You are here: Home » News »

Dave Prentis attacks “intolerable” Progress influence

June 20, 2012 8:55 am

Tags:

Share this Article

In his keynote speech to their conference this week, Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis attacked Progress as:

“a party within a party, funded by external interests. An influence we will not support. It is intolerable that they should act in that way within our Labour Party.”

20120620-090510.jpg

Related posts:

  1. Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis weighs in on GMB/Progress row
  2. Poll List: Half those who will tune in say debates could influence their vote
  3. Phone-hacking is a symptom, political influence is the disease
  4. Flynn: tolerating the intolerable
  5. PMQs verdict: Say hello to Bad Dave (and Desperate Dave)
  • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

    Looks like the game is up for the wealthy who want to buy influence within the Labour Party. And about time too.

    • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

      Prentis earns £100k a year  and the money his union gives to Labour buys a lot of influence within the Party.

      Just saying.

      • UKAzeri

        all true  but there is a big difference between funds raised through members’ fees and funds raised through donations by authoritarian regimes etc.

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          there is also a big difference between sponsorship to cover the costs of events and fundraising for campaigning activity.

          • UKAzeri

            transparency is key here…  the current structure and secrecy ( statements are not the same as independent audit or complete openness) raises further questions…

          • Mike Homfray

            Also the unions are an integral part of the labour movement. They largely fund the party

          • Solomon Hughes

             But the sponsorship didn’t just cover the cost of the events, it also determined the content of the events. The Progress meetings paid for by the European Azerbaijan Society were pro-Azerbaijan govt propaganda meetings held during the Labour conference under Progress’ banner : By taking cash from the associates of Azerbaiajan’s Minister for Emergency Situations, Colonel-General Heydarov,Progress acted as a paid PR front for a dubious Azerbaijan political-business lobby

      • treborc1

        It buys labour the chance to carry on being labour , without that money where would labour be today, called the Progress party I suspect..

        • John Dore

          Tre-Boring, you’re another one for socialist worker, you’re a mole in camp Labour.

          • derek

            Less of your piffle and tosh John, trebroc was labour when you were a glint in your ma’mas eye.

          • John Dore

            and you’re a keyboard warrior that spends all day talking crap on LL. Off with you’re partisan claptrap.

          • https://mikestallard.virtualgallery.com/ Mike Stallard

            Now let me remember. Was that when Socialism contained people like Pol Pot?

          • Peter Barnard

            If my memory serves me correctly, “the lights went out” (and the three-day week) occurred during Ted Heath’s term of office.

          • AlanGiles

            Yes Mr Stallard sounds very confused poor old chap. The white heat of the technological revolution dates back to 1964.

            Ted turned out the lights in 1973, and you are right Peter that was the time of the 3 day week – especially damaging for manufacturing in that it became uneconomic for some companies to stop and start large scale production, especially with unscheduled power cuts being a frequent occurence, even during the 3 days.

          • Mike Stallard

            OK so it was all the Grocer’s fault.

            Do you know what? I nearly invoked the sacred name of Pol Pot and then crossed it out. After that, how about  dear old Soso?
            But I thought that was actually being rude.

            Now for something positive: Perhaps Mr Cameron is our new Edward Heath? I think that, what with one thing and another, he has probably divided the right so sharply that he will let in you guys next election. 

          • treborc1

             I doubt it was a glint, bird sh*t possibly.

          • derek

            LoL!

          • treborc1

             You are now trolling, I have stayed off your comments but your now following me, and I will give you warning if this carries on I will seek  advice on you constant abuse.

            if you think I’m kidding keep going.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            can give it but can’t take it Treborc?

          • AlanGiles

            Jon, “Mr Dore” the poster he is speaking of, is very fond of handing out abuse himself but finds it “nasty” when anyone else does it.

            He is also overly fond of the word “cr*p”, but that might just be a private prejudice on my part.

            If “Mr Dore” wishes to hand out abuse, that’s fine, but he shouldn’t take the moral high ground against everyone except himself.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            Hi Alan, the thing sometimes I don’t like about LL is that people are very much ‘you’re either with me or against me’.  I passed no comment on Mr Dore and I’m sure what you say is right.

