You are here: Home » News »

Progress respond to GMB motion

June 14, 2012 4:08 pm

Tags:

Share this Article

Following events at GMB congress on Monday (which we reported at the time), Progress have responded with the following statement:

At a time when Britain is led by a government which appears unable to recognise, let alone overcome, the enormous challenges facing it, Labour needs to be outward-looking, united and engaged with the issues that matter to voters.

Over the past year, Progress has been doing its part to make that happen: through our magazine, website, and events in London and throughout the country, we have provided the opportunity for hundreds of party members to debate Labour’s future policy agenda and how to beat the Tories, Liberal Democrats and Greens, as well as providing them with practical skills and advice on how to do so.

As Ed Miliband said in his address to this year’s Progress annual conference: ‘You have always been at the heart of challenging old orthodoxies and championing change. You have given the Labour party space to think, you have challenged the party, and you have changed it.’

It is regrettable, therefore, that the GMB union conference this week passed a resolution attacking Progress. We are also deeply disappointed that its general secretary, Paul Kenny, has now announced his intention to bring forward a resolution to Labour party conference which would ‘effectively outlaw Progress as a part of the Labour party’.

It is absurd to suggest a comparison between the role of Progress and that of the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. Militant were loyal to an external political force and affiliated to the 4th International; were secret about their activity; recruited people to join the Labour party to pursue Militant’s aims; and were outside of Labour’s mainstream.

By contrast, Progress is an organisation of Labour party members for Labour party members; we are open, pluralist and proud of the last Labour government and what it achieved for working people; and our events have been addressed by Ed Miliband and his two predecessors.

Progress will not be distracted by attacks or threats. For Labour to come back from its second worst defeat in 2010 it needs to be broad, pluralistic and inclusive. To suggest that there are members of the Labour party who are somehow unwelcome and should be ‘outlawed’ is both counterintuitive and just wrong.

Over the coming months, we will continue to focus on the issues that have been at the forefront of our work over the past year: restoring Labour’s economic credibility; promoting universal child and elderly care; and devolving power to public service users and workers, and local government.

Most importantly, we will continue to focus on the election of a Labour government in 2015 under Ed Miliband.

Inaccuracies in the GMB resolution are listed below:

  • There is no relationship between the funding we receive from Lord Sainsbury and the funding that he gave to the Labour party. Our annual income from him was £250,000 until May 2010, when it was raised to £260,000. This was before he ceased giving money to the Labour party and our income from Lord Sainsbury has not been increased (as the resolution implies) as a result of that decision.
  • To suggest, as this resolution does, that our only financial relationship is with a pharmaceutical company is, to say the least, misleading. Like other centre-left organisations and thinktanks, we rely on sponsorship to support our events programme, particularly at Labour party conference.  While it is true that Progress received sponsorship from Pfizer/Pharmacia (it is one company, the former took over the latter) for a series of events (including a Scottish conference, Progress annual conference and a reception at Labour party conference) we have received no sponsorship from them since 2005. As our website states, in 2010-2011, we worked with the following sponsors: Community union; unionlearn; The Cooperative Group; Brighton and Hove Labour; City&Guilds; the Electoral Reform Society; The European Azerbaijan  Society; Hackney Labour Group; Institute for Government; IPA; Labour Friends of Israel; Bell Pottinger; Local Government Association Labour Group; PwC; Reading Labour; Sussex Cooperative party; The Open University; and Unions21.
  • There is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that ‘Prominent Progress members have briefed against Ed Miliband to the press.’
  • Progress publicly endorsed the Labour candidate in the London mayoral election; organised six campaign days in the capital throughout the first five months of the year;and ran a double-page spread – ‘The case for Ken’ – by Tessa Jowell, Livingstone’s then campaign manager in our April 2012 edition. To wilfully misconstrue a debate in the magazine last year about Labour’s chances of victory as opposition to its candidate is uncomradely.

Related posts:

  1. Progress respond to anonymous “dossier”
  2. The GMB and Progress – what happened, and what might happen next?
  3. Adonis unveiled as new Progress Chair
  4. Progress and the GMB should be looking for ways to work together
  5. One week to Progress annual conference
  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    hear hear.

  • http://twitter.com/Sammykaine Samuel Kaine Wheeler

    One wonders how ‘inclusive’ the Blairites would be right now if David had won the leadership election…

  • Daniel Speight

    Bell Pottinger, now that’s a strange one isn’t it?

    Just a lazy cut & paste from Wikipedia.

    On 5 December 2011, the British national newspaper The Independent ran a front page story based on covert filming by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which the paper claimed revealed executives from Bell Pottinger boasting of ways in which they burnished the reputations of countries accused of human rights violations. Posing as representatives of a fake investment body linked to the Uzbekistan government, the journalists had filmed a presentation at which Bell Pottinger executives explained techniques used on behalf of their clients. At one point Tim Collins of Bell Pottinger, who has close connections with Prime Minister David Cameron, Edward Llewellyn, and Steve Hilton, had referred to “dark arts”.

