You are here: Home » Comment »

Why do we bother?

January 17, 2012 10:40 am

Author:

Andrew Lomas

Tags:

Share this Article

I dare say like most people, there are times when as a Labour Party member I’ve asked myself why I bother. From the mere impoliteness of being told to “fuck off” or having a door slammed in my face, to being chased down the street by some thug, to having my activists pelted with eggs, sometimes I find myself wondering why I didn’t take the lie-in and watch Football Focus instead.

Maybe for you it’s sitting through a GC that makes you think you’ve finally lost it: that in a style akin to the plot of Shutter Island, the bat-shit crazy views, opinions and characters around you are just a construct of your sordid imagination (did that Branch Chair really just say that the pauperisation of the working class was a necessary step to global revolution?). Maybe it’s spending a whole day in the freezing cold failing to get into shared access accommodation, enduring the constant torment of the warbling bell to no avail.

My personal low point came in 2008 when I found myself trying to explain to a working mum why a Labour Government were doubling her starting rate of tax (I say explain, because we all knew at the time there was no justification). And I’m sure I’m not alone: that there’s a point when everyone in the party has let out an audible sigh of exasperation, whether the cause is some idiotic floor-speech, a party spokesman making a royal tit of themselves on Newsnight, or just the drip-drip-drip of bad news.

Why am I saying this? Well for some people there seems to be a trigger, a moment that they decide they can’t stay in the Party any more. And whilst I can sympathise with those people- their frustrations, the sheer exasperation- I don’t think I’ll ever understand or agree with the decision to change party. Yes, the Labour Party infuriates me beyond belief some times. Sure, sometimes it feels like it’s not worth it any more, that the party has finally gone and done it and succumbed to the save the whale/CND-type lunacy I’d rather stayed in the Green Party.

But then I remember it’s my party as well and that to give up is to give in. It’s to concede defeat, to accept that the only things Labour should be talking about are the things that matter most to its members, to agree that Tory Government is inevitable and that, well, it’s nicer being in opposition anyway because at least people like us again. It’s to stop fighting for a more just, equal society because it’s too hard, will take too long, and involves sitting through too many policy forums where the flipchart has the words “World Communism” written semi-legibly in permanent marker by way of summarising proceedings. It’s to ignore the thousands of other moderates in the party who are ploughing the same furrow, making a case for the millions of people who need a Labour Government that is both radical and responsible.

Labour is more than the activists who earnestly peddle their far-out single-issues, hobby-horses and crusades, however misguided I think (and tell them) they are. It’s more than whoever is leader at any one point, whether that leader is Stalin or Mr Bean. And importantly, it’s more than the indulgent egos of those members who think everyone should think like them and then flounce out without even trying to argue their case. Labour is an outlook, a way of approaching politics that is grounded in solidarity and giving people the tools to better themselves whilst looking out for those who cannot. It’s about realising that we achieve more by the strength of our common endeavour than we do alone. For me personally it’s in my blood, a part of who I am.

So whilst it might be temporarily tempting to give in to the lustre of a party exercising the levers of power, the question will always remain: in whose interest are those levers being exercised? Conservatism, beneath the gloss, is a defence of privilege: it’s critical to remember this fact and see that every policy concession made on the margins is made solely with that defence in mind.

The only way we get the kind of party we want is by engaging with those we disagree with and trying to win them over, whether they are within the party or out there in the real world. The long slog back to government won’t be glamorous. It’ll frequently be disappointing, regularly exasperating, and occasionally soul-destroying. But the fact remains that whatever its sins, Labour is the best vehicle for realising the aspirations of the majority of people in this country. That’s the reason why I, like hundreds of other activists, will be foregoing the lie-in again this weekend again to be back out on the doorstep, dirtying our fingers with riso-print, and listening to what people have to say. Not because we agree with everything our party says or does, but because the best currency for winning the argument in the party and the country is through understanding the lives and experiences of those we aim to represent. So if you fancy joining us, come along: we can always use an extra pair of hands…

Anonymous
All very well but I notice that you mostly refer to the party as Labour.That seems to be obvious and yet with every passing day I ask myself what makes us different to the Tories? after friday’s news I wonder if the question needs to be even raised …
Pingback: Great read: “Why do we bother” « thecloudclub
Anonymous
“…It’s to ignore the thousands of other moderates in the party who are ploughing the same furrow, …”
And herein lies the problem: What is a “moderate”?
I used to think I was a “moderate” but years of right-wing warmongering by you-know-who now probably puts me to the left, and no doubt to a prospective MP who inhabits this site from time to time the “hard left”.
I think I – and probably most people – if they are honest, are “moderate” on some things and not in others. Though I am against violence, for example, I would dearly love the birch to be available to thugs who ill-treat animals. Though I am totally committed to the NHS being free at the point of delivery for everyone, I am afraid I draw the line at those silly women who, out of vanity, paid to have breast implants, and now demand to have them removed at no personal cost by theNHS because the private healthcare companies refuse to treat them for free. I would much rather a patient needing chemotherapy gets it without any worries about funding rather than providing a free service for the self-obsessed.
Now to your question “hy bother?”. Why, indeed!. The time was when Labour had a set of values and beliefs that were sacrosanct.
Now we are so busy trying not to frighten the horses (or the Murdoch press) it seems to me all the party is offering is watered-down Conservativism. I must confess I can’t be bothered any longer, but I admire those that are, but I have to confess sometimes I can’t see much difference between the two main parties, which is why it was so easy for Tories to become New Labourites, and a few obscure New Labourites to become Tories.