            But accusations of abuse and ‘trolling’ coming from Treborc are a little rich.

            Sometimes I fail myself at talking respectfully, but I always try.  My mum always said ‘if you can’t play nicely, don’t play at all’.  I think that is a general rule of society, and Treborc breaks it as often (actually, in my view, more often) than most.

          • AlanGiles

            Hi Jon, I think the reason for the “for me or against me” stance is because the site is so representitive of the Labour party itself: those of us on the left feel somewhat aggrieved when we are described as “hard left” “”Trots” or advised to “join the SWP” (The latter being a favourite of both Purple Booker and Mr Dore).

            Mr Marchant likes to imply mental deficiency in his ramblings.

            Perhaps those on the right do feel we are in the “wrong” party,  perhaps they really believe we ARE dangerous, but it is a bit like a marriage breaking down, who should leave the marital home?.  I think the way things are going, one of these days one side or the other will probably have to break away, because the divisions are now too great  and resentment on both sides too deep to admit for any possibility of reconcilliation. To many right-wingers people like me are dangerous (!), to many left-wingers SOME (not all by any means) - but some of the right are extremely hostile and condescending towards us, and treat us with more contempt than they do other parties (Mr Marchant being an excellent example).

            It is no secret that I do not share most of your opinions Jon, but at least you are friendly and reasonable  and so I tend not to be so ascerbic when replying to you (or I try to not do be so), but when ill-informed people start telling me I am a Commuinst, or a secret Respect or SWP supporter, I must admit I tend to pay them back in their own style. And especially to the poster, who, on Sunday discovered I shared a forename with a fictional TV character, and has now done his “Partridge” joke eleven times – (there might be other uses but I can’t be bothered to read  many of his posts) – and it is still only Thursday.

          • Mike Stallard

            Just as the right is all at sixes and sevens, I can see that you on the left are just as bad.

            One is for sure: the voters (even the Postal Voters as they sign other people’s papers) don’t like parties that cannot stick together.

          • AlanGiles

            It will be interesting then, won’t it? – in 2015. The Peter Bone/Nadine Dorries Conservatives can’t stand the Cameron Conservatives, and we have traditional versus Progress labour.

            Perhaps the LibDems will have a landslide? :-)

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            Alan, I accept the point.  By the way, I think us on the right of the party get told we’re in the wrong party far more than you do.   I actually think if being on the right of Labour makes me ‘a tory’ – as Treborc has said on this thread, then those on the far left of the party should have the same questions asked.  Although actually I’d prefer none of us had that abuse and we all accepted each other’s right to be in the party. I just wish some held themselves to the same standard as they hold others. I’ve always asked why people can’t just be nice to one another, and I rarely get an answer!

            But our conversation started because of Treborc accusing someone of trolling, and the point still remains that it is something of a hypocritical accusation.

          • treborc1

             What a shock the Tory lite is back

      • AlanGiles

        Do you think Lord Sainsbury had or has any influence on the party, Jon? Especially when he was a science minister (GM foods and all that)

        And how much does he earn each year?

      • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

        But Prentis is elected. Does ‘Progress’ have elections?

        • John Dore

          Prentis was elected on a turnout of 14.6%  huge influence for no mandate.

          Hypocrisy Hypocrisy  Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy 

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            “Prentis was elected on a turnout of 14.6% ”

            That’s democracy for you. Would you prefer another system?

          • John Dore

            I would actually, a real fricking democracy when Union leaders focussed on the needs of their members rather than grand standing in national politics.

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            “a real fricking democracy”

            I think you’re referring to a system that delivers the result you want.

      • http://www.facebook.com/danjeffery26 Dan Jeffery

        And what was the wealth of the CBI’s top man? How much power does he seek to purchase across Britain’s political spectrum, and to whom is he accountable with such power? 

        Dave Prentis was elected in a democratic contest in a union with a million members. 

  • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robert Scott

    I think that’s an accurate description of what
    Progress is but i doubt the motion will go
    anywhere.  At the end of the day Progress
    is organising for their politics and they have as much right to be doing that
    as the GMB . Progress are  just better at doing it.  They ought to back this statement up with disaffiliating it’s meaningless otherwise. 

    • Guest

      Key difference is that GMB is affiliated i.e. they pay money to the Party, so organising for their politics is within the party structures.

    • treborc1

      I totally agree we do need to push to leave labour, it’s getting way to expensive, we the GMB have just given labour another large loan for running cost.

      thats £2 million this year

      • Pete

        So let’s get this straight. In your books, trebor:

        Hard-working, active, devoted Labour Party members who are trying to make meaningful contributions to policy debate and campaigning within the Labour Party – i.e. Progress and its supporters: essentially evil tory infiltators out to destroy the Labour Party.

        People who advocate the unions cutting funding to the Labour Party so as to cripple it as an electoral force and produce decades of Conservative landslide election victories as a consequence: good, devoted left-wingers who have the labour movement’s best interests at heart.

        Well, that makes perfect nonsense.

        • AlanGiles

          But don’t you think the stance you are taking here is a trifle untenable?

          You want the unions to continue to bankroll the party, but to keep their mouths shut -  a pay up and shut up policy?

          A union that contributes a great deal of money to Labour complains about an organisation, one of whose main donors is a FORMER doner to Labour but now chooses to support a very small section within it.

          • Pete

            I don’t recall saying anything about the unions keeping their their mouths shut. On the contrary, I think it’s vitally important that the trade unions are engaged in policy discussion and formulation within the Labour Party – we are the *Labour* Party, afterall. Attempting to expel anyone who objects to your positions, however, as certain union leaders and their supporters within the party wish to do, does not constitute democratic discussion. The GMB is not merely complaining about Progress – it is determined to eradicate it completely. It has every right to do the former; it has no right to do the latter.

          • Homf

            Read carefully what the GMB have actually said

          • treborc1

             The Labour leadership has came under attack from one of the party’s
            biggest union affiliates amid warnings that the two wings of the
            movement are at a “crossroads” in their historic links.
            The GMB
            called for changes in how Labour draws up its policies and signalled a
            new direction for the union’s political campaigning which will hit the
            party’s finances.
            General secretary Paul Kenny said that apart
            from the union’s £1.4 million a year affiliation fees, and other money
            to campaign at local elections, the money box was “shut and will remain
            shut until we see major changes”.
            He told the union’s annual
            conference in Brighton: “People feel frustrated, angry and let down.
            They wanted to be proud of Labour in government, they didn’t want more
            of the same. Well, we are not going to put up with more of the same any
            longer, because people are crying out for social justice.
            “I don’t
            believe the public will vote for a Tory-lite approach from a Labour
            government – they want social advances for working people. We cannot say
            to the public that the best reason to vote Labour is that they are not
            the Tories. We want Labour to be the party of working people.”

            Choice it’s labour choice it can listen to the right wing of the Progress group of it can ask the Union which has more members then either Progress or labour put together.

            It’s about choices

          • AlanGiles

            I see Pete – it is alright for the unions to express an opinion just as long as it doesn’t inconvenience the right wing of the Labour party?.

            Progress members briefed against the current party leader, one of it’s leading lights pushed the report of a Conservative peer through the HoC while he was a minister, said minister announcing his resignation to News International while the 2009 EU elections were still taking place,  while the polling stations were still open.

            But that’s alright is it? Of course had he been a left winger (not much chance of a left wing New Labour minister, I agree) he would have been denounced by people like you as a traitor. 

            Terrific double standards seem to apply here.

          • John Dore

            Double standards eh Militant Partridge. Union leader without a mandate on Progress exerts power and is okay in the eyes of the left.

            Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

          • derek

            Cut the Partridge crap! You’ve no idea of  what the labour party is.You appear on a labour site and try too dictate to us all what a bright shiny new light new labour was, it was a supernova that burnt out through lying and dysfunctional acts, so show some respect to those who hold the values and principles for all people and be nice?