    You know you may find yourself judged according to the people you take money from. Just a thought.

  • http://twitter.com/AlexWhiteUK Alex White

    We should take pride in the fact we hold pluralism at the heart of the Labour party. ‘Broad church’ is a bit of a clichéd phrase but it is central to all we have ever achieved as a party.

    • AlanGiles

      If Labour is a broad church “Progress” have crept down to the crypt.

      Their cheek and arrogance is overwhelming.  They say:

      “At a time when Britain is led by a government which appears unable to recognise, let alone overcome, the enormous challenges facing it”

      And yet on many policies they are in broad agreement with the Tories. With all due respect to him, Jon Roberts does not say very much that a Conservative Conference wouldn’t applaud. Byrne has said openly that he “supports three quarters” of the Coalitions Welfare Reform Bill (as well he might since it was engineered by a then “Labour” figure David Freud and enthusiastically endorsed by his fellow expenses cheat James Purnell). Some of the old waxworks that write for Progress are Conservatives in Blue rosettes (Frank Field is a great mate of Duncan-Smith)

      So they are saying the Coalition has failed (which it has) but if we continue with Progress policies, which are very close to Tory policy we will win!.

      I don’t think so. Progress dream of the day they wake up and it will be 1997 again

    • http://www.facebook.com/siobhan.omalley.737 Siobhan O’Malley

      Of course the issue here isn’t that factions are new to the Labour Party. The problem is that Progress are undemocratic, bankrolled by the rich, and hosted events with the European Azerbaijan Society (Azerbaijan being a murderous police state).

      Broad church, yes. Closed shop, elitist group of the rich for careerists. You’re an intern for Progress, aren’t you? I bet Richard loves you ;-)

  • UKAzeri

    Wider issues aside..
     
    The European Azerbaijan  Society – this is a front for business interests of an authoritarian regime. In particular it is connected to the  Kamaladdin Heydarov,
    Minister of Emergency Situations in Azerbaijan and is run by his son.
     
    This organisation’s sole purpose it to promote business interests of the ruling family and their cronies in the West. If in doubt google Eurovision song contest and see for yourself.
     
    To me this sponsorship says much more about Progress than any GMB motion.
     
    I am disgusted …

    • UKAzeri

      so Progress are a Labour organisation?

      http://cfazuk.org/about-cfaz.html - Conservative Friends of Azerbaijan  – Secretary Leon Cook (TEAS). what does TEAS mean ? The European Azerbaijan  Society

      and here is a bit about Leon Cook
      https://teas.eu/our-team 

      well done Progress!!! Taking Tory Lite to a whole new level !!!

    • Brumanuensis

      Beat me to it UKAzeri. I’ve got friends working with the Azeri opposition and they’ve got nothing but contempt for TEAS. Unbelievable that Progress held an event with these people.

      I’d add that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Azerbaijan isn’t much better. I remember hearing Mark Field MP state at one of their meetings that the Azeri government had made remarkable progress on combatting corruption. I nearly fell out my chair. 

      • UKAzeri

        I put some interesting links below as well.

        i am livid  that a fat check can buy the party…

        • Brumanuensis

          Thanks, very interesting reads both of them. Disappointed to see Robert Halfon is a member; I quite like him otherwise. 

          “Azerbaijan, the United Kingdom and the Conservative Party have much in common.The importance of heritage and history, tolerance of all faiths, a respect for the rule of law, strong support for the family, and a readiness to trade with the world are all hallmarks of Azerbaijan, the UK – and the Conservative Party. We share many beliefs, and as CFAZ we aim to strengthen ties and develop relationships.If you share those values, I urge you to join CFAZ.”

          LOL, haven’t laughed so much since a friend tweeted that she’d seen Leyla Aliyeva’s ‘Baku’ magazine on sale, in London. I mean seriously, who stocks that rubbish?   

          • UKAzeri

            dont know  if you saw Eurovision but they plugged her husband Emin Agalarov as this world famous singer  :) )

          • Brumanuensis

            I’ve seen photos of his album being advertised on the Underground. 

            I think the poster caption said ‘Emin: The Perfect Christmas Present’ or something similar. Each to their own.

  • http://twitter.com/DelroyBooth Delroy Booth

    Being sponsored by the European Azerbaijan Society is outrageous. This alone should be enough justification to proscribe Progress from the Labour Party. It’s morally on the same level as accepting money from Ghaddafi (ooops sorry Tony…)

    • Solomon Hughes

       I was at the Progress meetings sponsored by the European Azerbaijan Society at the party conferences in 2009 and 2010 – Leon Cook was at these meetings, Ambassador Fakhraddin Gurbanov was on the platform , they were all about how much oil Azerbaijan has and how great it is (Mike Gapes, I think , on the platform spouting this stuff). At one of the meetings human rights issues were raised on the floor, then glossed over by the platform – they were complete Azerbaijan propaganda events hosted by Progress

      • treborc1

         Slippery stuff Oil, you can hurt your self on that stuff, I know I slipped on it.