Plato
The Tories have taken their clothes back from New Labour – it took them 13yrs to do it.
It took Labour 18yrs to steal them in the first place. For the last 20yrs or so, its been a battle for the moderate centre ground. And when a party loses the right to stand on it [as they all eventually do], someone else takes over.
The centrist ‘election winning’ voter shifts to the most credible party, and until the current HMG screw up enough – Labour are out of the picture. The fact that the LDs are acting as the Official Internal Opposition doesn’t help either since they marginalise coverage even more. Given the appalling state of Labour’s own PR – that is a blessing.
Labour should be using its time to do what the Tories eventually learned – have a proper internal debate with itself about its purpose, mission and values. EdM threw out New Labour and what’s replaced it? Nothing.
We’ve had Blue, Red, Purple and Black Labour so far FFS. And now it sounds like someone’s found an old copy of How To Get Elected Again by P. Mandelson, 1995.
What is Peter Hain doing? Isn’t he meant to be in charge of filling in the infamous Blank Sheet of Paper? Until Labour has an anchor point or two to work up from, it’ll be buffeted about chasing bandwagons, tweeting about Bob Holness and contradicting itself.
EdM’s greatest asset right now is the complete absence of a credible opponent – if one pops out of the woodwork, all bets are off.

Anonymous
Peter Hain is about to lose his seat with Boundary changes, so he is politicking at the moment to see if they may just send him to the Lords, or allow him to fight another seat.

Anonymous
Good post. I would extend the birch to thugs who mistreat children. I know this could be construed as reactionary but sometimes retributive justice and a long punishment are a must.

Anonymous
Yes violence to children as well. I think people who inflict pain on those so much weaker them selves, or on animals needs to learn by experience what pain and fear are like. They are usually cowardly bullies anyway, so I think that punishment might deter them more than a custodial sentence.
Anonymous
what about children who mistreat children flogging as well

Anonymous
Appreciate this Andrew; it’s people like you that keep the party alive.
Thanks for all you do!
Jo
Johndclare
As one of those other rank-and-file members, Andrew, who try to carry the Party message to the voters, I agree, Andrew, 100%.
But I would suggest that we need more than an inspirational call to loyalty; we need meaningful opportunity at least to comment on (never mind contribute to) the policies and pronouncements we end up having to justify on the doorstep.
Please read my ‘rant’ – http://bit.ly/yJqyAr – and see if you can influence some of the high-ups to do more to involve the rank-and-file in the formulation of policy.
Anonymous
Why do we bother?
As unanswerable a question these days as any Zen koan, surely?
Redshift
I don’t agree with all of this, but it is great to read the words of a fellow activist rather than the latest attention-deficit-disorder patient trying to write their own polemical analysis of the current state of the party in the space of 500 words.
Good work Andrew. Hopefully, your words will be listened to.
http://twitter.com/_DaveTalbot David Talbot
As a wise man once said: “Thanks for all you do”
Holly
As a Conservative voter…BOO…HISS…May I suggest the party get rid of those associated with the Brown/Balls/Draper era…Then decide to stop wasting/spending all the money.
Come up with a believable front bench,(Anyone not connected to Brown/Balls/
Draper/Harman/unions/smear campaigns) and you’ll be home & dry.

John Ruddy
So your solution is to become the Tory party? Thats not really an option is it!

http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott
I think this is the most sensible article I’ve read on Labour List yet. Wow, there are members who think like me.

Anonymous
the question is, what on earth are you all doing propping up a party that fails to represent your views?

http://twitter.com/tommilleruk Tom Miller
The same thing that those of us on the left did for fifteen years, I suppose.
The fact is that we don’t have PR.
Parties have to be unfeasibly wide. Activists have to have a constructive way of dealing with that, and so do MPs and the media – the least responsible of the three.

http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott
I agree, it’s almost impossible to maintain a “party line” and have one homogenous bloc that contains members as wide as Dan Hodges and Seamus Milne.

http://twitter.com/tommilleruk Tom Miller
Generally think this is good, but worth remembering that it was the instinct to be ‘moderate’ that drove the decision to tax the poor Andrew mentions – so that it could be used to cut the 22% rate to 20.
There is a bit of unnecessary left-bashing in this piece that doesn’t serve well against this fact and the obvious blunder that it represents.
Also, we have known for a couple of weeks that a majority of Thatcher’s cabinet agreed with CND. Hardly the Green Party!
The rest is good stuff, anyway.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Hear hear. Good article. I’ve just been mulling on these types of things myself this afternoon after fighting my way through the Blair-hating feeding frenzy on here yesterday.
If some of those Blair-haters (who will not doubt call me a Blair-lover for not being a Blair-hater) spent a fraction of the time they spend having a go at Tony Blair out on the doorstep listening to what normal people have to say, we’d be an unstoppable political force.
Alas, that is not reality, and we struggle on – and I too will be out there this Saturday treading the boards. Football Focus is boring rubbish anyway.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Hear hear. Good article. I’ve just been mulling on these types of things myself this afternoon after fighting my way through the Blair-hating feeding frenzy on here yesterday.
If some of those Blair-haters (who will not doubt call me a Blair-lover for not being a Blair-hater) spent a fraction of the time they spend having a go at Tony Blair out on the doorstep listening to what normal people have to say, we’d be an unstoppable political force.
Alas, that is not reality, and we struggle on – and I too will be out there this Saturday treading the boards. Football Focus is boring rubbish anyway.

Anonymous
Ben, with respect people like you always rfefer to those of us critical of Blair “Blair haters”.
For the record, I don’t and didn’t hate him. I just despise him for his greed and hypocrisy.

http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Hi Alan, I’m curious. You say, “people like you”. What do you mean? We don’t know each other beyond a couple of interactions here. How can you pretend to know me. I don’t pretend to know you. Let’s debate on the basis of argument not assumption.
As for the substantive point about hating or despising Blair, I’ll say this:
Blair is no venal scoundrel as some portray him. His main fault has been hubris: a genuine belief that through the strength of his goodness and personality he can make the world a better place (and that includes a belief he can convert evil people to goodness – a religious trait). Given the success that he had winning the leadership, the Clause IV fight and a landslide election victory, and with his early foreign interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, I personally can forgive him that hubris that ended with us in the pits in Afghanistan and Iraq with the disastrous Bush Jnr relationship. He started to believe that everything he personally touched would turn to gold, and he came a cropper.
However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the Iraq War itself saw only a handful of people die. The problems came with the “peace”, which was catastrophically badly planned and managed and in which the overwhelming bulk of killing was inflicted by Iraqis on Iraqis. I don’t think all that can be laid at Blair’s door.
On a wider issue, a lot of the proper Blair-hating that goes on actually proves Blair’s own beliefs about elements of the Labour left – that it isn’t brave enough to contemplate power itself, instead preferring to be pure and unsullied on the sidelines. If you are in power, you’ve gotta speak to these scoundrels and even sometimes be nice to them in the interest of political gain or to persuade them of your point of view.