          • John Dore

            I bow to the higher authority that is Derek, superior intellect, depth of thought and indefatigable argument.

            err NOT. 

            Dont talk to me Derek, I have no interest in what you have to say. I prefer to engage with people with an open mind.

          • derek

            Stop wrestling with your inner emotion John. It seems you just come looking for trouble and want to “lock horns” well *pucker up* and kiss my a*rse this is red flag territory John Boy!

        • treborc1

          My opinion….

          Anything a Union does is voted on, twice once at Branch once at Conference, the feeling at the Branch was the Union should disaffiliate, the Unions leadership is fighting like hell to  keep the Union in the labour party, but this year the feeling was enough is enough.

          Every single member at my local GMB branch are or were like myself either labour party members or ex members, the feeling at branch was we leave.

          The Branch feel labour is now a party seeking the middle class vote, which is fine no problem the Branch feels the money would be better spend on the Union being able to talk discuss and use the levy to back any party which backs the Unions working class, not the dam squeezed middle.

          l;abour may well need the money from the Unions, does the Unions need labour, that is the question

          Maybe labour has to look at where it’s going and  who it needs does it need Progress or does it need working class voters.

          • Pete

            It’s curious that you should mention the working class as though they are some kind of vast, untapped socialist majority desperately yearning for the Labour Party to return to the days of old. We have extensive – and very accurate, scientifically speaking – exit polling data from Ipsos-MORI that tells us a great deal about how the nation voted between 1974 and 2010, and it seems to reject your hypothesis that the working class is some kind of radically socialist group in society.

            In October 1974, Labour won 57% of the unskilled working class vote – in 1983, when Labour stood on its most radically left-wing manifesto in living memory, the party polled a mere 41% of the vote, with its lead over the Conservatives being cut from 35 to just 8 points. In those nine years, there was a swing of nearly 14% from Labour to the Conservatives among unskilled working class voters. Among the skilled working class, the swing was slightly larger at 15% – our vote among them plummeted from 49% in 1974 to just 32% by 1983. In contrast, the swing from Labour to Conservative among middle class voters in the same period was a mere 1%.

            Over the course of the 1975 – 1983, Thatcher lost middle class voters (mostly to the Alliance) and make significant gains in the working class caucus. Labour’s working class support did not recover to its former level until 1997, when Tony Blair polled 59% of the unskilled working class vote and 50% of the skilled working class vote – the highest share of the vote Labour has won since 1974, with only a very small loss in both caucuses in 2001, offset by a tiny swing to Labour from the Tories in middle class support. Even in 1997, the Conservatives polled a plurality of middle class voters. In 2005 Labour did lose many skilled working class voters, more or less evenly to the Tories and the Lib Dems.

            In the most recent general election, Labour did, as people like you say, lose a lot of ground with working class voters – to the Conservatives. They polled at an 18-year high, taking 31% of the unskilled working class vote (against Labour’s 40%) and 37% of the skilled working class vote (against Labour’s 29% – yes, the Conservative lead over Labour amongst skilled working class people was slightly bigger than its national lead in all groups).

            There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that working class voters are crying out for a radical socialist government; if that were the case than Labour would not have fared so poorly among them in 1983, and we would not have hemorrhaged working class votes to the Conservatives two years ago. Indeed, many activists will tell you that working class voters on the doorstep often express right-wing ideas and sympathies on issues like immigration and welfare dependency that many in Labour would have a very hard time relating to.

            And let us not forget the reality of electoral mechanics. Even if you are indeed correct, where else should unions like GMB throw their support? The Green Party is often described as Labour’s major rival for the left-wing vote; yet if 75% of Labour voters went to the Greens, on a uniform national swing, their vote only concentrates sufficiently to elect a resounding 9 Members of Parliament, give or take half a dozen – whilst at the same time the collapse in support for Labour would produce a Conservative parliamentary majority in excess of 200; their largest majority as a single party of government since before the First World War. A new hard left-wing party, or one of the small socialist parties like RESPECT, would have an even harder time winning seats than the Greens, who also appeal very strongly to liberal – and a minority of conservative – voters, and have spent 30 years developing a concentrated core vote in key constituencies.

