland during the period of the Armed Struggle of the Irish People?
To be honest, he didn’t specifically single out for especial praise the kneecappers or those who abducted, tortured, murdered and secretly buried alleged ‘touts’ or presumed traitors from the IRA-controlled Taigistans of Norn Iron [aka the Occupied Six Counties.]
Perhaps he praised such people in a secret speech.
PERSONAL NOTE:
I am now so old that I actually remember when people used to join the Labour Party out of principle!
A NEWS ITEM:
The INDEPENDENT reports - truthfully or otherwise - that Grinning Tony Blair’s daughter now travels on an Irish passport because she dislikes encountering people who are voluble about the bloodstained follies of British foreign policy, i.e. the policy that ‘Yo Blair!’ so gleefully embraced in the Bush II era.
Comment by Freddy — 15 September, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Surprised! I was bloody indignant to be labelled a “Labour” blog. Lumping a site like mine along with people like Frank Field,LORD Toby Harris, Alistair Campbell and David Milliband can only have been the act of someone who hadn’t read the damned thing or wanted to annoy me. They succeeded with the latter.
The trouble facing a Labour blogger who wants to fit into the mainstream of the party’s thinking is that there is a huge gap between what average Labour supporters think the party should stand for and what it actually does. Maybe that’s why the sparkiest and most engaged blogs are not to be found there.
You can have my no.34 slot Andy.
Comment by Liam — 15 September, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
#10 “The trouble facing a Labour blogger who wants to fit into the mainstream of the party’s thinking is that there is a huge gap between what average Labour supporters think the party should stand for and what it actually does. Maybe that’s why the sparkiest and most engaged blogs are not to be found there.”
Perhaps, but you would have though there would at least be more vigorous attacks on the tories
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 September, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
The article lists the wrong link for Luke Akehurst’s blog - the true Akehust blog is to be found at :
http://lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com/
His defence of Hackney MPs’ expenses is somewhat interesting - and that’s just for starters
Comment by Seabiscuit — 15 September, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Good post but wrong about the tendency around the LRC and John MCDonnell. They do seem to have a strategy based around developing active links with the more combative unions and wider sections of the left plus putting up a fight inside labour. Gawd help them.
That is a realistic strategy for any group of socialists who think there is some mileage left in the Labour Party but do refuse regard people on the left who do not share their optimism as adversaries.
If there is any potential left in the Labour Party it lies with precisely that combination of socialist activists and union activists. And if there isn’t then that same mix will be an important part of what comes next. Seems like more strategic thinking than what passes as strategy from much of the far left.
They stand for something more developed than ‘Bennism’ and if, as Andy suggest, “society has moved on, and left them behind” the he has abandoned the goal of opening up the way to winning working class power.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 September, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Nick
I fail to be convinced by the LRC/McDonnell strategy, because they do not articulate a credible argument for how Labour can regain power, nor a strategy for how organised labour can exercise its political muscle.
hence the orientation on the “more combative unions” rather than the big unions; and hence the admirable non-sectarianism towards those of us outside the party is not matched with a willingness to align with the centre left within the party.
I am as committed today to the cause of socialism as I was when I joined the Labour Party aged 13. However, I do not beleive that in British conditions socialism can be acheived without i) the big battalians of the trade union movement exercising their power; and ii) a parliamentary majority.
simply arguing that if labour was more left wing it would win the general election is not credible. What is needed is a combinaton of popularising a vision of state economic intervention combined with a commitment to social justice and the willingness to develop a broad coalition around those aims. that needs a bolder idological challenge to neo-liberalism.
the tipping point would be reached when the big unions perceive the arguments of the left as being sufficiently electorally credible to allow them to defeat the Tories.
i.e how can we leverage off the progresive majority to both win the government, and then use it for social and economic reform that will provide a more fruitful context for organised labour and the social movements to advance
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 September, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
To put it another way
perhaps the LRC do have a grand strategy, but it is not a strategy readily discernible to those outside their ranks who gain our knowledge from reading Labour Briefing, the occassional articles by McDonnell in the left press, or the blogs which support the LRC.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 September, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Liam- you should demand a stewards’ enquiry
Comment by Armchair — 15 September, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Andy, Labour already has power. It is the government. The issue is what kind of government and until the balance of forces inside the labour movement as a whole changes, and the level of political and class consciousness is transformed,everyone on the left who weighs up the chances of a ’social democratic’ type of compromise with capital versus a bolder challenge does so without much chance of success for either approach..
The issue may well be decided for us by a Tory victory, which, like Labour’s last parliamentary majority, may not represent a political majority but would begin a massive assault on the remaining fabric of the post war consensus and would generate a some resistance. But even a Labour victory will not , of itself, resolve the question of which direction government will go in dealing with this crisis.