Anonymous
Ben. What I meant about “people like you” is, rather like the dreadful Rentoul they cannot accept some people have real issues with Blair, therefore they are “Blair haters” which suggests irrationality on the part of the perceived “hater”.
Lets be honest: the man is greedy and grasping – charging enormous amounts of money for his lectures/talks. Happy to run after anybody, advise anybody willing to pay – even despots.
Blair was a very devisive leader of the Labour party, who went a little too far to appease Conservatives. He believed in popwer rather than principle (if I may say so when you say “that it isn’t brave enough to contemplate power itself, instead preferring to be pure and unsullied on the sidelines”.
Well, Ben some people do put principle first – it would be a pretty grubby world if they didn’t
If I may say so, you appear another of those who can’t remember 1997: the Tories were mired in sleaze, the Conservative party, including many MPs were a mutinous bunch determined to do down John Major (history repeats itself today with Labour and Ed Miliband). Any Labour leader would have won that election.
BTW Only a “handful” of people died thanks to Blair’s lapdog act with Bush Jnr – thats all right then isn’t it. That “handful” probably had families, just like our young servicemen who were killed

http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Alan – as ever, you make some decent points, and fair play for them. However, your attempts to define me are somewhat lacking in substance to say the least.
You first mention John Rentoul, which is laughable given our respective politics. The following article that I posted on here he reacted to with, “What planet is he on?” I am of the left, and no Blairite by any stretch of the imagination – but that doesn’t seem to matter if I just give him the courtesy of saying he might have good intentions.
http://labourlist.org/2011/08/which-side-are-you-on-globalisation-or-democracy/
Then you say I can’t remember 1997. What?!!! Where on earth did you get that idea? This is lazy and lame thinking and talking.
Yes, the New Labour administrations had their share of this type of stuff – show some evidence that I am even vaguely on the same page as advocating that sordid stuff and then you might have a point!
Lastly, on servicemen that were killed, of course we all have sympathy for them and their families. But surely they joined the Armed Forces with some knowledge that this might happen? And also with some awareness that they might kill some people too?
If you are a pacifist, fine, and every lost life is a tragedy of course. But this brings up awkward questions when it comes to Britain’s role in the world. Do we intervene to stop people killing each other (as Saddam did with abandon) or do we stand aside? There is no moral absolute there. It is always a matter of political judgement, and that judgement is sometimes wrong even among the best of people. I am thankful I have never had to make such a judgement, but I will never flinch from admiring those who do, if from good intentions.
And Blair, whatever some people might say, had good intentions. The real question (for history), is whether he was a fool.
Anonymous
“Lastly, on servicemen that were killed, of course we all have sympathy for them and their families. But surely they joined the Armed Forces with some knowledge that this might happen? And also with some awareness that they might kill some people too? If you are a pacifist, fine, and every lost life is a tragedy of course. But this brings up awkward questions when it comes to Britain’s role in the world. Do we intervene to stop people killing each other (as Saddam did with abandon) or do we stand aside?”
Ben: If you remember 1997 then you will realise that no Labour leader could have lost that election given what the Tories had done to themselves and the country. And you have the sauce to accuse me of “lame and lazy thinking”!
On the subject of servicemen: A lot of young lads sadly join the Army because it is one of the few jobs that are (relatively) “safe” and long lasting (though of course even the armed services have redundancies now). I personally know of families where their lad has joined up because there were no other jobs available (especilly in places like Merseyside) – the point is Blair incolved us in 5 wars, and you get the feeling had little regard for the carnage he caused as long as he could look big in America.
I am sure boys don’t join the Army to get killed any more than MPs become MPs to end up in the dock of the court charged with embezzlement, like Chayter and Morely were.
As regards “standing by” we are not, should not be, the worlds policeman, but if Blair decided we should be, he was very selective as to where he put his helmet on: for example he decided Mugabe and his rotten regime was OK, presumably because the USA were not much interested either. I suppose this is what you mean by “political judgement”. What “judgement”?
As for his “good intentions”, well – he made sure that he reaped the maximum rewards for them, financially, didn’t he? – and all that “peace envoy” crap when he is biased towards one side. About as useful and genuine as his “faith foundation”
I don’t think that he was either a fool or had good intentions. What Blair loved and loves is power and money. He likes to think he is some sort of invincible good guy. He lacks self-awareness. “I am a pretty straight sort of guy” he said as the public laughed with derision as they remembered Ecclestone and being the first PM to be interviewed by the police in conection with criminality while in office, and dodgy dossiers.
But please lets stop focusing on the 1997 landslide, given the political climate of the day. What we SHOULD be doing is castigating him for being lazy enough to accept the status quo when with that landslide and the following one in 2001 he COULD have really instituted social change. He could have been Atlee and Roy Jenkins rolled into one, instead he chose to become an effette, showbiz obsessed warmonger.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Alan, thanks again for the lengthy response. I just want to ask one question of you.
That is – and I am really curious about this – what exactly are you trying to achieve here? What would satisfy you and make you happy? At which point would you move on?
Forgive me for speculating but am thinking that this goes way beyond whether Tony Blair was a good man or a bad man or whatever.
What seems to have happened is that for a whole bunch of people, Tony Blair has taken on the status of a bogeyman, taking all the sins of the world on his shoulders. But as much as people unload more and more, it is never enough. From both right and left, they keep on attacking, relentlessly, unloading more and more – yet the world does not seem to get any better as a result (at least from what I have observed).
When will it end? And what it is the end for which this continual abuse is the means? To me it seems pathological and even psychopathic – it is kind of like shouting at the moon. The moon is there, and it will be there tomorrow night, and the night after, and the night after that – however much you shout at it.
So, what do you actually want from Blair? What do you want from this conversation? What would be enough? Would anything be enough?
Anonymous
Ben: I am not 100 per cent pacifist, but I feel that Blair was far too fond of military action.
I joined the Labour party in 1962. As a matter of fact it is 49 years ago today Hugh Gaitskill died and Harold Wilson became leader, so less than a year after I joined the party, the man I consider Labour’s best leader took over.
I would remind you Harold’s enduring legacy is the Open University, which still exists and gives people a second, even third chance in life. Blair’s legacy, really, is the Iraq war. Whether or not you like it, THAT is what he will always be remembered for.
Blair destroyed the true Labour party and turned it into a faux Conservative party. He had two massive majorities in 97 and 2001 and instead of producing that “fairer” society he always dribbled on about he became more Tory than the Tories.