            British politics is no longer as simple as “the working class vote labour, the rich vote tory, the confused vote liberal”. It is infinitely more complex than that – no party in this country can now command a parliamentary majority without appealing to a broad range of working AND middle class voters. A moderate, forward-thinking party like the one we had in power from 1997 – 2010 has been proven to be able to do that; a hard-left party like that of 1983 hasn’t.

          • derek

            So what has made the voting system so complex pete? could it be politicians promising the earth then delivering a sack of salt? so your whole argument is, central politics is where the vote is and newer labour should be more like the conservatives if it wants to win an election.pete why will people vote newer labour when they have the conservatives? peter the prowler has a power agenda, only thing is it’s one already occupied by the tories.

          • Mike Stallard

            Maddeningly, you are right! And the same goes for us on the right too.
            The problem is that we have  an agenda of leaving Europe immediately, freeing up businesses to let them grow, getting the government cut down to size so that we don’t go broke like Greece and Iceland, and doing something urgent about immigration. 
            But we just cannot get elected to put all that into practice!

    • Dave Postles

       Robert, the unions organized the March for an Alternative and they are organizing another March in October of this year.  In the former, an estimate of up to half a million people marched.  If that is not superb organization, what is?  I hope that in October we will not suffer from demonstration fatigue and that all those people who didn’t participate in the first March, will now  be involved.  These marches signify solidarity, compassion, and an alternative economic solution.  There’s no point in placing hope in Progress.  There’s every point in the union movement.

  • Duncan

    I’m a bit bemused by all this to be honest.

    There are elements of Progress and elements of the non-aligned left who have a clear shared aim: breaking the union link.  As such, some of those people are loving all this, of course (because it could – though I suspect it won’t – turn into some sort of showdown).  But I can’t quite see what Paul and Dave think they’re going to get out of it.

    They obviously know that these manouvres having any significant impact on Progress and their activities is highly unlikely.  It might be designed to deflect “anti-Labour” sentiment in their ranks, and turn it into a more focused “anti-Progress” sentiment.  I can see some logic to that, although it would be more constructive if it was focused on supporting alternative internal pressure groups in the party who had policies more in line with the union positions.  It has been fascinating to watch where people have been positioning themselves on all this, and I’m trying to get my head round it all!  Although most people are sensibly keeping out of the whole thing (which I’m sure is what I should be doing) it does appear to be difficult to pinpoint where support for this rhetoric is coming from in terms of “left-right”.  Some of us lefties who are occasionally prone to hopeless gestures (according to our crticis!) seem to be lining up to say “beat Progress on the arguments, not through the rulebook” while self-styled pragmatists are lining up behind this hopeless gesture!  There’s clearly stuff going on to which I’m not privy.

  • Chilbaldi

    I’ve almost had it with people coming out against Progress.

    I’m not a Progress member and have never considered joining. But ask me to take sides and I’ll be on the side of the pragmatists who hate this horrible, destructive behaviour by some in the unions. I strongly suspect that most Labour members will be the same.

    So bring it on boys, you’ll lose and fall flat on your face.

    • AlanGiles

      I’ve almost had it with people coming out for Progress.
      No -let me rephrase that:

      I’ve  had it with people coming out against Progress. 

      Anybody who can take the witterings of Purnell and Twigg seriously need help

      • John Dore

        Oi Partridge, there’s nothing wrong with either 
        Purnell or Twigg if you live in the real world. 

        You hate them because your wedded to dogma.

        • derek

          Stop inciting racial language John, Jeez! you really are alien to labour.Sometimes I kinda wish you’d sound off like you’ve got a pair but you’ve probably got a pair plus one and that’s why your the ultimate Extra Testicle.

          • John Dore

            Classy Derek: do you get out much? Or is your head so firmly stuck that you’re struggling?

