You are here: Home » News »

Miliband gives clear support to Progress

June 23, 2012 11:41 am

Author:

Mark Ferguson

Tags:

Share this Article

Speaking to the Independent, Ed Miliband gave his clearest statement yet in support of Progress:

“I believe in an open and inclusive party, reaching out to people, not for pushing people away. That certainly does not mean excluding or proscribing organisations like Progress which contribute to the debate of ideas in the Labour Party.”

http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

Well done, Ed. This is a carefully judged response. If Progress do decide to play hard-ball in the run-up to the next election – perhaps with a repetition of the negative briefings and destabilising tactics (or worse) mentioned in the GMB resolution – then at least Ed now knows he has a very significant and growing body of support within the party.

Of course, the door should always be open to Progress and its supporters – I’m sure the majority of them will see sense and do the right thing.
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  Interesting analysis. I read it almost entirely the opposite way, but I am not a member of the Party, so not read into the sort of “Kremlinology” analysis.
  
  The way I read it – and particularly coming now in the same week in which there has been a lot of heat and anger on both sides, and a comment that Ed presumably positively chose to make – is that he is telling the unions that he will not allow the motion to pass. There are no doubt all sorts of procedural tricks that party managers can play to ensure that it gets derailed unless a rejection vote is guaranteed.
  
  As for Ed’s positioning, the plain text interpretation of what he says is that he is on the side of Progress, not somehow trying to gauge how much support his own position has in some form of reverse double-bluff.
  
  But as I say, I am not a member of the Party, and maybe the Kremlinology is very sophisticated, and only apparent to those in the “know”.
  
  As for “Jurassic”, is that not normally applied to the unions, not to a wing of the Party that have the most successful electoral record of the last 35 years?
  - AlanGiles
    
    I think a lot of right wingers have over-reacted, frankly. I think the idea is for an investigation into Progress, not banning it.
    
    As a certain home secretary and other Blairite ministers said at the time they were trying to force through ever more stringent surveillence measures “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, and that applies to Progress as much as anybody else.
    - john p Reid
      
      the investigation say’s it’s a party within a party despite being a magazine that can’t decide on LABOUR policy by having A vote the way union the co-op fabians can,and the idea just becuase of of it’sdonors is abusiness man that somehow it buy’s influence on decision making ,Yes it’s supporters can influence decisions by being in the shadow cabinet or as a magazine it has favourites for the NEC,but it doesn’t buy influence, through deciding what money it’s gonna give.
      - AlanGiles
        
        I don’t even pretend to understand this post of yours: you say it is “a magazine”. It publishes a magazine, for the entertainment of it’s members, but it is not JUST a magazine, is it?
        
        But if it;s most loyal supporters are unclear as to what exactly it is, I am sure you will agree, an investigation into its raison d’etre should be welcomed and encouraged?
      - johnp Reid
        
        when has it’s loyal members ever disagreed, but the GMB saying it’s a party with in a party isn’t an investigation is it.
        
        maybe if Ed does lose like Kinnock did,like tony benn sharon atkins bernie grant and Ken livingstone they can all say we lsot as we’re not left wing enough, and as for progress biegn stuck in 1997, new labour won the 2001 election when ken wasn’t even a member and didn’t even endorse laobur at that election, as for biegn stuck in the past if we ignore why we lost in the past we won’t realse why we may not win in the future,
      - AlanGiles
        
        What you are doing as an area secretary Mr Reid I cannot imagine. You tolerate nothing but right-wing views. You even have to keep dragging Harold Wilson into support your arguments., He died 17 years ago. Similarily Bernie Grant has been dead for many years.
        
        Who is “Ken” by the way and what does he have to do with Progress?.
        
        It is very hard sometimes, if I may say so, in following you since you seem to jump from one subject to another.
        
        If you are so prejudiced against a complete section of the party, I really think you should consider your position.
      - John Dore
        
        John,
        
        What do you read into Ken getting such a large endorsement?
    - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
      
      It is, Alan. And all I can say is their overblown reaction suggests they have something to hide
      - john p Reid
        
        if defending the lie that a magazine is a party within a party when it can’t even vote on the leadership or polices the way union can, Is a overreaction, then slef defence is A over reaction
      - AlanGiles
        
        This “it’s a magazine” is EXACTLY the same argument Militant supporters used. Ironic!
      - John Dore
        
        John, it was a move to expel, they saw the reaction and watered down the public rhetoric to stop the defence
        building . The hypocrites still want to expel them.
  - http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
    
    As Alan observes, the right have over-reacted. One might even say: they protesteth too much. And in doing so have brought much more attention to this matter (and raised suspicions of guilt) than might otherwise have been the case.
    
    It’s useful to remember the important part of the motion: “Congress resolves that the national political officer should monitor the factional activity of Progress, and report to the CEC with recommendations.”
    
    No expulsions, no banning, only monitoring. It will make no difference if the motion is rejected – its purpose has been achieved: raising awareness of the presence of corporate interests within the Labour Party and the undemocratic structure on which their influence depends.
    
    The Jurassic attribution is founded on the much noted refusal of Progress to take account of developments since 2008. A week or two ago Rob Marchant claimed a parallel between Kinnock’s leadership and Ed’s leadership today – perhaps we are supposed to infer that Ed isn’t going to win in 2015 so we must dump him. However, the events of 2008 and after are a game changer – Ed has acknowledged the political paradigm shift yet Progress’s clock appears to have stopped ticking on May 1st 1997.
    - treborc1
      
      Smoke and mirrors from disaffiliation to Progress, brilliant slight of hand by the Union.
      - http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
        
        Appearing to address ‘concerns’ may well take the wind from the sails of the disaffiliation people. Another box ticked…
      - treborc1
        
        Well Smoke and Mirrors of course are great if t your a master magician, sadly Ball’s and Miliband are not.
        
