Soothing factional politics within Labour: 9/10. Connecting with the public: 2/10

July 17, 2012 9:42 am

I’ll let you into a guilty secret: I’m a sucker for brass bands. As a Yorkshireman who grew up about thirty miles from Durham, and a Labour activist with half my family from South Wales, I am still stirred by the solidarity thing. I probably have as good a nerdy appreciation of the last hundred years of Labour history, of Keir Hardie, Bevan and Bevin as the next member. I have even been known to shed a tear at party conference (I kid you not).

And I heartily agree with Mark Ferguson that Westminster has a real job understanding the North, and it needs to get out more (he’s also right about the closing of the regional development board One North East which, incidentally, I wrote to the Northern Echo about in 2009). These things are important.

My own biggest worry about Ed Miliband attending the Durham Miners’ Gala was a simple one: that, especially in the wake of the GMB-Unison-Aslef-Progress row, it would end up being a similar media car-crash as had been his appearance at the 26th March demo last year. It wasn’t.

Thanks to good organisation (barring the bizarre decision to put him speaking directly after Mark Serwotka, the Respect-supporting leader of the union PCS – someone tell me who thought that was a good idea?), a complete absence of idiots bent on violence, an accommodating crowd despite their ninety-minute wait, an uncontroversial message and union leaders on good behaviour, it was by all accounts a harmonious occasion. Above all, the idiocy of Sayeeda Warsi in trotting out a breathless, tedious response along the lines of “blah blah Red Ed blah blah militant blah blah union paymasters blah blah” ensured the opposite: that the media story was really of how this was no big deal and that things had changed since the old days. Good.

However.

In truth, in the absence of a row, the media seemed only mildly interested. The reaction of the commentariat could probably be summed up thus: “In a historic first, we had Ed speak to the rest of the Labour movement, rather than the public, and there was no blood on the floor. Hooray for us!” – Labour blogosphere. “Miliband spoke to a union meeting and, er, it went ok…(contd p.94)” – mainstream media. But there is another, deeper story, so bear with me.

When I was a teenager, I loved Neil Kinnock (I love him a little less since the divisive “we’ve got our party back” nonsense, but I still greatly appreciate what he did for the party). I desperately wanted him to win, and was devastated when, in 1987, he didn’t.

Trouble was, there was a world of difference in the way they presented themselves which always seemed so unfair to me: Margaret Thatcher would appear in a TV studio or on the steps of Downing Street, in regal and stateswomanlike pose, surrounded by advisers and film crews, delivering a speech which, despite the harshness of the message and a certain lack of personal warmth, made her look serious. In contrast, Kinnock would inevitably then appear on a platform in some outside broadcast, his hair gently blowing in the breeze – remember, this was the era of the outside platform king Arthur Scargill, who really was the far-left bogeyman that Kinnock was not – and inevitably looking like the leader of a protest movement rather than a Prime Minister-in-waiting.

I was not at the Gala. However, like last year’s demo, not being there gives you a small advantage: you can see it like the rest of the world sees it (you can watch the same BBC clip here).

What did I see? A decent, earnest Miliband promising not to leave Britons without work, in outside broadcast against an overcast Durham sky, with dubious sound quality and all intercut with banners and marching bands. For me, for you, for all of us used to that sort of thing, it was heart-warming. It was Northern, trade unionist, cultural: a family day out for many. It’s a colourful, often moving tradition, and one which should carry on for many more years.

Then I tried to look at it through the eyes of someone living in the South-East. Not some stockbroker-belt type, but an ordinary member, if you like, of the “squeezed middle”. I wondered truly how they would connect to it, because their traditions are different. Their lives, outlook, weather – dammit, even their beer – are radically different from what I grew up with. There are no pits there.

And there’s an important point: we might talk about One North East, but there is more than one North East. There is a vibrant, entrepreneurial North East outside the mining tradition, perhaps not so represented at the Miners’ Gala. Look at it through their eyes too, not just our Labour eyes.