            Alan,  if you relax he’ll soon be gone.

          • derek

            *Classic* how about some thing on the article?

          • AlanGiles

            “Mr Dore” I sometimes think you are Master Dore aged thirteen and three quarters. That Alan Partridge “joke”.

            You have now used it FIVE (5) times. It’s getting a little stale. Obviously it amuses you terribly, but little things please little minds.

            Interesting that you, “Mr Dore” are so besotted by a fictional character – but then you are a fictional character yourself, are’nt you?. I wonder who “John Dore” really is?. Does he know himself, I wonder?

  • Daniel Speight

    I’m not sure where this going. It came out of the blue almost, but now the unions are getting there own back on the pro-austerity right wingers in the party. Whether Progress has done enough to be banned I’m not at all sure, and those pushing for it will have to show rules have been broken just as others had to when Militant was sent packing.

    Still I have little time for the crying of Progress supporters. Some were quite happy to be briefing against Ed Miliband just a couple of months ago and before that they were shouting about Labour needing to show where they would make cuts. The victims of the Tory cuts so far include many state sector union members so the unions have to show they are ready to fight for their members interests.

    Let’s do a little supposition. An over-simplification I know, but here’s how I see it.

    1. Progress is to the right of the party and very influential among PLP members.
    2. Progress is the present home of the supporters of Blair.
    3. Progress probably closely reflects the views of many of Labour’s former cabinet members.

    Now Progress supporters are quick to claim credit for winning three elections. It must be therefore right that they should take the discredit of the terrible loss at the last election. Surely some of the blame for the loss of public confidence in our MPs should also be attached to them. Not only with some of the expense cheating, but the woeful behaviour of the likes of Byers, Hoon, Hewitt, Blears and Jacqui Smith can be placed upon the right of the PLP.

    So far Progress supporters have been avoiding taking blame for the election defeat, but it would be hard to blame it on either the left of the party or the unions. It’s in their laps. I could understand them being a bit upset that the two Eds and the likes of Harman have got out of taking the blame, but that’s politics guys, and you also spun some weird crap when you had the power.

    • https://mikestallard.virtualgallery.com/ Mike Stallard

      Isn’t the truth that Mr Blair was a very popular and effective Prime Minister?
      He won three elections in a row. He controlled the Party very efficiently. He looked the part. He was very good with foreign Heads of State.
      I am a Tory Troll, you may remember, so what do I know?
      But I can see that actually he represented the majority view in our country, the sort of view that the BBC, the Guardian, the Civil Service and the Education system consider normal.
      Maybe there is a hint there for the Labour party.

      • Daniel Speight

        So which part of my comment are you arguing with? Is there something in my comment that I’m missing or did you just want to say something nice about Blair somewhere in the thread.

        • Mike Stallard

          Yes.

          • Daniel Speight

            I am a Tory Troll, you may remember, so what do I know?

            OK Mike, I guess the answer is “not a lot”.

      • AlanGiles

        It is always very telling that Blair’s biggest admirers seem to be in the Conservative party. And those MPs and ex ministers weho dream of the Blair days returning are almost always on the right wing of the party, which again begs the question where right-wing Labour ends and moderate conservatism begins.

  • http://twitter.com/Arcowray Paul

    It worried me greatly all this fighting. I thought we were
    abroad church; from the left to the centre?

    The unions have a massive role to play and rightly so but business and money
    does as well. Its not one or the other the country needs, its both and while I’m
    sure some party members find great joy in fighting for their version of ‘socialism’
    or the labour movement and pushing for their version of a progressive society,
    the vast majority of members just find this off putting and so does the public,
    they never like what they see as infighting.

     

    We need strong unions voices, we need strong business voices,
    only have one and you have a credibility gap with a large part of the public
    and in the end the labour party is fighting to lead a very complex and diverse
    nation, one with vastly different interests and agendas. Therefore I feel it
    helps to have a few from everyone and not shoot it down because you think they
    have influence or a different view.