Your perspective of state intervention and a social justice agenda credible enough to constitute a broad coalition is a version of Labour’s traditional class alliance and should be enough to create a measure of unity between the socialist and social democratic trends in Labour. But you are right in keeping a measure of scepticism about the human possibilities of achieving this. The task is, as always, to find the widest practical unity among forces who can be won for the kinds of policies that would begin to challenge big business and the banks, attack wealth and privilege and solve the crisis at the expense of the rich.
Desirable though your perspective is, do you really think the forces can be brought together than can carry through your alternative strategy? The end of the post war ’social democratic’ consensus is because capital cannot maintain its profits and make those kinds of concessions.
Of course the big battalions are necessary (for either strategy actually), and within them there are some unhelpful conflicts between people who should find ways to co-operate. However, the present balance of power in the big unions is somewhat fragile and a combination of idiotic ultra left posturing (which finds its twin in bureaucratic manouevering and a morbid fear of unofficial action) is a big block to action.
The present leaders of unions like Unison and Unite are lucky in that their internal leftist opponents are so strategically barren and tactically inept. Unless they make a real challenge to ‘new” Labour their credibility with the membership will be stretched even further and they will become destabilised. They are not immune from the processes that have detached some smaller unions from Labour.
You are right to say that “simply arguing that if labour was more left wing it would win the general election is not credible”.
But these questions are never put in that form in real politics but centre around p[olicies.
And ‘left wing’ policies are very popular. Take rail renationalisation . I worked on the rail unions campaign to bring back SE Trains into public ownership. Tory commuters snatching Asleft and RMT leaflets from my hands. These things need to be made concrete. Which is why the People’s Charter is so potent (and why some union leaders are so sniffy about it.)
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 September, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
“Labour already has power. It is the government.”
Hah, I think I may have shown a little of my pessimism about the next general election there
:o)
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 September, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
Courage comrade. Everything that is solid turns to air and in the case of cameron it already has
Comment by Nick Wright — 16 September, 2009 @ 12:22 am
On the more substantive points:
“do you really think the forces can be brought together than can carry through your alternative strategy? The end of the post war ’social democratic’ consensus is because capital cannot maintain its profits and make those kinds of concessions.”
China shows that the existence of a major state owned sector can allow government control even where there is a mixed economy (I was recently struck by how similar the current Chinese economy is to the state of affairs adviocated by Stuart Hoallnd in “Socialist Challenge”)
Social justice need not be expensive, what is corrosive is inequality, and narrowing the wealth gap by taxation on the rich also reduces the political and social power of the capitalists.
and when you say:
the real problem is an ideological one that there is insufficient realisation in the unions of what they need to do; the other problems are subsidiary to this one.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 September, 2009 @ 12:32 am
“Failure to engage convincingly with those questions is part of why the hard left is so isolated (witness the fiasco of McDonnell not getting enough nominatioons to stand as leader - becasuue he couldn’t convnce enough centre-left MPs to nominate him)”
John McDonnell couldn’t get enough nominations because they had to come from MPs (strike 1), and the parliamentary party is dominated by the right because the NEC has too much influence over candidate selection and the constituency parties have too little (strike 2).
Comment by Kaze no Kae — 16 September, 2009 @ 2:49 am
#21
Well the rules for candidate selection are a problem, giving the leadership too much influence, but them is currently the rules of the game, so any credible left challenge had to be with a candidate who could get enough nominations from the actually existing PLP.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 September, 2009 @ 9:06 am
“Credible” = “likely to be supported by a large proportion of the spineless wankers in the PLP”?
Comment by Rory — 16 September, 2009 @ 10:27 am
No Rory credible is someone who can unite the party behind her/him and be someone who could sustain an electorally winning coalition, attractive to labour’s core voters, but also sufficiently capable to persuade swing voters that a labour government is also in their best interests.
Incidently, by this criteria, the least credible leader that labour ever had was Hugh Gaitskell, who was unable to do any of those things. So it is not a left and right thing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 September, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Andy (20) It is certainly true that ‘narrowing the wealth gap by taxation on the rich also reduces the political and social power of the capitalists.’
The political problem of assembllng forces powerful enough to compel a Labour government to do this short of a sea change in Labour’s internal regime is our common strategic problem.
I remain doubtful that a strategy based too narrowly on a rapprochement between the smallish socialist forces in Labour and its newly awakened ’social democratic’ tendency is enough.
There needs to be greater mass pressure. For example, Barbara Castle’s anti union ‘In Place of Strife’ proposals would never have been defeated by present day union tactics or simply by gathering forces inside Labour’s big tent. And Heath’s Industrial Relations Bill, now Labour government policy in effect, was defeated by mass action including that led by the TUC.
Comment by Nick Wright — 16 September, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Gordon Brown can’t be far behind Hugh Gaitskell then.
I can’t think of many Labour Party members, left or right, who have much good to say about him.
He managed to unite the PLP and most union leaders behind him though. Showing again how in touch they are with the general public.
Comment by Rory — 16 September, 2009 @ 11:47 am
“I remain doubtful that a strategy based too narrowly on a rapprochement between the smallish socialist forces in Labour and its newly awakened ’social democratic’ tendency is enough.”