        But boy do governments love the stuff

  • http://twitter.com/DelroyBooth Delroy Booth

    The idea that Progress, an organization that is swimming in cash from it’s millionaire corporate sponsors, Tory PR companies and brutal dictators,  cares about the Labour party so much that they’re watching Labour lay off many of it’s full-time staff.

    Perhaps if Mr Sainsbury wanted to demonstrate his support for the Labour party putting a few bob into the banks now to save those people’s jobs would be a good start. I won’t hold my breath though.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      Quite right, Delroy – Progress are interested largely in themselves and their own party-within-a-party

  • robertcp

    I am not a fan of Progress but the GMB motion just sounds silly.

    • treborc1

       I sure if Labour said to the GMB look you can keep all the money you pay us, you know the £1.4 million plus the £500,000  Then the GMB would say fine but a few years ago labour were going to take the Unions to court for the political levy, now they are forcing Union to leave.

      Why should Unions give money to the labour party if the labour party gives nothing back.

      • robertcp

        I am all for trade unions giving money to the Labour Party but my comradely advice to the GMB is drop this silly motion.

        • treborc1

          Nope we voted on it.

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

    I was impressed with what I read in the Purple Book last year, and two days ago I finally put my money where my mouth is and joined Progress. I don’t agree with everything they stand for, almost no one in any party group they belong to does, but I’ve always broadly agreed with Progress’ ethos about where Labour should be and believe they bring a lot of intellectual energy to the party. GMB is normally a good and moderate union, but this motion is poison to broad-church debate within the party, and I don’t understand how they’ve gone this far off the deep end.

    Anyone with a better read than me on the usual mood of conference care to comment about how far this will get? I’m sceptical, but it’d be good to know for sure that it’ll be killed.

    • treborc1

      Maybe then it is time for the GMB to move on although this will worry a number of MP’s who are funded by the Union, as they pay staff wages and rent of local constituencies  offices.  I’m sure Miliband has plans to get money, but lets hope we do not see the result  like the last lot with loans  for peerages and loans being given with string attached.

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

        I didn’t say I wanted GMB out of the party. Unions are the party’s consience and, yes, it’s main funding stream. GMB in particular have a good history. However, they’ve got no more basis for calling for Progress to be run out of the party than Progress have to call for the expulsion of GMB or any other Labour-aligned or internal party group. We need to be inclusive.

        • treborc1

          Not bad though from disaffiliation to Progress, I do not remember a single person at the local branch mention Progress, yet our battle is not about leaving the labour party but of getting rid of this  group.

          I suspect  in the end the Union will leave because the membership will get tired of these ploys.

          I really do not care about Progress if it has a coupe and takes over labour I doubt we even notice.

    • AlanGiles

      Elliott I suspect that if “Progress” continue on their merry way, in the end they will become so disconnected from the main party they will either have to leave and form their own grouping, a bit like some of the strange factions allied to the European Parliament, or – and perhaps this is more likely – those of us who believe in Labour values – of decency, of helping the poor and vulnerable, not lining your own pockets and kow-towing to the wealthy and powerful, will, in effect, just say Sod it, leave them to get on with it, divide up the Shadow cabinet jobs between them. Mr Byrne will be able to pretend he is a real friend of the sick, David Miliband can lead them, Paul Richards can write their fanzine.

      We will stop voting and “Progress Labour” or “Purple/Blue/Sky Blue Pink With Yellow Dots On Labour”, or whatever name they give themselves, will become the new Lib-Dems, full of grandiose schemes and plans which they will never be able to implement because they will be in permanent opposition.

      Enjoy your book.

  • AlanGiles

    ”
    the funding we receive from Lord Sainsbury and the funding that he gave to the Labour party. Our annual income from him was £250,000 until May 2010, when it was raised to £260,000. This was before he ceased giving money to the Labour party and our income from Lord Sainsbury has not been increased (as the resolution implies) as a result of that decision.”

    Poor old Lord Sainsbury must be feeling the pinch – “ONLY” a quarter of a million plus. Times are hard.

    Why don’t we make them harder?. May I respectfully suggest that those of us on LL who find Sainsbury’s behaviour unacceptable simply stop using his supermarkets?

    This is something I have started doing myself.  It means going a little further to another emporium (none of them is entirely whiter than white), but plainly Sainsbury has too much money sloshing about, burning a hole in his pocket. 