    • ibid

      Our politics is already inundated by business voices, be it the press, the Tories or the newly-Oranged Liberals. The last thing we need within our Labour party, or our politics, is more influence by business. Nor do we need their money – Labour has long ably survived on union and membership fees, and a few donations from progressive institutions/wealthy individuals.

      You say Labour’s a big tent, but as we found out in the 80′s, there was no room for the hard-left, and their misdeeds apply just as much to Progress, who are right of centre, if we’re honest.

      • http://twitter.com/ElliotBidgood Elliot Bidgood

        Right-of-centre by who’s standards? I like Progress, but I’d still define myself as centre-left. So would most Progress members, I’d argue. Also, I reject out of hand this continual comparison with Militant and the 80s hard-left. Despite it’s flaws, worst excesses and some of the Labour priorities it sometimes neglects when uncritiqued by the further-left elements of the party, the basic ideology Progress espouses essentially won us three elections- roughly the same number that Militant cost us.

        • AlanGiles

          Come on, Elliot. Take one major exhibit from the Progress museum:

          Purnell: Insisted on pushing the Freud report through Parliament. Freud an investment banker who admitted he “knew nothing about welfare”, and who, by the time Purnell was bullying his way through the HoC had been bought by the Tories with a peerage.

          If you know anybody sick or disabled you will know the distress this bill caused people who have enough problems to deal with already. To salve their consciences some “Labour” supporters like to pretend all the trouble now had nothing to do with us, especially those like Byrne, dissembling and crying crocodile tears (and of course Byrne is well regarded by the Progress shower).

          If you regard Progress and people like Purnell as “centre left” I would respectfully suggest you have no sense of direction.

        • Daniel Speight

          …the basic ideology Progress espouses essentially won us three elections -

          Elliot, if you claim the above, what will you accept as far as blame goes on the terrible loss at the last general election? Also how much blame should be attached to you for the lack of regulation in the City which caused our financial crisis?

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    What is it particularly about Progress, as compared with other organisations such as Compass or the Fabians, that has drawn all of this looking into the Labour rule book?

    As far as I can see, Progress is only open to members of the Labour Party, which in turn is only allowed for those not also a member of a different political party.  So from a plain English sense, it seems odd to describe it as a “Party within the Party”.

    Compass seem to allow anyone to join, even if members of other parties.  Compass describes itself as ”An umbrella grouping of the progressive left whose sum is greater than its parts”, and is almost entirely associated with the Labour Party.

    The Fabians state that 80% of their members are Labour Party members, with the rest of full members unaffiliated.  They offer Associate membership to members of other parties, who can take part in all Fabian activities including advocating policies, writing papers, and so on, but they cannot vote in Fabian elections.  Otherwise, there is no difference in being a full time Fabian or Associate member.  The Fabians are formally affiliated to the Labour Party.

    In terms of funding, Compass and the Fabians both receive funding from “external interests”.  Lord Sainsbury is a member of the Labour Party, so therefore not external under Labour Party rules.

    So what is the essential difference between the three organisations, as viewed from the perspective of the Labour Party rules?  I see little to distinguish them, apart from – in Progress’ favour, you have to be a Labour member to join them, and the Progress funding is from a Labour Party member.

    To me as an outsider, this does increasingly look to be bully boy tactics from the barons, who plainly do not like Progress’ opinions and views and so want to crush the voice.  Yet they do like the views of Compass and the Fabians, so no attempt to outlaw them.

    • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

      “the barons”

      Were barons ever elected? Trade Unions are stringently regulated and those who hold positions of influence, from shop stewards to general secretaries, are elected – this disqualifies them from baronial/aristocratic status – they are dependent on others for their position and are accountable to others. As far as I know the structure of Progress does not include any democratic processes.

      I share the view expressed by Joanna Baxter* – if Progress “want to be a membership based organisation that should mean democratic structures.”

      *http://labourlist.org/2012/06/shoulder-to-shoulder-not-face-to-face/

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        OK, I take that point, but “Baron” seems to be a common description of them.  But you are correct in the point you make.  The Labour Party has however recently moved to an appointed Shadow Cabinet selection process, as well as the Cabinet for much longer also being selected, so clearly there is a limit to this sort of democratic accountability in the Labour Party.