And through those outside spectacles it looked – well, nostalgic. The Gala clip looked like historical documentary. Tony Benn was there, smoking his pipe, just as he did in my youth. People looking on with mild interest at the speakers. And – here’s the rub – it could have been Kinnock on the podium, for the polite applause and for how far removed it looked from the image of a prime minister on the steps of Downing Street.

That was the real issue: not the disaster avoided. There is nothing wrong with wooing one’s base. But neither is it wrong to care about presentation. Just because we ourselves may not like everything about the last fifteen years does not mean voters are secretly yearning for a party of protest, either, or that we should stop presenting ourselves as the party of the future.

That was the real, brutal reason why a Labour leader had not been there in twenty-three years. Not because they were scared of a public bust-up (after all, leaders continued going to the TUC every year). Because, simply, to the uninitiated – that is, everyone outside our little labour movement bubble – it can look like a throwback to the unhappy Seventies. Not Her Majesty’s Opposition, so much as oppositionalists.

Warsi tried and failed to convince the world that Miliband was taking us back to the age of Kinnock, and she misjudged it: because few people really believe in Red Ed outside the Tory party. And probably so few voters saw the footage – outside the North East, that is – that it didn’t matter. But we tried hard to prove Warsi right with that little vignette of us sent into their living rooms, we really did.

Conclusion: we may have helped to sooth the internal rifts which threaten our body politic – good. But we weren’t speaking to those outside the labour movement and the party’s heartlands. Come on. We weren’t.

And if this is to be the tone of our news clips in opposition, and we are serious about government, we really need to work on them. A lot.

Rob Marchant is an activist and former Labour Party manager who blogs at The Centre Left

  • michaelcollins10

    It’s not either the Miner’s Gala or the perfectly lit news conference looking statesmanlike.

    Ed must do both.

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      Well, I’m not sure why he “must” do anything – not sure your opinion or mine will make much difference. But yes, I’d agree he can do different types of event. What I’m not sure of is whether he needs to speak at the Miners’ Gala, which invests his political capital in it, as Quiet_Sceptic points out below.

      • Alan Giles

        If he hadn’t spoken, certain sections of the press would have claimed some ulterior motive for so doing – there was some “secret pact” or he was “too frightend”. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I am sure you would have disapproved if he had only been in the audience for the Progress conference and not actually spoken?

        But seriously, Mr Marchant, you are in danger of becoming the new Senator Joe McCarthy, looking for reds under the bed before you turn in every night.

        • treborc

           Reds in labour the thought of that, would turn new labour blue.

          • Francislerouge

            Aren’t they already? Consider the substantial number of leading New Labourites serving the current government: Millband, Adonis, Adair Turner, Hill (? the Pensions Report man) to mention jst those who, without prolong
            ed reflection, come to mind.  

  • S K Lee

    You can’t have it both ways Rob – either “there’s nothing wrong with wooing one’s base” or there is. Otherwise there’s no point in this rambling article at all. What you really mean is that it is wrong and Ed should be busily wooing an entirely different constituency.

    I fundamentally disagree. The effects of the years of neglect of core Labour supporters – cynicism, apathy, alienation – desperately need addressing and I think Ed’s made a decent start at it. That’s not to say the Party does not need to convince the wider community that their own best interests are represented by Labour too, but ‘wooing one’s base’ is fundamental to the soul and spirit of any party – not least Labour which is famously ‘a crusade or it is nothing.”

    Another point worth considering is that the majority of the electorate either were’nt born at the time or are too young to remember the 1970′s. The Bennite bogeyman figure is as relevant to today’s voters as the Zinoviev letter.

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      Well, I think we agree that wooing one’s base is important, but your point seems to imply that the Gala is the only way to woo one’s base – it isn’t. There are other ways to do it – that’s mine. Where you have read me correctly is in that I do think Ed should be taking every public opportunity to woo a different constitutency, yes.