    I always found his behaviour odd: while he was a government minister he was forever dipping his hand in his pocket giving large donations to Labour.  At that time, of course Labour were in power, and as a science minister he was involved in such exciting projects as GM food. It was almost as if he were paying the government to employ him. Now the party is in opposition he doesn’t give money to Labour at all (I am sure there is no connection whatsoever between these things).

    He chooses to give money to a bunch of pompous has-beens, failed ex ministers caught out in the expenses scandal, ex-politicians because of the expenses scandal (Hi there Jackie and Jimmy) and MPs who are so bored with Westminster one of them even thought of resigning to try to become a Mayor!. Their honouary president is a man whose sole claim to fame is that he beat Michael Portillo 15 years ago, lost the seat and only returned to Parliament 2 years ago, and seems so confused he doesn’t know what he believes in.

    A fool and his money are soon parted, so let’s be cruel to be kind. Let’s put less money into his pocket, so he will have to tighten his belt. A man needs a hobby, but perhaps Sainsbury should give up politics and take up something more wholesome. He could take up stamp collecting, but – philately gets you nowhere.

    • John Dore

      Alan,

       

      Who are you to call anyone a pompous has been? Your choice of language
      shows what nasty little nobody you are.

       

      • aracataca

        It’s his standard line of abuse John.

        • treborc1

           The love affair of John and William and some Fisking.

      • Hugh

        More to the point, you can’t credibly charge anyone with pomposity in a passage using the word “emporium” to describe a grocers.

  • John Dore

    For all the wind in the comments below, this is a bunch of lefties conspiring to exact revenge for the “perceived right wing 
    crimes” of Progress and the Blairites.  Well guess what at conference it will be chucked out the and wind bags can carry on whining about the Utopia of  the Benn / Foot era.

    • treborc1

       A Bunch of lefties, why are you in a left leaning labour party if you think we are lefties, you said you were Leaving you went over to progress and found it dead, so you come back and your again attacking the left.

      I guess your another of those swing voters, but sadly your on a left leaning blog, labour list is a blog of the left, so why are you hear, Labour uncut has a few more people on it you can spread your silly idea on the right on that site

      • John Dore

        Loved ; 3oberts description of you. Here are aome uncomfortable truths for you.

        The PLP is hugely Blairite.
        The blog is a general Labour blog, it publishes articles written by Byrne who you despise.
        It was set up by a Blairite-Draper
        The about us section of the site says centre left, not left to the exclusion of others.

        I guess you just another one of those who can’t defend your out of date politics and can only resort to name calling and childish behaviour.

        You are the ultimate trolls

        • UKAzeri

          John, I am still waiting for your answer to my question above!!

          surely you are not dodging it? are  you scared ?

          • John Dore

            What of your hugely informed posts, please….do me a favour.

        • aracataca

          Well said John. Labour has always been a broad church. We need to be as pluralist as possible. All that Treborc offers this site is abuse. Giles is a Green and also very abusive to boot.

        • treborc1

           well maybe at least I do not say goodbye and run away

          • John Dore

            No but you make a fool of yourself every time you hit the post button. You must have a very sad and pathetic existence.

          • treborc1

             Not it seems as sad at yours Mr Bore

          • John Dore

            Is that the best you can offer? Please try again you epic failure.

        • treborc1

          name calling I never call people names who I know to have a metal infliction Bore.

      • John Dore

        Well I just popped over to uncut and they call it right. IMHO this week has become the most important for the whole of the Labour party. The GMB’s action if successful brings in a new Dawn of Benn-ite BS. You only have to listen to the single stranded views of Siobhan and Mike Homfray to realise how bad it might get.

        Dan Hodges sums it up perfectly:

        This is what happens next. Ed Miliband appeals for calm, and for an inclusive, non-divisive debate in which everyone is invited to participate. The unions back off. Progress express their gratitude. The unions then push forward with their agenda. And Progress, and the rest of the Labour centre-Right, sit silently behind the barbed wire of their safe havens, as Labour marches off into the wilderness.Then one day Ed Miliband and the Labour Party wake up, and realise to their horror that it has to come up with a political program that has to appeal not to Labour’s own internal factions, but to the British electorate as a whole. But by then it is too late. And by then there are no safe havens left for anyone.http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/06/15/time-to-fight-for-the-labour-party/ 

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

          But isn’t Dan Hodges a supporter of the Conservative Party?

          • treborc1

             http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/19/is-this-why-dan-hodges-hates-ken/

            worth a look

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

            Thanks trebs. Hadn’t seen that before. Looks like the London politicos are well habituated to their fetid swamp.

          • treborc1

             We think this might be a reason Progress did not like Ken, they all sit around a table discussing things like this, ken got me sacked you know. We will get him back…..

          • AlanGiles

            Until I read that link treborc provided, I didn’t realise Hodges was the son of Glenda Jackson.

            Poor woman. Only proves there is always somebody worse off than yourself.