“Move on” is another favourite Blairism: your most trusted confidante deliberately falsifies a legal document (his mortgage application) – lets move on and give him another cabinet job he will have to resign from. Former pon-scribbler Campbell concocts a dodgy dossier based on a 10 yedar old PHd thesis, and takes us into a war – thats it, lets move on and pretend it never happened. Blair didn’t dfo any of this stuff because he was power mad, no God made him do it. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
What do I want now?. Simple: I want Ed Miliband to be his own man, and to stop having to look over his shoulder at the malcontents who are plotting to bring him down. I would like Paul Richards and others (especially Rentoul, who witters on every day like a jealous and bitter woman) to stop their constant insinuations – we all know they wanted Ed Miliband’s brother as leader, because he was so close to Blair it would be like having him reincarnated (he would like to take on Iran as he has often said, for example)
And finally, Ben with all due respect, I could do without remarks like “To me it seems pathological and even psychopathic -” cod-psychology langauge, which is yet another trait that pro-Blair writers fall into (most noticeably Rentoul), which gives the impression it is irrational to despise Blair. You say you are not pro-Blair. I don’t mean to imply bad faith, but frankly looking at some of your defence points in this thread, you could have fooled me.
That man created problems we are still dealing with today. He wasn’t a fool, he knew what he was doing.
It is no more irrational than people like you making excuses for him because you think he wasn’t greedy or dissembling – and that all he did was becajuse he was a “good” man, or he did it with the best of intentions – what Blair did, in the main, he did for himself and his own ends.
Anonymous
Ben: I am not 100 per cent pacifist, but I feel that Blair was far too fond of military action.
I joined the Labour party in 1962. As a matter of fact it is 49 years ago today Hugh Gaitskill died and Harold Wilson became leader, so less than a year after I joined the party, the man I consider Labour’s best leader took over.
I would remind you Harold’s enduring legacy is the Open University, which still exists and gives people a second, even third chance in life. Blair’s legacy, really, is the Iraq war. Whether or not you like it, THAT is what he will always be remembered for.
Blair destroyed the true Labour party and turned it into a faux Conservative party. He had two massive majorities in 97 and 2001 and instead of producing that “fairer” society he always dribbled on about he became more Tory than the Tories.
“Move on” is another favourite Blairism: your most trusted confidante deliberately falsifies a legal document (his mortgage application) – lets move on and give him another cabinet job he will have to resign from. Former pon-scribbler Campbell concocts a dodgy dossier based on a 10 yedar old PHd thesis, and takes us into a war – thats it, lets move on and pretend it never happened. Blair didn’t dfo any of this stuff because he was power mad, no God made him do it. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
What do I want now?. Simple: I want Ed Miliband to be his own man, and to stop having to look over his shoulder at the malcontents who are plotting to bring him down. I would like Paul Richards and others (especially Rentoul, who witters on every day like a jealous and bitter woman) to stop their constant insinuations – we all know they wanted Ed Miliband’s brother as leader, because he was so close to Blair it would be like having him reincarnated (he would like to take on Iran as he has often said, for example)
And finally, Ben with all due respect, I could do without remarks like “To me it seems pathological and even psychopathic -” cod-psychology langauge, which is yet another trait that pro-Blair writers fall into (most noticeably Rentoul), which gives the impression it is irrational to despise Blair. You say you are not pro-Blair. I don’t mean to imply bad faith, but frankly looking at some of your defence points in this thread, you could have fooled me.
That man created problems we are still dealing with today. He wasn’t a fool, he knew what he was doing.
It is no more irrational than people like you making excuses for him because you think he wasn’t greedy or dissembling – and that all he did was becajuse he was a “good” man, or he did it with the best of intentions – what Blair did, in the main, he did for himself and his own ends.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Again, when it comes to Blair, some people have really the plot, making them put words into people’s mouths and even thoughts into their heads. And I had always been under the impression that lefties were such nice, reasonable people.
Nine years after the Iraq War, with the substantive arguments made and won convincingly, to keep on banging on about Blair endlessly (often without his name even being mentioned) is psychopathic behaviour, sorry. It achieves nothing, but you keep on doing it anyway, for a reason beyond reason.
Anonymous
There you go again Mr Cobley, pretending to be a psychologist “reason beyond reason”.
If I may be so crude, it’s bullshit like that that makes you start wondering about some Labour supporters, to the point of wondering if they really have Labour principles at all. If Major or Mrs Thatcher had involved us in wars without solution, people like you would have been screaming blue murder.
You seem to be of the school that thinks it clever to belittle people who disagree with you, by questioning their psychological health. That is pretty cheap, and really shows the poverty of your imagination.
You came out with the “only a handful” of people being killed regarding Iraq.
Even if you put aside that solicism, the fact is we are still living with the bad decisions Blair made regarding Afghanistan. To this day young servicemen are getting kiled out there – I suppose that is just a “handful” to you but it is a handful of broken lives and grieiving families. I’d just love you to make insensitive remarks like that to the face of Rose Gentle, for example.
I begin frankly to wonder about you: “Lefties” especially used in the sneering way you use in your latest daubing is usually a term of contempt, yet you claim to be on the left. You also claim not to be a Blairite, yet you use the Blairite ploy of questioning the mental faculties of thjose who disagree with you.
Perhaps you are playing devils advocate again, Mr Cobley?. Or perhaps you are just a wind-up merchant In which case please stop playing your silly games with me personally.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Hey Alan, yeah I think we’ve both had enough of this! Just to finish off though, for a start I want to re-iterate how it isn’t great debating ethics to be putting words into people’s mouths and thoughts into their heads, as you have done repeatedly here (as have other “people like you”).
As for you, we all exhibit psychopathic tendencies sometimes. You gave it away again in that last post by saying: “I’d just love you to make insensitive remarks like that to the face of Rose Gentle”.
So, you would “love” it? Making me and Rose Gentle feel bad would make you feel good?
After this whole dialogue you have now said what you are looking to achieve – the spreading of human misery.
That is psychopathic.
Anonymous
Your smug superiority is really unpleasant.
As for that last paragrap – what utter claptrap. What I meant was, would you have the guts to talke to people like Rose Gentle and excuse the Iraq war by saying – as you did – only a “handful” of people died?.
Let me leave you with a final thought: when people come on LL still with very strong feelings against Mrs Thatcher, nobody suggests they are “psychopathic” when they critisize her, often in very strong terms, and she left office over 21 years ago, but to do so about Blair who only left office 5 years ago, and, I repeat we still have the consequences of his behaviour, that is somehow considered by you to be wrong.
Like Mrs Thatcher, Blair did a great deal of damage.
Now go away, Dr Cobley, and try your amateur psychology on somebody else.