      Re your point about many being too young to remember the 1970s, you’re absolutely right. But that’s exactly why we should remind them, so that we don’t make the same mistakes. We have amassed a wealth of understanding of why these apparently superficial things are important, which we seem bent on throwing to the wind, only to have to relearn it again, the hard way, a few years later.

      Finally, I’d disagree fundamentally that the lefty bogeyman figure has gone away – on the contrary, he’s rather back with a vengeance, as Galloway’s victory amply demonstrates.

      • treborc

         You do seem to have a serious problem about the left or the hard left sneaking back in.

        http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/04/04/the-return-of-the-far-left-a-turning-point-for-labour/

        Union are a way for the hard left to get back in,  I think your more worried actually of Ed Miliband winning on a soft left approach, lets be honest if Ed can get enough people to vote in a labour government then David Miliband and Blair will be basically dead in the water Progress will then end up just a magazine.

        I think your worried the left will be seen as being back in the labour party and you and your  group will be just another voice.

      • Alan Giles

        The 1970s are 40 years ago. The country let alone the world is a different place. George Galloway is one person – the sole representitive in Parliament of his party (as is Caroline Lucas for the Greens). It might be the case that Respect ends up with 2 or 3 MPs and the Greens with perhaps half a dozen.

        Surely you are big enough to accept that?. I think, if I may say so, you concentrate too much on “bogeymen” and they really are all in your own mind. Relex, Mr. M, relax – you have nothing to fear but fear itself.

        • treborc

          But the 1970′s have been surpassed by the 1997 to 2010.

      • S K Lee

         The Gala is one way to do it – I agree with you that there are others. Why not do several of them?

        I also agree that Ed should be wooing every woo-able constituency toward his views of what is right for Britain.

        As for the 70′s, are you seriously suggesting that we should begin airing the tired old cliches about the decade which even the Daily Mail recognises mean nothing to anyone now? We could flag up some of the good things about the 70′s Labour governments – such as achieving the lowest levels of inequality in history by 1979 – but why we should want to do the Tories work for them by resurrecting ghosts (for that’s what they are) of a bygone era.

        On Galloway I would point out 3 things. 1 – He wasn’t sharing a platform with Ed and is unlikely to do so in the near future. 2 – He is not a member of the Labour Party and the country – even the solid middle classes – does not peceive him as such. 3 – He was actually elected by the voters of his constituency. This cannot make him the sort of bogeyman who would put people off voting Labour.

        Without imagining that Respect could win a majority at an election (or even a significant number of seats) and recognising the peculiarities of Bradford South, it is not typical of bogeymen to prove more popular with the public than non-bogeymen. This – though less so than apathy of low turn out and cynicism of ‘they’re all the same’ views – starkly illustrates what 25 years of despising our core support did to the Party.

        I don’t think that every calculation should come down to ‘how will it play to the middle classes in the South East?’ (Though some possibly should – I’m not advocating a policy of scaring the horses.)

        • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

          On the Seventies, it may sound like a cliché, but it’s an image now indelibly etched into the minds of the British public. Whenever you see a “Zeitgeist” clip from the Seventies, it’s strikes and placards. There were some good things about the Labour governments, agreed, but they are not fondly remembered by the public: the Winter of Discontent saw to that.

          Re Galloway, you’re right that he is not Labour. But my point was not that they really associate him with us, but that his victory exemplifies the resurgence of the far left. Rather than on our back benches, you can see it particularly in the activities of the non-afiliated (and even some of the afiliated) unions. Check out PCS, who already want to stand against Labour candidates at elections, or UCU, who have an inexplicable and rather unpleasant urge to redefine anti-Semitism. Anyway, we are moving slightly off the point. It’s not about bogeymen, it’s merely about the image we project to those outside our little club.