        The rhetoric of these too are more important then some supposed battle ground with Progress.
        
        Well will see at the next GMB meeting what the members think, if it’s like the people I know they will be asking who the hell are progress.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

Given that neither expulsions nor proscription are on the agenda, its a bit like setting up a straw man to blow down. The question is how groups operate and what is acceptable, not what they believe which is part of the tapestry of ideas
- Pete
  
  How would you describe the act of ‘outlawing’ Progress then, Mike, which is what is being threatened by the GMB’s general secretary? Because last time I checked, ‘to outlaw’ is synonymous with ‘to proscribe’ – forgive me if I missed the last conference on the redefining of the English language.
John Dore

Good a timely intervention. The factionalists need to be told.
- john p Reid
  
  reminds me of Wilson begging Shirley williams to stay when she quit labour in feb 81, a month before he SDP formed when Williams was thinking of joining the lIberals,
  - AlanGiles
    
    God you certainly have it in for Harold Wilson. If this “begging” took place at all, I remind you yet again HW left office in March 1976, so 5 years later IF he did as you suggest, his words would have carried no more weight than ex NEC member Luke Akehurst trying to claim victimhood.
    
    Knowing Harold he would probably reminded the then Mrs Williams of what she had said the previous year (1980) namely:
    
    “”A centre party would have no roots, no principle and no values.”
    - robertcp
      
      The last quote sums up New Labour apart from it was way to the right of the SDP.
  - robertcp
    
    I think it was Michael Foot rather than Wilson.
    - john p Reid
      
      Willaim said it was Wilson as A backbenhcher in her autobiography
      - AlanGiles
        
        More mangled history. Mr Wilson was NOT a backbencher in 1981, by that time he had become a Lord.
      - treborc1
        
        Do not start him off he will prove it was the vikings next.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Barker/1546990341 Paul Barker

Millibands problem is that he is desperate for labour to “win” in 2015 whereas the people trying to push “right-wingers” out of the party arent much bothered. Ed cant afford labour to appear split again & the party machine needs all the money it can get just to stay afloat, in this fight the Left have all the guns.
- treborc1
  
  So money is the motive for the GMB being in the labour party, then make Progress pay a share.
Daniel Speight

The simple and probably best option is for Progress to be a bit more open and democratic itself. It can still be a right-wing pressure group inside Labour and fund its slate in internal elections and candidates in parliamentary candidate selections. After all the unions do this.

What isn’t so good for them is lack of light on its murky control system. Who really calls the shots? Is it Sainsbury or Blair or Mandelson? This strange form of company registration they use, the private company limited by guarantee, doesn’t have to stop them having open elections and internal policy debates open to the public view.

So the obvious answer is Progress’s own hands. A bit of internal reform is all that’s needed. If not there is every reason for the party to look closer just as it did with Militant.
robertcp

I do not like Progress but proscribing it is not the answer. Ignoring it is probably the best approach.
AlanGiles

Hopefully this:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-blocked-cabinet-from-hearing-legal-advice-on-iraq-7878737.html

will stop Blair’s “re-engagement with domestic politics” and he will remain as vacant as he looks in the photograph.

This man is still a liability and I hope even the most devoted “Progress” admirer will see that by allowing him to meddle again it will harm rather than help their election hopes.
- treborc1
  
  It say just as much about Campbell as well it was him that drew up those dodgy dossiers of course, another slight of hand with mirrors it was not me sir it was him he was the leader.
  
  These prats are making money off each other.
  - AlanGiles
    
    I think the best that can be said about them is that they deserve(d) each other. Both are well past their sell-by date, both would be best advised to keep out of making further contributions if they wish Labour well for 2015.

Latest

Comment
Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

By Glenys Thornton

Monday saw the first day of Committee on the Same Sex Marriage Bill, where it became clear after a three hour debate on how to distinguish Same Sex Marriage from so called “traditional” marriage that opposition to this bill has not gone away. Despite a huge defeat on Second Reading, opponents reheated and repeated their earlier speeches, in part because their arguments rely on belief and prejudice not evidence or fact. So we sat until 11pm debating conscience clauses, Registrars [...]
Read more →
Comment
Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

By Mark Ferguson

Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]
Read more →
Video
Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

Last week it was revealed that the government discussed secret plans to hike interest on pre-existing student loans, meaning that anyone with a student loan will be expected to pay far more than expected. Today, the Prime Minister was asked about this – he spoke for nearly a minute but wouldn’t answer the question. What does he have to hide? How much more does he expect graduates to pay?
Read more →
Comment
Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

By John Woodcock

Across the industrial north, it is striking how old pit villages and industrial towns are proving far less willing to embrace renewable energy than the noisier, more polluting fossil fuels and industries which shaped their identity. Energy companies are getting a nasty shock after mistakenly believing that these communities would not bat an eyelid at a few wind turbines on the surrounding hills because they had been content to make huge slag heaps part of the landscape in decades past. [...]
Read more →
News
Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. Put reckless bankers in jail Britain’s banking bosses should face jail if their decisions force fresh bailouts, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says today. The commission’s hotly anticipated report urges the Chancellor, George Osborne, to oversee the [...]
Read more →