derek
Ben, someone like you makes it harder to understand labour.
Michael Jackson sang about trying to make the world a better place? didn’t mean he was entirely good.
“However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the Iraq War itself saw only a handful of people die” Ben! expect a thumping on that.
Ben, your on the wobble, if your going to do a “luke” then do it.
You’ll be treading the boards on behalf of who? if Unite and the GMB end their affiliation, then the party goes with the labour people trade unions and all.

Anonymous
Derek, While you are talking about singers, whenever I read young fogeys nostalgically wishing for the days of Blair to return it reminds me of one of Irving Berlin’s more mawkish compositions: “The Song Is Enfded – But The Melody Lingers On”
I am glad you picked up that rather repuslive “only a handful” quote too – I always wish people like Ben, Rentoul and all the others who dismiss war so casually had the guts to join the army and fight themselves.
derek
@Alan
, LoL! has Ben considered what he said?
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
derek – produce some evidence and then you might have an argument. The war itself was virtually uncontested. People died as people do in war, but based on your rationale Britain would have refused to take part in the liberation of Western Europe in the Second World War – and a helluva lot more innocent people died in that due to terribly inaccurate bombing and shelling.
As for your insults about who I am canvassing for, that is beneath contempt and makes we wonder once again whether this party should really engage in a proper fight over our future rather than what Nick Raynsford yesterday said he was fearing: “the calm of the graveyard”. I believe in seeing things as they are, treating people decently – and especially robust debate. You do not do that. And there are too many people out there of your ilk who sit comfortably in your apparent moral superiority chucking out insults as if they were self-evident.
For example: when did I mention Unite and the GMB?!! This is lazy, silly idiocy and would ideally have no place in a forum of debate like LabourList. We have free speech and democracy and should take advantage of it by arguing on the basis of what people say and do, not what we assume they are thinking or what we suppose they are doing. You are an ignorant man for taking that path.
derek
Ben, your first paragraph doesn’t reach a coherent level. Go tell your callous thoughts to Rose Gentle>
How are you canvassing for? a leader who is long gone and wasn’t replaced by his heir? I’m not sure you have a proper fight in you? morals seldom win elections? principles and policies do.
Why is it “lazy” seems to me that you have a problem recognising such bodies as trade unions or a labour party that was principled to the clause 4. I didn’t take the path, I knew without exception which road to follow because un like you ya son of a bitch I was born into the labour values and family traditions, not spoon fed by drippers at a late stage.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
derek – once more, I ask for some evidence. And why does my first paragraph not reach a coherent level? If if does not, I want to hear why. That’s how debate works and how we might learn a thing of two from each other.
You suggest I am canvassing for a leader than is long gone. Wrong. Where did you get that idea? Certainly from nothing that I said.
So: lazy.
You then go on to talk about me having a problem recognising trade unions. Wrong. I do not.
Then you descend into the basic insults. Why?
If we are going to argue, let’s argue from a basis of truth, please. Whatever your agenda is, you do it no credit with such talk.
derek
You can’t be seriously suggesting that Iraq was a kin to world war II and the Germans? Look Robin Cook said Iraq could have been controlled by the no fly zone.
Wrong? you’ve been more than to willing too give Blair your support! “pause” go re-read your own writings?
I’m I mad about your careless attitude towards an unnecessary war, you bet ya I am. Don’t come across all innocent and lardy da!, you’ve accused me of being “lazy” twice.
What is your notion of “truth” a King James Bible? and a new labour 2005 manifesto?
OK, you convince me what part the trade union will have in new labour’s agenda, because I’ll tell you this when Blair came to the TUC conference and told us he’d advocate a minimum wage at 3 pounds odds, the cold shivers did run down many trade union members spines.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Again, “derek”, you make a load of suppositions on the basis of nothing that I have ever said or even thought. You mix up one thing with another and make crazy assumptions that make no sense.
I live by the belief that we can improve our world and our minds by debate and discussion, but I am struggling with you – you just bound around here throwing out random things that have no basis in reality.
If you are going to judge people (and fundamentally, I do not believe in doing that – I don’t think you are necessarily a bad person), do so on the basis of what people say and do, not on the basis of what is convenient for you in making whatever point you would like to make.
No one is perfect, and we all say wrong and silly things sometimes. Myself I love these lyrics from the Bob Dylan song Cross the Green Mountain, and hope that I can stay true to them.
“Let them say that I walked
in fair nature’s light
And that I was loyal
to truth, and to right.”
derek
Supposition about nothing, you referred to WWII? how many people (Iraq’s) died from Allied bombings?, or are you saying that their was no collateral damage with shock and awe?
I’m not judging you as a person, I’m placing you in a certain political group.
I don’t think you’ll the answer blowing in the wind, BoB Dylan isn’t someone many would relate war to?
Perfection? I really struggled to make any sense of Blair’s memoirs, especially the bit that cites the divine intervention, do you really believe that people like Blair and Cameron are born to lead?
Your not doing to much to advance the debate? why?
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
derek, I am not saying any of things that you suggest that I might be. I do not belong in whatever political group you are choosing to place me in, and I think you need to…stop. Re-appraise, get to the roots of being and stop getting so worked up by untruths that you have invented in your head.
derek
That’s quite funny. Almost a council of despair.
Next you’ll quote W C Fields, that you didn’t vote for anybodyyou just voted against.
If my memory is allright? I believe a certain USA president said the buck stops here, where does you buck stop on the Iraq invasion?