          • John Dore

            Are you treborc1 posting under a different name? The lack of substance seems to say so.

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

            No, straight question. To spell it out: you seem to want a  pro-Labour analysis from  a supporter of the Conservative Party – that seems perverse.

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

            John – I’m assuming Hodges supports the Conservative Party?

        • http://www.facebook.com/siobhan.omalley.737 Siobhan O’Malley

          John, let’s keep the personal attacks to one side; the issue here is one of democratic accountability and ethical practice.

          If Progress opened up the books, and transformed from a top-down shadowy outfit into a democratic organisation, then we wouldn’t hear so many people from across the labour movement expressing their concerns. Tom Watson, Michael Meacher, and now GMB.

          No one is interested in expelling Progress. You do realise that repeating a lie doesn’t make it true, don’t you?

          Of course socialists and social democrats in the party are very keen to demolish neoliberal politics, but that is a battle of ideas.

          Let’s have that debate. Why not also allow Progress members to debate their own policy and agree whether they want a society in which Lord Sainsburys pays less tax than an NHS nurse?

          Judging from the vitriol seen on this website, it seems that Progress members are led to believe that people on the left of the Labour party support a “bloody revolution”, “murder” and want to “destroy parliamentary democracy” (see Paul Richard’s hysterical post on LL). Nothing could be more bizzare, or further from the truth.

          We want to build a democratic socialist society by consent, through parliamentary means. Why else would we be in Labour?

          Sadly many Progress “members” have fallen for this argument hook line and sinker. Some of them are not ideological, some of them are politically niave. They have been fed misrepresentations and hysteria by an undemocratic leadership that is scared of debate and needs passive “supporters” (useful idiots) to carry out their politics.

          A labour movement inquiry is long overdue.

    • UKAzeri

      so you accept that running PR meetings for an authoritarian regime and taking money from them is acceptable behaviour for the Labour paty? In particular for the so called ‘progressive’ element within it?

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

        Many on the Labour left didn’t mind Ken Livingstone working for Iranian State Television, the propaganga arm of Iran’s brutal regime. Just sayin…

        • UKAzeri

          I did !! I consider that to be a betrayal of British national interest which cost him and us dearly at this election.  Press TV is propoganda branch of the Iranian regime and to work for it is to support their agenda.

          However Ken’s role there was on history programmes and similar issues which is a far cry from hosting a PR campaign !!

          since you joined this thread Jonathan, what your take on such sponsorships by Progress?

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

            whilst I don’t know the detail (I’m only a member, not active in any way) I generally believe there should be a moral code of practice applied to prevent taking money from organisations that work against the values of common decency.

          • UKAzeri

            You are proving every suspicion I have about Progress.  You are clearly not prepared to condemn this and attempt to divert your personal responsibility as a member by referring to some kind of notion of ‘what should be’. I don’t care about what code there is or should be. I asked YOU not Progress. This is not about politics or ideology, this is as you rightly pointed, is out about decency and morality.
             
            Progress in particular, like to talk about engaging the public but how are they supposed to trust us when we dodge uncomfortable questions? You know what makes me a leftie? My conscience!! I don’t wait for what my party whip is going to tell me. When Ken is wrong I say it, when he is right I say it!!
             
             I was hoping this shiftiness was gone with Tony but it clearly lives on though Progress.  Perhaps belatedly but I now understand the urgent need for GMB motion!! This is not infighting!!! We are taking on the Tories!!!

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

            I have a conscience too! And I’d dare say I took a lot more flak for my views on Ken than many other people.

            I think I was quite clear that I didn’t support taking money from questionable people in my above post.  I’ve said it in the past about Ken and for that matter about Tony Blair.  You can have a conscience without being a socialist, you know?!

          • UKAzeri

            I always like to keep an open mind. Furthermore I appreciate that whilst I write under an alias you are out in the open.
             
             
             
            So for the sake of clarity: do you condemn the decision by Progress leadership to host an event sponsored by TEAS?

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

            I honestly don’t know enough about TEAS to comment or draw opinion.  But if they are in some way found culpable for immoral acts then yes I would condemn them.

            Forgive me, I don’t know everything about every organisation…

          • UKAzeri

            TEAS requirses a closer look! .. by all!

          • Mike Homfray

            I still can’t see why a professed non-socialist who calls himself right of centre on economics thinks the Labour party is for him – we are still a democratic socialist party….

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

            well Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and many others in the party have never shown a great affinity to true socialism, and all of the above were in some way right-of-centre economically.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            I’d be interested to know whether any of them would say so openly on here. In Blair’s case you are right. Both Brown and Balls were taken in by the City, but both are Keynesians. Miliband – he’s never held an economic portfolio, but his leadership suggests he is more sceptical about poor business practice than any of them. 
            I would say I’m a social democrat, I don’t want to nationalise everything that moves (thought I do think the banks and the utilites should be public) – but your stance appears far too close to neo-liberalism and too happy to live with the market, whereas the Labour Right used to believe it needed taming – and in Crosland’s case thought it had been hence his concentration on redistribution and social policy as socialism. He was a little too optimistic!