    • john p Reid

      Regarding the People don’t care for the 70′s ,but it was the 92 election and even the Tories tired the 1997 to remind the public of the winter of discontent that resulted in labour losing in 92, but if labour make a mistake if we get in like the winter of discontent it’ll put us out of power for a generation again and we would be foolish not to learn the lesson of history

      • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

        Quite. It would be a mistake to fall for the illusion that no-one remembers the 70s – they do. Or that they remember them fondly – they don’t.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    It’s not just a question of whether to attend but in what capacity/role you attend.

    Never having attended the Gala, on the cameras it appears more like a family day out than a serious political event.

    Well Ed could have gone along to show his support and reconnect without affecting his appearance by attending in that frame – go casual, take the kids on the rides, watch the marches and the brass bands.

    It’s going in a suit and delivering a speech from the wind-swept podium that links his political capital with the event itself.

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      Exactly. My only thought, to be fair to Ed, is that it’s not easy to go without speaking – as Labour Leader he is easily the biggest “draw” at such an event. But yes, he could probably have got away with it as a gentler lead-in, rather like Cameron attends events without speaking. And his political capital is inevitably linked to any event at which he speaks – spot on.

      • treborc

        Another 23 years before another one goes then..

  • http://twitter.com/richsimcox Richard Simcox

    So in summary: I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what happened, but I know the history of the Labour party, and some people who live in the south east might not have liked it. Whatever it was. “Former” Labour party manager – for the good of your party, long may you remain so.

  • Alan Giles

    You say Mrs Thatcher (who I assume you didn’t like) looked good – hair in place, kempt and collected whereas poor old Neil (who you did like – nay “loved”)  hair was blowing about because it was an O-B, and didn’t look so lovely. Does it matter?

    This seems – yet again – a case of preferring the box to the chocolates, of style over substance. Typically New Labour – the look is more important than anything else – big hat and no knickers.

    Politicians are not film stars – we don’t expect them to be, especially middle aged men to look like  matinee idols.

    I remember Clare Short (who I guess you didn’t much care for) saying once how she and Blair were on a plane travelling to some terribly deprived spot in Africa. Just as the plane prepared to land and the photographers about to do their work, Blair’s aids busied themselves with his hair lacquer and make-up! (He did the same thing when he was playing Field Marshall Montgomery, getting down with the troops).

    A good job in years gone by the public (or at least that part of it that thinks like yourself), didn’t place so much store on how somebody looked – Churchill, Harold Wilson, Clement Atlee, even old Harold MacMillan were no oil paintings, but they were statesmen. The same could be said in more recent times – Robin Cook would never have won a beauty prize, but he showed courage and principle.

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

    “the divisive “we’ve got our party back” nonsense”

    When it comes to politics you shouldn’t discount the emotional component – and Kinnock was always one to indulge that aspect; disproportionately, in my view – but it was a nail-on-the-head moment, that is how if felt. So well done to Kinnock for his very apt articulation. Politics can’t be always be about scallops and celeriac purée.

    As for the Red Ed scam – no one really believes it though a few politicians and media people test out its viability from time to time but it has no purchase, so let’s not have the tail wagging the dog. The media need their bogey men, Warsi needs her bogey man for very obvious reasons and also, it seems, you need yours.

  • Emmaburnell

    I look forward to your railing against “nostalic” presentation next time one of our Ed’s is forced to dress up like a fanny to attend the Mansion House Dinner…

    • treborc

       Sponsored by Progress.

    • Emmaburnell

      That would of course be “nostalgic”! GAH

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      On the contrary, think GB, in not wearing a suit to the Mansion House, showed the way: go, but on your own terms.

      • Emma burnell

        Ed wore a suit & tie to DMG. Going, but in his own terms.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          Are you sure that either of the Milibands are comfortable without a suit?  It appears to be how they were born.  I cannot imagine Ed – or David – dressed in anything else.  Certainly not in an old pair of jeans, some old gauchos re-soled about 6 times, and an old leather jacket that their wife wants to throw away, but they keep hold of because they have had it since they were 17 and it reminds them of their first girlfriend who thought it was cool.