Nick, we agree about that.
But on what basis can the debate in the big unions be taken forward? And to my mind the narrow nature of the LRC’s platform, is an obstacle. For example, at SW TUC, the big three opposed the People’s Charter on the basis of its association with McDonnel, and some tactical ineptitude from McDonnell himslef who had written a newspaper article suggesting that opposition to hetahrow expansion was in the charter (strike out UNITE support), and calling his organisation “labour Representaion Committee”, when the original LRC was formed to organise a break from the liberal perty to form a new party (the Labour party!) suggests a trajectiry of leaving the labour Party (strike out GMB and UNISON support)
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 September, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
#26
“He managed to unite the PLP and most union leaders behind him though.”
Not really, the unity is only against having a leadership challenge before the general election, not active support for Brown.
On that extremely limited basis I support Brown as well
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 September, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
For example, at SW TUC, the big three opposed the People’s Charter on the basis of its association with McDonnel,
Which suggests it is the big three which are the problem, if that’s their reason for opposing something. Anyway, apparently Unite and Unison are now supporting. Which is good. Let’s see if Charlie Whelan mislays his block vote card again. Oops!
and some tactical ineptitude from McDonnell himslef who had written a newspaper article suggesting that opposition to hetahrow expansion was in the charter (strike out UNITE support),
Struggling to see how you could read that into his Guardian article. Unless you were really straining hard to desperately find some reason to oppose it. It clearly doesn’t suggest that at all, in fact.
and calling his organisation “labour Representaion Committee”, when the original LRC was formed to organise a break from the liberal perty to form a new party (the Labour party!) suggests a trajectiry of leaving the labour Party (strike out GMB and UNISON support)
I suppose it might suggest that, if you’re reading upside down with a blanket over your head. Or, again, if you were desperately seeking some reason, however tenuous, to oppose something.
Comment by Rory — 16 September, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Andy, you ask the key question; “On what basis can the debate in the big unions be taken forward?
Not simply on the basis of the LRC platform but rather on the basis of policies that are already substantially agreed.
That is the People’s Charter, which elements in both the Unison and Unite leaderships fear like the plague. Incidentally, manouevering to get endorsement of the Charter off the TUC agenda this week seems to have proved counterproductive. Latest info is that the General Council has been forced to accept it ‘with reservations’. It seems it is not comprehensive enough for them….
I greatly admire McDonnell but his closeness to some elements in the left in some unions has led him to rather unwisely endorse particular candidates in internal struggles which are not properly the business of anyone but the union members themselves. This has given a pretext for less scrupulous types to oppose policy initiatives and campaigns he is associated with. Unison comes to mind.
McDonnell is attacked from the right for planning to the Labour Party and from the ultra left for not doing so. I take him at his word, which something I don’t usually do with Labour MPs
Comment by Nick Wright — 16 September, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Which candidates has McDonnell endorsed in internal union struggles?
Are you talking about supporting the four victims of the political witch-hunt in Unison? Or something else?
Comment by curious — 16 September, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Jon Richards (a good bloke in my opinion) for one is quoted by Unison types.
I don’t know much about the Unison thing you refer to although I suspect there must be more to it than appears on the surface. A very big hammer to crack some very small peanuts I suspect
Comment by Nick Wright — 16 September, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Do you mean Jon Rogers?
I agree he is a good bloke but am unaware of John McDonnell having ‘endorsed’ him.
Comment by curious — 16 September, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Don’t worry comrades - the future of grass roots pro-Labour trade unionism is safe and sound in blogland.
Just check out http://www.tigmoo.co.uk/files/tigmoo2009.pdf
Comment by John Gray — 16 September, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
TUC backs the People’s Charter.
Haven’t seen a breakdown of how individual unions voted yet, mind.
Comment by Rory — 17 September, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Posts 30-33: If memory serves me right, John McDonnell is said to have backed Roger Bannister against Dave Prentis in the GS election. That not only gave anti-left elements in the union a pretext for opposing any initiative associated with John; it also alienated some on the left who preferred Prentis to someone who they considered to be too sectarian to unite substantial enough forces to lead the union from left of centre.
Comment by Party hack — 17 September, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
The moribund Labour blogosphere have no answers that can save Labour because it is no longer worth saving.
The genuine red blogs that are now blossoming weekly are the first hints of a socialist renaissance, outside the Labour Party.
Comment by River — 17 September, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Hi Andy, Thanks for the mention, “occassionally on the money” is about the size of it/me. It is said to see however lots lefty blogs pack it in like Kerron Cross and Parbury Politica as Chris Paul points out here:
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2009/08/labour-of-love-normal-service-will-be.html
Many it seems have gone twittering…
Comment by rupahuq — 25 September, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Ooops, meant to say “sad” above there. Obviously typing too fast in excitement.
Comment by rupahuq — 25 September, 2009 @ 11:00 am