        To argue that the Labour front bench team were elected (by their constituents) and therefore everything is OK to then appoint them to the Cabinet seems too obtuse to me.  If the insistence on democracy in the organisation applies, it should apply at all levels.

        • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

          I’m in agreement that democracy should be applied at all levels. But if democracy is absent, or only partially present, surely we shouldn’t use this as an excuse to diminish democracy still further or to legitimise undemocratic political organisations.

          To do that really would be going at the problem arse-backwards, as they say.

        • Homf

          Constitutionally the responsibility of appointing Cabinet ministers is the Prime Minister’s, and I think there are few who would argue against that. However Labour used to elect the Shadow Cabinet When in opposition and this was recently changed because it made little sense given the constitutional role of the PM

    • http://twitter.com/ElliotBidgood Elliot Bidgood

      The “external funding” thing in the case of Progress refers to them getting money from people like Bell Pottinger, PwC & The European Azerbaijan Society, among others. Full list here:
      http://www.progressonline.org.uk/about-progress/how-progress-is-funded/

      I’d stress that with the exception of TEAS, which some people have argued is a dodgy mouthpiece for the Azeri regime, I have no problem with Progress’ funding. Labour really shouldn’t be hating a Labour organisation for being a good fundraiser and expressing a hostility to external donors in the private sector at a time when the main party is cash-strapped. Also, the fact that I was able to direct you to a link on their website called “How Progress is Funded” rather blunts the argument from the anti-Progress side that their funding is somehow “shadowy” (again, other than TEAS)

      There’s also an argument about the lack of democracy in Progress. Not really sure what that has to do with it being a ‘party within a party’ or why it would in any way warrant expulsion, but if the party as whole can nudge Progress to fix it, that is a win for Progress members and would strengthen the legitimacy of the organisation a bit, I’d say.

  • John Dore

    Well some narrow minded pratt is flagging my comments for review, but interestingly the ones where I make serious points. The lengths that you will go to silence opinions that you don’t like reflects on how weak your arguments are. 

    If your cheap mind thinks you can avoid uncomfortable truths by getting rid of comments, rest assured I’ll re make the point.Interestingly it the same person commenting when the points are flagged.

    • Daniel Speight

      Well some narrow minded pratt is flagging my comments for review, but interestingly the ones where I make serious points.

      I would be inclined to support you in your complaint if only you would drop the 90% of your comments which don’t make serious points. It’s hard to get sympathy when you are trolling.

      • Pete

        Many very reasonable comments have been flagged for review by other people on the right of the party, not just John’s.

Latest

  • Featured Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    By Jim Knight

    If you Google ‘Ed Miliband,’ you quickly get the old stuff about him being a bit of geek. His appearance at Google’s big Tent on Wednesday almost begged the headline “Geek Goes Home”. But that assumes technology is just something for geeks to worry about, and that Ed is a techie. Neither are true. What we saw on Wednesday was a leader with the courage to tell Google straight that it should live up to its founding principles on the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    By Mark Ferguson

    “We want to start a war” – Woolwich attacker “right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose” - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett Only 24 hours ago, news began to trickle through about a barbarous crime, committed on the streets of our capital city, in broad daylight. It seems that the murderers who attacked and brutally murdered a soldier felt they were acting in a way endorsed by their religious beliefs and their god. But to try and [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

    Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

    By Johanna Baxter

    Party Organisation The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success. The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Following yesterday’s attack in Woolwich, Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly Len Duvall AM said: “The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community. “At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    By Ellie Cumbo

    Today End Violence Against Women (EVAW) releases a new report auditing the Government’s progress in acting to prevent violence against women and girls. And with the revelations from Operation Yewtree and group exploitation cases set to roll on for many months , we hope the response from Parliament, policy-makers and the media will be unanimous : that prevention must be at the top of the priority list for any government, of any colour, from now on. On that basis, it’s [...]

    Read more →