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

            No, actually elsewhere I’ve said that neo-liberalism has clearly failed, and I’ve backed Ed M’s calls for ‘responsible capitalism’.

            My issue with people who say ‘neo liberalism has failed, we must have socialism’ is that you can’t replace a failed economic theory with another failed economic theory.  As always, I believe the solutions to problems lie somewhere in the middle of the prevailing views.

          • robertcp

            Yes, they were right of centre and it was a disaster!  We ended up nationalising the banks.

      • John Dore

        I am not scared of anybody hiding behind a made up name. I know nothing of regime you speak about and cant comment on that. In the overall scheme of things its a side issue. It sounds like its heaven and earth to you but a side issue none the less.

        • UKAzeri

          well it doesnt surprise me that rightwingers consider human rights, murder and torture as ‘side issues’ …

          • treborc1

            well some of course would back it if it brought their party to power.

        • treborc1

           made up names interesting a few on here of course use many names, or of course made up names.

  • Daniel Speight

    This love of rich people that some in the Labour Party seem to now have, where did that come from I wonder? And then there’s that briefing against Ed Miliband.

    Hang-on, what about this?

    The problem with Peter is twofold: (1) he has a tendency to go gaga in the presence of rich men and (2) he can’t resist briefing against colleagues. Has he learned from catastrophes past? We shall see.

    Chris Mullin on Peter Mandelson, Decline & Fall

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

      It’s not that we ‘love rich people’.  It’s that we don’t hate them that annoys you.

      Too many in politics think that by supporting one group of people, you have to hate another.  Life simply doesn’t work like that – you can be nice to everyone.

      • Daniel Speight

        Funny enough Jonathan I don’t hate people because they are rich. I have been impressed by people like Warren Buffet who can be rich but still have a basic morality.

        What I do not like is the rich as a class trying to control government in their own favour. I am far from pleased to see a cabinet of millionaires. Come to that I’m not overjoyed to see them in the shadow cabinet either.

        Now Chris Mullin was very much New Labour when he wrote his diaries, but he could see Mandelson’s problems clearly back then. How about you Jonathan? Can you see through misty eyes at what a bunch of chancers they all became.

        • treborc1

          I wonder what would happen if Progress was to  say OK we are going to shut up shop, we accept new labour is dead and we see no future going forward.

          I wonder how many of the Progress new  labour types would say ok then I will join the labour party, or would we see tracks in the snow of a long line of people returning to the Tories.

          I suspect the Tories would be richer with the Blairites going home.

          • John Dore

            Instead of dreaming why don’t you respond to the fisking I gave you earlier? Or are you full of wind?

          • treborc1

             Fisking I will need to look this up Bore

          • John Dore

            Why bother? You wont be able to come back with anything coherent or intelligent.

          • treborc1

            God intelligence from a pair of pratts.

  • planetpmc

    Give us back our Labour party – Blairites out!

  • http://www.facebook.com/siobhan.omalley.737 Siobhan O’Malley

    Progress’s Purple Book shows that they are completely bereft of any ideas, or remorse. It rebrands all the failed Blairite policies around the colour purple.

    One leading Progress bod says: “Purple was the colour of new Labour. It’s what you get if you combine red and blue.”

    　

    Afte reading the whole document (tedious to say the least), I found that they’ve shockingly rehashed all the same neoliberal policies from the Lib Dem’s ‘Orange Book’, which was written to bring together the Lib Dem free-market right in 2004.

    At some points in the Purple Book, it seems whole sentences have been plagarised.

    The Orange Book model was an undemocratic neoliberal hijack that bound the Lib Dems to unpopular right-wing policies, so of course it’s a perfect match for Progress’s brand of authoritarian neoliberalism.

    Our trade union brothers and sisters are right to raise these concerns about the undemocratic, unLabour nature of this neoliberal group.

    I hear that they’ve been bankrolled by people who profit from an authoritarian police state that murders its own people. That is utterly disgusting, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      Siobhan,

      how was the Orange Book an “undemocratic neoliberal hijack”?  It was a pamphlet put together by 10 individual Lib Dems, when in opposition, and all but one of them were individually voted “for” in Lib Dem elections and conferences.  The chapter on the economy was written by Vince Cable, who hardly appears to be a Thatcherite.  No one forced anyone to accept it with the gun at the head.  The Lib Dems have a rather more democratic party than Labour do in terms of policy setting.

      Following on, those “unpopular right wing polices” seem to be more popular than what Labour offered at the last election, given that around 17.5 million voters backed the Lib Dems and the tories in 2010 (both of whom had very similar policies on economic matters), against 8.6 million voting Labour.  You can safely assume that within the 8.6 million there were at least a significant proportion of Blairites who were happy enough with what Alastair Darling proposed for the economy, which was also pretty similar to what the other parties proposed.