          Even if their first born thinks it is embarrassing, and the second born thinks you look cool.  ;)

          Mine still fits me – I am actually slightly less chesty than I was when I was 20, but I was playing a lot of rugby then.  

  • carolekins

    Well, Rob, I WAS there in Durham and I think it was an important moment.  Living in the North East it’s easy to feel cut off – in Thatcher times it felt like Siberia.  Better under the Labour Govt: TB was a NE MP after all and the Blair/Brown govt did look after us.  Now things are about to get desparate, with Co Durham having its govt grant cut by nearly 50%, many people about to be clobbered by housing benefit cuts, public sector job cuts, etc.  Ed’s speech wasn’t particularly union-orientated, but he did talk about shared values and he said ‘we won’t pass by on the other side’.  This is a good thing to remind people of, even people in the South-East.

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      Carol, agree entirely about the idea of showing solidarity with the North East. My point is that there are other ways of doing it. This is an “insider” way, insider our little “labour movement” club, and therefore excludes a lot of people in the North East itself, let alone the rest of the country. It’s also a way which harks back to ancient traditions rather than looking forward to a vibrant, modern North East, which maybe isn’t the best imagery for a leader looking to be the harbinger of change.

      • S K Lee

         I get the sense you’d have been ripping out Victorian fireplaces to put in modern 3 bar electric fires and hardboarding over panelled doors back in the 50′s and 60′s. It’s called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

        • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

          Actually, I rather like Victorian fireplaces. I’m not really sure about fitted carpets, either.

          • S K Lee

             You’d have loved ‘em in the 60′s Rob! They were modern and progressive!

          • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

            Nice clothes. Rubbish architecture.

      • omfray

        Forget about ‘vibrant’, ‘modern’ and other examples of newspeak which usually mean outsourcing and privatisation.

  • Francislerouge

    No – look at the place of the Unon movement. It is the the moral force  which provides an antidote to Thatcherism, to egoism deified. It, not the faith school, promotes local allegiance, and party loyalty. It has historically provided the moral bedrock on which  the Labour Party built its policies. It was the snobby superiority of New Labour, the  move to arse-licking of the City,  its subservience to the CBI and the Istitute of Directors, that led both to the weakness of the Party in 2010 and caused Labour to share the responsibility for the disaster of 2008.
    Blair  led us towards a  soggy morass which he could share with with Cameron and Clegg, jointly holding a line set by the tea-party against most party activists – at least in Labour and the Lib Dem party.     

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      You may be amazed to know, Frances, that I am rather against faith schools. In fact, I blogged about it here: 
      http://thecentreleft.blogspot.com.es/2011/02/faith-schools-bad-idea-just-got-worse.html Not sure I can go with the rest of your comments, however.

      • Brumanuensis

        Views on the the most recent three to open?

        • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

          Awful.

      • Brumanuensis

        Views on the the most recent three to open?

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    I mostly agree with your main point Rob (i.e. the perspective of a non-member, not a north easterner).  Whoever is thinking about presentation in Labour HQ could easily have batted away the unease you obviously feel if they’d made it a 2-day series of events, of which the miners’ gala was perhaps the centrepiece, and scored a lot of other good points as well.

    He should have visited a hospital in the region (to make up for his football “sickie” of a couple of months ago) to talk about the NHS, he could have visited one of the many public agencies such as HMRC in the region to talk about jobs, and also some good examples of local businesses who have previously been helped by the regional development agency, to talk about enterprise.  He could have also spoken with some regional business federation perhaps at a dinner and visited a carefully chosen school to talk about education.  Or maybe visit the Army barracks at Catterick near Richmond.  That way he covers a lot of other issues beyond de-industrialisation and shows that Labour has a positive message for all regions and sectors (if it does – it is not clear to me at the moment).  He could have shown that there is vibrancy in a whole region.  I like the north east – I had 5 very happy years in Darlington.  I’d very happily live there again.