Anonymous
” However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the Iraq war itself saw only a handful of people die”. Sorry? Over a hundred if you are talking about our troops, and hundreds of thousands if you are talking about Iraqis – many of them innocents.
The problem did not come with the peace. The problem came with Blair lying us into this illegal war and his circumvention of the democratic norms to do so. Did you follow the Chilcott Inquiry????
Of course it can be laid at Blair’s door. His administration cooked the dossier; his leadership introduced the spin and mendacity on an epic scale that enabled this killing field. His lack of planning and ability to consider that his messianic will was open to being thwarted at any number of critical stages made this for a folie de grandeur that has no parallel in over a century of British political malfeasance.
It was Blair and Bush’s war and it was a disaster and the people of Iraq suffer to this day. They have the freedom to go out and speak their mind? They are too scared to. Do you have any Iraqi friends? I do. The place a roiling mess of turmoil, fear and destroyed lives. Hope is a forlorn and unreachable mirage for most.
Whatever Blair’s views on the Labour left- I think the diametric opposite. He is a crony capitalist of the most egregious and hypocritical kind. A money crazed, tax dodging liar who must go into the confessional to perfect his porkies.
Anonymous
” However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the Iraq war itself saw only a handful of people die”. Sorry? Over a hundred if you are talking about our troops, and hundreds of thousands if you are talking about Iraqis – many of them innocents.
The problem did not come with the peace. The problem came with Blair lying us into this illegal war and his circumvention of the democratic norms to do so. Did you follow the Chilcott Inquiry????
Of course it can be laid at Blair’s door. His administration cooked the dossier; his leadership introduced the spin and mendacity on an epic scale that enabled this killing field. His lack of planning and ability to consider that his messianic will was open to being thwarted at any number of critical stages made this for a folie de grandeur that has no parallel in over a century of British political malfeasance.
It was Blair and Bush’s war and it was a disaster and the people of Iraq suffer to this day. They have the freedom to go out and speak their mind? They are too scared to. Do you have any Iraqi friends? I do. The place is a roiling mess of turmoil, fear and destroyed lives. Hope is a forlorn and unreachable mirage for most.
Whatever Blair’s views on the Labour left- I think the diametric opposite. He is a crony capitalist of the most egregious and hypocritical kind. A money crazed, tax dodging liar who must go into the confessional to perfect his porkies.

http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
FloraPatterson – an energetic response! I sympathise with some of what you say actually. To an extent I am playing devil’s advocate since I feel the vitriol poured on Blair is a classic example of people picking a nice convenient target that is in the public eye and subject to intense public scrutiny, unlike many of the truly guilty people – he made big mistakes and he will have to live with them for the rest of his life.
Laying into him while ignoring the fact that there are some rather nasty people over in Iraq who are still killing people is wrong – surely those people deserve at least a share of the blame? No? Parts of the left (and I count myself as a true lefty – against fascism and racism – and, ahem, killing in the name of religion) seem to want to ignore that and lay all the blame at our own.
However, the point I did not make which I meant to at the start of what I was writing and forgot about is, isn’t it about time we moved on from this? On here so many people seem to just want to lay into Blair (interestingly, not Brown). What is the point? The world has moved on, and we all need to move on to0, learning the lessons (like, do not hitch your wagon to crazy American administrations), but not getting overwrought with idiocies like Tony Blair is a war criminal. I really despair with such thoughts – on those grounds Churchill should have been burned at the stake.
We should always ground our actions on principle. Blair was doing that, but in practice he did not follow through with his principles and force the Americans to behave in an even vaguely sensible way as he should have done. That does not mean his principles were wrong.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall
”
Blair is no venal scoundrel”.
I did not agree with Blair when he was in office, but I did not consider him a
“venal scoundrel”.
But now he has leveraged that office into making so much money, much of it hidden from tax, what else can we call him?
Gordon Brown was a lousy party leader, and seems to have had some personality issues, but, as of now, he has shown no streak of the gleeful monetary greed the Blairs have engaged in.
Imagine, Blair had been pope. We might object to popes and what they believe, but they do at least have beliefs. Imagine after being pope, they left office and set up a gay sauna chain, took directorships from as many businesses as possible, and then bought Donald Trump’s old house in Florida?
It would be reasonable to question whether he really meant anything he said while he was pope/prime minister.
Blair may be no scoundrel, but venality is his game.

http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Paul, thanks for the response. I agree that there seem to be questions about Blair’s tax avoidance since leaving power (though recognise it is largely the right-wing press stirring here, while the Tory government does all it can to attach itself to his legacy – clever tactsics).
In general though I do wonder what people expect from him – is he meant to just stick with his Faith Foundation and not make some money from the fact that a lot of people are interested in what he might have to say about life and the world? This seems harsh.
Maybe take some time out (admittedly, rather a lot) and check out this debate between Blair and Christopher Hitchens (RIP). Saying about him that “venality is his game” just does not make sense to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA
The vituperative attitude of many liberal-lefties towards him forces him outwards, but credit to the man, he still retains his beliefs. I do not agree with many of them, but I do sympathise with him. He carries a heavy burden, and clearly knows that.
Fundamentally I would rather we engage with him as he is, and stop pushing him away into the arms of those who do not share his fundamental principles. By doing that, we also ignore the fact that many people hold a lot of regard for him in Britain and in the Labour Party (and I am not talking about “Blairites” here).
Anonymous
“Gordon Brown was a lousy party leader, and seems to have had some personality issues, but, as of now, he has shown no streak of the gleeful monetary greed the Blairs have engaged in.”
You are absolutely right on this Paul.
That is the reason I can never feel the same distaste for Brown as I had for Blair: I can never forgive GB for bringing back that oleaginous snob Mandelson, nor for allowing Purnell to enable Freud to persecute the sick, but at least we don’t see him with a rictus grin on an over-made-up face, touting himself for money to whomever will have him
GB has his faults, but personal greed is not one of them.