      I do not see what is so “shocking” about that.  It is a free world, after all.  People make up their own minds about things.  If it is not to your taste, it seems odd that you believe it is appropriate to spoon on the hate words onto the wrong target, when perhaps leftists should really wonder about what it is about history and the enduring beliefs of the electorate that conspire to make another left wing government only a fantasy of the deluded?

      • John Dore

        Well argues Jamie and an apt conclusion.

      • Mike Homfray

        Which is why you’ll be supporting one of the coalition parties – and why we should ignore your opinion because we shouldn’t be chasing the votes of people like you – right wing neo-liberals. At least half of the LD vote supported them to keep out the Tory and are clearly left of centre and to win and keep their votes is much more of a priority. I would be much more worried if you felt able to vote Labour again – it would show that we are heading in the wrong direction

        • John Dore

          I sense a lot of hate in your thinking.

  • http://www.facebook.com/siobhan.omalley.737 Siobhan O’Malley

    This isn’t about Left or Right. The concerns about the nature and activities of Progress are shared by the vast majority of the party.

    Tom Watson said:

    “As a privately funded organisation within the Labour party, Progress warrants more scrutiny. It doesn’t quite possess a central command structure, but its leadership is never backwards in staking out positions on most areas of policy and party reform.”

    　

    “The organisation that chided Labour for being inward-looking and too focussed on sectional interests rather than being outward-looking and supporting the leader seems guilty of ignoring it’s own founding deed of trust”.

  • Duncan

    What I would say to fellow lefties on here, who may support moves against Progress: beware.  We don’t know where this started (that mysterious “dossier” for example) and we don’t know where it’s heading, but unless people step back from this, it’s not heading anywhere good for the left.

    Best case scenario: this began as a general attack on groups and slates and will lead to minor rule changes that will effect all of them in the future, but will generally get imposed more on left groups than anybody else (because that’s what happens with all rules!)

    Worst-case scenario: this has been deliberately stirred up by those on our very, very rightest extreme fringe to create a dream scenario (for them): Labour losing the election, the world blaming the left for this because of internal faction-fighting (or worse, Dan Hodge’s “pogrom” – that man really has no shame) and a new leader being brought in with carte-blanche to pursue a neo-liberal agenda.

    It’s probably the former.  But I don’t think either is of any value to anybody on the left of the Labour Party.  So let’s move on and talk about issues and ideas.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      Duncan: since when has any left group working within the rules ha access to funding from billionaires?

      I am happy to speak against Progress and their ideas but I’ d like a level playing field to do it on

      • Duncan

        Well some sort of rule change will not change that. If a billionaire wants to bankroll Labour rightwingers they will do so, whether through a formal group or not. Can we win the arguments anyway? Of course! We organise and we mobilise, but this is not the way.

    • treborc1

      Labours problem like it or not is that without Union funding Labour would need the state, cannot see the Tories being interested with that can you.  But labour does need funding it needs money,

    • John Dore

      You might want to view this in conjunction with whats going on overall. Team Miliband have silenced everyone, there is no more dissent from anywhere. This tells me a deal has been done. The Unions are nobody’s fools and I suspect that “Progress” is the price that the Miliband had to pay.

      A lurch to the left will be an issue.

      • Duncan

         I am entirely in favour of a “lurch” to the left, if by that you mean we start pursuing radical socialist policies.  I am not in favour of people thinking they can use the party machine to achieve their aims.

        Let’s not forget that those railing against Progress have had opportunities to back left candidates in leadership and deputy leadership elections, and left policies at national policy forums and have (with a few honorable exceptions) declined to take them.

    • AlanGiles

      I have heard it suggested that the gaff may have been blown by a former and now disgruntled “Progress” member or supporter.

      Seeing how very hysterical and gtheatrical  they can get (just read the rantings of the Purple Booker for evidence), it is a possibility.

    • Daniel Speight

      I must admit I’m very cautious on any talk of proscriptions or expulsions. The only case that can be made for these is if rules have been broken. As in life outside the party where the rule of law is right, then inside the party the rule book must also be correct. Now if there is a case of individuals organizing against Labour or Labour candidates then they have probably put themselves in the position of breaking the rules and any complaints about the treatment they receive is just too bad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=518090453 Mike Thompson

    I joined Progress a couple of weeks ago after attending a few of their events at conference and elsewhere. They seem to be one of the few centre-left organisations that meet outside of London and are accessible.

    I didn’t agree with everything that the speakers said – but there did seem to be a broad range of speakers and opinions on show, so I doubt I ever will. 

    During the events policy was debated – I have never been to a CLP or branch meeting that has.