    • Mike Homfray

      But you’re a right wing free marketeer. Not one of our target voters. I hope you never vote for us again

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Mike,

        The Homfray doctrine would see the Labour Party beaten in the first GE, in third place in the second GE, and vanishing to 5th place in subsequent GE’s.

        If you want to accuse me of being a right wing free marketeer, I’ll feel equally enabled to accuse you of being a hard left fantasist, what with your ideas of “Fortress Europe”, endless regionalism, and a strange and disturbingly racist advocacy of enforced sterilisation of Asian women which you have published on your own blog.  That probably does not make you feel too comfortable to be characterised as such, does it?  While at the same time, being a luxury food critic and restaurant reviewer.  Quite the fat little bundle of inconsistencies.  And yet it is your own words.

        If you hope I never vote Labour again, I’d equally hope your views are never represented in mainstream Labour policies again, because your type of thinking is a death sentence to the Labour Party.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

          “Quite the fat little bundle of idiocies and inconsistencies”

          Jaime I rarely respond directly to you, but nevertheless always rate your comments highly.  While once again I find myself in close agreement with the points you make here, the above quote, which appears to have a “subtext” of which I suspect is not entirely accidental, is perhaps a little… risqué.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            David,

            if I have made a mistake, I apologise, but I am mystified.  My thoughts are that with Mike that he has such a doctrinal view of the world, all very tightly wrapped together, much of it appearing (to me at least) to be rejecting and exclusive of mainstream views, and yet, by what he published on his blog (I read it once, after a particularly savage attack on the Pope – I am Christian but not Catholic, Mike is/was Catholic but not currently Christian).

            He appears to me by his own words to be a compacted mass of inconsistencies, and yet he feels quite able to try to dictate to others how and what to think.  That “might” be all OK if his positions were reasonable, but they so very often veer into extreme positions that they are difficult to take seriously.

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

            Sigh……if you seriously think that I am a near-anarchist, you ought to meet some real ones. As for the rest, simply risible

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Well, you self-reported on the political compass test to be very close to the anarchist end of the spectrum.  You seemed quite proud.  And indeed your blog still stays up and is in Google cache in case some post facto editing about enforced sterilisation of poor Asian women removes the original entry.

            And do you deny that you have written restaurant and food reviews for expensive places that specialise in foods that under your “Fortress Europe” policy would get stopped at the border? Or that you have advocated a “Fortress Europe” policy? It’s all only a search away. Or that you self-describe as a Croslandite, and then advocate eye-watering left policies that would have Tony Crosland writing new entries in his diaries? Or that you have launched great attacks on the Pope – although I judge you not on that, as I do understand that previous devotion can turn quickly to deeply held anger in religious matters.

            I did meet some real anarchists once, on the edge of a very minor riot when I was a teenager. They were very unpopular with both police and those of us burning some tyres (I was not old enough to be allowed forward by the riot organisers, so stood with some friends near the back, shouting silly things). They tried to hijack the demonstration, but were chased away as they were outsiders and not from the barrio.

            I see that some self-appointed censors have been at work.  Not you, I don’t believe, as it would be odd to report and then to reply.  But someone.  Even the most reasonable man on LL gets reported.

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

             Jaime : really, I haven’t the time or inclination to discuss aspects of my personal life. You object to people talking about yours, and I think its largely irrelevant. I think I’ve done two or three food reviews for an online magazine. I wasn’t paid!

            I do think that there will need to be a review of the unfettered free market and in particular, the idea that we should continue with the policy of mass imports of cheap, disposable goods from China is not sustainable. That doesn’t mean a blanket ban on all imports, but surely you can see that the slave labour wages paid by much of the world may require some protection (or are you happy to see all British jobs go down the pan?

            I have explained a number of times that the sterilisation was entirely voluntary and promoted by an Indian-run foundation, despairing at the way that western ‘liberals’ seem to think that Indian women should be baby machines, dying after ten pregnancies in their forties. Or don’t you think that people are entitled to be given a choice?