http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
Sorry Ben but I’m unconvinced by your eulogy.
This sentence: ” a genuine belief that through the strength of his goodness and personality he can make the world a better place.” points to all the qualities that, when attributed to a politician, should ring alarm bells in the electorate.
There were early signs of his delusional messianic tendencies when, during his first speech as leader to the L.P. Conference, in an unscripted add-on (see Bob Marshall-Andrews memoir, p26) he trumpeted his mission and described ”my covenant with the British people” and then claimed a provenance derived from the Prophets of the Old Testament.
Was he really fit to be leader?

http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
eulogy?!! Are you having a laugh? I have big issues with Blair, as I argued (did you care to read?) Alas, when it comes to Blair (not Brown), some people have just lost the plot. It is sad and deluded.
http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
Well, there’s the matter of “only a handful of people” died during the Iraq war.
I’ll assume you’re referring to British armed forces. Such misrepresentation of facts must surely be motivated by eulogistic intentions?
The question remains: Was Blair really fit to be leader?
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Dave – evidence please! You say misrepresentation of facts. Where? How? And saying “eulogistic intentions” – I am sorry but that is just ridiculous (a great phrase though). You seem to have lost the plot somewhere down the line.
I am starting to sympathise with those Blairites more and more, just from being subjected to this stuff. It seems to be fulfilling some sort of psychological urge to be superior to other people, especially those who have ever held any sort of power.
Let he who has no sin cast the first stone. We all make mistakes in life. Those in power make bigger mistakes, but that doesn’t mean, necessarily, that they are worse people than those of us who have little.
Blair believed in changing the world for the better, and still does. He made mistakes. Surely we can forgive him those while recognising them.
And for now, we really need to move on and debate about today’s issues.
http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
Ok. Evidence: fatality lists are available online from a number of sources, you could start with the M.O.D.
Respect should be shown, “only a handful” is plainly wrong and so wrong it borders on the disrespectful. People do matter.
As for moving on, unfortunately we’ll be living with Blair’s mistakes for a generation at least so his legacy is very much an issue of today – not only to help us to avoid repeating those mistakes but, also, because many in this country have had their lives blighted unnecessarily.
There is no advantage to be had from finding fault in Blair. Would that we were able to claim him as a great leader but for me, because of his legacy, I can’t see how that is possible.
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
So now we’ve narrowed down to a debate about wording – yes, “only a handful” is a relative phrase, true. And certainly, some people would see it as disrespectful. But fundamentally it is about wording. Compared to the carnage that has taken place since the war though, the war itself took relatively few lives, and that for me is the most important point when considering Tony Blair’s legacy re. the war, which is what we have been talking about.
That does not mean I am in favour of the war. I went along with it in my head at the time, trusting the powers that be – and I felt betrayed for years afterwards.
But reflecting on it, and having read a lot about the circumstances, I now see it as a big bunch of mixed up confusion on our side, with some bad people in America calling the shots and our man naively and blithely going along with it, manipulated and flattered. And meanwhile much of the PLP just went along with it without demanding answers to the obvious questions.
These are human and cultural failings. We are wrong to unload it on to one man.
http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
“So now we’ve narrowed down to a debate about wording… ”
Words are important, for example, you confuse the words ‘invasion’ with ‘war’. But it’s not only a matter of wording, you wanted evidence of misrepresentation – I provided it.
The option to broaden the debate remains. You can start with the points that led to the question in my first post on this thread: Was Blair really fit to be leader?
http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
“So now we’ve narrowed down to a debate about wording… ”
Words are important, for example, you confuse the words ‘invasion’ with ‘war’. But it’s not only a matter of wording, you wanted evidence of misrepresentation – I provided it.
The option to broaden the debate remains. You can start with the points that led to the question in my first post on this thread: Was Blair really fit to be leader?
http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
Come on Dave, confusing “invasion” with “war”. What does that even mean? As for whether Blair was fit to be a leader, that is an irrelevant question for now. On the subject of words, it is a “was” not an “is”. Anyway, good night to you and all the best.