    I don’t see why this should be a proscribed group. At a recent CLP meeting a member was selling a newspaper for another political party. They weren’t kicked out, so if this kind of thing is allowed I don’t see why I shouldn’t be allowed to be a member of an organisation that discusses centre-left policies.

    • AlanGiles

      ” but there did seem to be a broad range of speakers and opinions on show”

      Only from a very narrow wing of the party Mike – the Right so the range could not have been that broad. You can see the sort of abuse Progress supporters on LL ladle out to the rest of us (Mr Dore, The Purple Booker, aracataca/william/woconnor2 (the final three names belonging tgo just one individual  who likes to play games.

      With respect, I don’t see how you can possibly describe them as “centre left” the left and the centre must have moved quite a bit in recent years.

      • Mike Thompson

        With respect Alan, where you at the last event I was at? And it appears to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Anti-progress posters on LL are hardly faultless.

        When should an organisation be proscribed?

        - if it promotes or supports another political party
        - it actively attempts to dissuade others from voting for Labour candidates

        You show me evidence of this, and I will resign. I am Labour first. But it seems you, like others, want Progress proscribed because you don’t agree with a point of view. Disagreement is fine, but debate the issues, not the organisation.

        • AlanGiles

          Frankly Mike I am getting to the point where I don’t give a damn – have your right wing Utopia, get David Miliband to lead you and commission a life-size statue of Blair. Have McNulty, Jacqui Smith and Purnell back at Westminster to fiddle their expenses again. Pretend to dislike Coalition policy, at the same time as you implement very similar (failed) policies.

          BUT I very much doubt if the public, either floating voter or traditional Labour will vote for it: nothing more unappealing than yesterdays leftp-overs being reheated again.But please don’t pretend Progress is anything other than a right-wing grouping who seem to dislike the left and traditional Labour more than they to the Coalition.I wouldn’t want to go to a Progress meeting with people like Purnell – I would feel an urge to take a bath immediately afterwards

  • thinkov

    Don’t know much about this lot but i’m put off

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    I don’t normally comment on internal Labour Party matters, but this whole argument seems to be a bit overblown to me.

    The GMB have not yet actually passed any motion – it is a motion that they will be voting upon.  Maybe GMB members will not support it, or do I misunderstand the power of democracy in a trade union, and that anything the union baron declares is automatically union policy?

    The motion will not go before the Labour Party conference until 2013.

    The initial reaction from the Labour spokesperson appears to already be setting up to find some technical or procedural excuse to keep it at the arm’s length***.  In other words, the Labour Party do not have to debate it, and there are technicalities that can be used by Party Managers to avoid the situation at all if it appears that it may be passed.

    What seems odd to me is that the GMB have an input into the Labour Party, but do not control it.  If the motion is either rejected at the 2013 Labour conference or does not get listened to at all, what do the GMB propose to do?

    Surely it would just be more honest to have a GMB vote on whether they pay money to the Labour Party or not?

    It all seems like attempted blackmail of the Labour Party by the leadership of the GMB to me, dressed up a little, incompetently done, easily avoided, and not of any real significance until September of 2013.

    *** From the BBC website:  ““The Labour Party will follow the standard procedures and rules in regard to this motion, which would be considered for debate at the 2013 conference if it is accepted as in order by the Conference Arrangements Committee,” said a spokesman.

    “We are a party that is reaching out to people, gaining new supporters and offering real change for the country in these tough times. The Labour Party is a broad church and we are not in the business of excluding people.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/nathanjm Nathan Joel Morrison

    What are they talking about militant was never affiliated to the 4th International.

  • Andrew

    Those people trying to drive Progress out should be ashamed of themselves.

    We’re supposed to be a united, ‘broad-church’ party and the GMB seem to be trying to turn faction against faction and doing the Tories’ bidding for them.

    If you don’t like Progress then don’t join it, but don’t go down the Stalinist route of banning groups that you don’t like. I’m not keen on the LRC, it doesn’t mean I’d go so far as to banish it from the party.

    The GMB can stick their motion when the sun doesn’t shine.

    • ibid

      A broad church, yes. An indebted party which allows a wealthy backer to withdraw his funding because of his distaste for its newly, and democratically, elected leader but divert those funds two a right-wing neoliberal faction, is all the worse for it. It also fits the party-within-a-party status which the Right seen cause enough to go down that Stalinist route to expel when it came to a left-wing Trotskyite faction.

  • thinkov

    wow this has motored along any sign of the right taking heed,and running along with their progress twaddle or is their shadowy world set to bore us rigid still

  • Pingback: ASLEF and Progress: We could get something good out of this. « Nicola Sugden

Latest

  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    By Harriet Harman

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    By Stefan Stern

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    By Rob Marchant

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 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 in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is party politics dying out?

    Is party politics dying out?

    By Mark Ferguson

    This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]

    Read more →