Anonymous
Andrew, I do not understand why you felt that you had to defend a policy that you disagreed with (getting rid of the 10% tax rate). Nobody apart from ministers bound by collective responsibility has to defend a Labour government’s policies. I would have agreed that the policy was mad and made clear that there were still sane people in the Labour Party! I often had similar conversations about Iraq.
John Reid
There’s only 2 Elections I really recall having that sort of Abuse thrown at me, the 2005 one, When I was so appaled at the Tories ,”Nudge Nudge are you thinking what we’re thinking, It’s not racist to call asylum seekers bogus”,” I want my country back” views plus the Amount of Stealth taxes we wewre paying, that the public didn’t like us, Plus the 1987 election when ,the Opinion polls were wrong and that We were only A couple of points behind the Tories and the Public Felt thtat we were going to undo what the Tories had achieved in terms of Union Control, Or private ownership and that For all our good intentions on getting the Unemployment back, the Public saw us An extremist party who were more concerned with individual issues ,that didn’t appeal to them, rather than Decent transport, or defence or a Strong economy that would give their children a better future, This Election apart for the Day after Gordon’s Bigotted woman comment people werent (rightly) listening to us, the 1992 Election I felt that people were saying they weere goung to vote for us, through A mixture of Shame that they were going to Vote for alleged Tax cuts with A Party that was destroying the NHS or they were genuinely going to vote for us, but come election Day hadn’t forgot the self inflicted damage we’d done to oursleves in the Early 80′s.
John Reid
There’s only 2 Elections I really recall having that sort of Abuse thrown at me, the 2005 one, When I was so appaled at the Tories ,”Nudge Nudge are you thinking what we’re thinking, It’s not racist to call asylum seekers bogus”,” I want my country back” views plus the Amount of Stealth taxes we wewre paying, that the public didn’t like us, Plus the 1987 election when ,the Opinion polls were wrong and that We were only A couple of points behind the Tories and the Public Felt thtat we were going to undo what the Tories had achieved in terms of Union Control, Or private ownership and that For all our good intentions on getting the Unemployment back, the Public saw us An extremist party who were more concerned with individual issues ,that didn’t appeal to them, rather than Decent transport, or defence or a Strong economy that would give their children a better future, This Election apart for the Day after Gordon’s Bigotted woman comment people werent (rightly) listening to us, the 1992 Election I felt that people were saying they weere goung to vote for us, through A mixture of Shame that they were going to Vote for alleged Tax cuts with A Party that was destroying the NHS or they were genuinely going to vote for us, but come election Day hadn’t forgot the self inflicted damage we’d done to oursleves in the Early 80′s.
John Reid
There’s only 2 Elections I really recall having that sort of Abuse thrown at me, the 2005 one, When I was so appaled at the Tories ,”Nudge Nudge are you thinking what we’re thinking, It’s not racist to call asylum seekers bogus”,” I want my country back” views plus the Amount of Stealth taxes we wewre paying, that the public didn’t like us, Plus the 1987 election when ,the Opinion polls were wrong and that We were only A couple of points behind the Tories and the Public Felt thtat we were going to undo what the Tories had achieved in terms of Union Control, Or private ownership and that For all our good intentions on getting the Unemployment back, the Public saw us An extremist party who were more concerned with individual issues ,that didn’t appeal to them, rather than Decent transport, or defence or a Strong economy that would give their children a better future, This Election apart for the Day after Gordon’s Bigotted woman comment people werent (rightly) listening to us, the 1992 Election I felt that people were saying they weere goung to vote for us, through A mixture of Shame that they were going to Vote for alleged Tax cuts with A Party that was destroying the NHS or they were genuinely going to vote for us, but come election Day hadn’t forgot the self inflicted damage we’d done to oursleves in the Early 80′s.
John Reid
There’s only 2 Elections I really recall having that sort of Abuse thrown at me, the 2005 one, When I was so appaled at the Tories ,”Nudge Nudge are you thinking what we’re thinking, It’s not racist to call asylum seekers bogus”,” I want my country back” views plus the Amount of Stealth taxes we wewre paying, that the public didn’t like us, Plus the 1987 election when ,the Opinion polls were wrong and that We were only A couple of points behind the Tories and the Public Felt thtat we were going to undo what the Tories had achieved in terms of Union Control, Or private ownership and that For all our good intentions on getting the Unemployment back, the Public saw us An extremist party who were more concerned with individual issues ,that didn’t appeal to them, rather than Decent transport, or defence or a Strong economy that would give their children a better future, This Election apart for the Day after Gordon’s Bigotted woman comment people werent (rightly) listening to us, the 1992 Election I felt that people were saying they weere goung to vote for us, through A mixture of Shame that they were going to Vote for alleged Tax cuts with A Party that was destroying the NHS or they were genuinely going to vote for us, but come election Day hadn’t forgot the self inflicted damage we’d done to oursleves in the Early 80′s.

Anonymous
With all due respect, I think very few ordinary people worry about “defence” as much as politicians do. I have always found they worry more about the NHS, Education and employment and well-being rather than that.

http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
I’d close the door on you because I have no time for the people who oppose everything I find decent. Offended? Blame your leadership.
They HAVE given in. They HAVE accepted the Tory vision for the UK. Or more likely, for England.
You keep working for the Tory’s world. Me, I want a party of the left. One which can call on the millions New Labour sidelined. Time for something different.

Latest

Featured
I Agree with Jack, End EU Elections
By Dan McCurry
I agree with Jack Straw. EU parliamentary elections should be abolished. It’s not that we object to democracy, it’s that we object to failed democracy. We object to democracy that continues to exist as a pointless halfway-house absorbing considerable revenue without delivering anything in return. “The directly elected European parliament should be abolished after failing to achieve its purpose of bridging the divide between the European people and the European Union” is what Jack actually said at the recent IPPR event. [...]
Read more →
Video
Why are we losing police officers? asks MP
Mp Clive Betts put Cameron on the spot over policing at PMQs, but do his arguments on “visible policing” really stack up? Watch their exchange and see for yourself:
Read more →
News
Gordon Brown slams Greek bailout – and warns Europe over austerity
In an article for the Washington Post entitled “Europe’s shortsighted response to a worsening fiscal reality“, Gordon Brown has hit out at German-led austerity in Europe, lambasting: “policies that the whole world can see have already failed.” In fact, Brown goes further still in tackling head on the central argument around austerity – that any failings that arise from austerity are because there isn’t enough austerity: “the unfolding tragedy of a bankrupt Greece is only a symptom of an even [...]
Read more →
Comment Featured
PMQs verdict: How could anyone have “won” something as dreadful as that?
By Mark Ferguson
So much of the coverage of PMQs is focussed on the snap verdict. Who won? Who lost? I’m aware that this blog is as guilty as anyone for playing that game. So let’s make this one simple – nobody won today. How could they have, when the event itself was so deeply, stunningly, mind bendingly dreadful. It started off relatively normal. Loud admittedly, but normal. Ed began with the NHS. Still normal. Cameron dodged the question. Still supremely normal. But something [...]
Read more →
News
David Davis launches a scathing attack on the government’s close relationship with big business
David Davis has launched a broadside against the PM – and especially the government’s relationship with big business (or “crony capitalism” as he calls it) – in an interview with Prospect Magazine. The former leadership challenger (who lost out to Cameron in 2005) has spoken out against the government’s handling of Hester’s RBS bonus, tax avoidance and the media. Interestingly, the quotes have come to light on the same day as fellow Tory right big hitter Liam Fox returns to the [...]
Read more →