            I’m broadly a genuine social democrat – you appear to have forgotten that Crosland’s ideas would be far to the left of even today’s Labour party! Strong support for high taxation and public spending – the main difference is that he wrote in an era when it was assumed that capitalism had been tamed. Hence nationalisation etc was not a priority. We now know that was optimistic in the extreme. We have cartels of so-called private competitors ripping off the public. Your own Orange book position is Gladstonian liberalism revisited, which has very little connection with either right or left of Labour. That sort of liberalism is much more the roots of Thatcherism, and whilst the Blair-brown governments accepted much of the neo-liberal settlement, they also promoted the social democratic aim of high public spending.

            I have very little sympathy with religion of any description in terms of its social impact, and I generally am on the opposite side of the fence from most of the campaigns of the Catholic church.

            I’ve known a few anarchists in my time, but they would find it hilarious to see me as one of them. Nowhere near libertarian enough!

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Well, you self-reported on the political compass test to be very close to the anarchist end of the spectrum.  You seemed quite proud.  And indeed your blog still stays up and is in Google cache in case some post facto editing about enforced sterilisation of poor Asian women removes the original entry.

            And do you deny that you have written restaurant and food reviews for expensive places that specialise in foods that under your “Fortress Europe” policy would get stopped at the border? Or that you have advocated a “Fortress Europe” policy? It’s all only a search away. Or that you self-describe as a Croslandite, and then advocate eye-watering left policies that would have Tony Crosland writing new entries in his diaries? Or that you have launched great attacks on the Pope – although I judge you not on that, as I do understand that previous devotion can turn quickly to deeply held anger in religious matters.

            I did meet some real anarchists once, on the edge of a very minor riot when I was a teenager. They were very unpopular with both police and those of us burning some tyres (I was not old enough to be allowed forward by the riot organisers, so stood with some friends near the back, shouting silly things). They tried to hijack the demonstration, but were chased away as they were outsiders and not from the barrio.

            I see that some self-appointed censors have been at work.  Not you, I don’t believe, as it would be odd to report and then to reply.  But someone.  Even the most reasonable man on LL gets reported.

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

           Not enforced, Jaime. Entirely voluntary – but then, you never were one for getting the details right

          As for the rest, pure ad hominem – whereas you are happy to own your allegiance to Orange Book Liberalism, which even you must agree is way off beam in terms of anything Labour!

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

           Not enforced, Jaime. Entirely voluntary – but then, you never were one for getting the details right

          As for the rest, pure ad hominem – whereas you are happy to own your allegiance to Orange Book Liberalism, which even you must agree is way off beam in terms of anything Labour!

      • treborc

         And your what John your not to the left, in fact your a right winger of the New labour type.

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      I think that’s right, Jaime. Nice point, that there are other parts of the North East (as someone grew up on an RAF base a few miles from Catterick), and not all is mines. There is a vast spread of different areas and cultures, from rural Northumbria to the mines of Durham to the industrial heartland of Tyne and Wear.

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

         ….. but why does that make the Gala out of bounds? We can’t ignore our core vote, assuming they will faithfully turn out for us.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          It does not.  You will find no one on this thread to suggest it is out of bounds.

          Do sociologists bother with English comprehension?  The clue is in the words in relation to the suggestion of a 2-day regional visit “…of which the miners’ gala was perhaps the centrepiece“.  Or is leaping to a self-serving conclusion so engrained that you cannot read plain text?  That appears to be where you have found yourself.

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

            See, you are being rude again. Can’t you ever reply without being personally offensive?

            Rob is suggesting that being at the gala is a mistake since it primarily tickles the tum of the already-committed. I would suggest that much of that vote sat on its backside at the last election. Turnouts here went down. We need those voters – who also live in marginals – to be enthused to vote for us.

            But , you aren’t going to vote for us, are you? So why are you so worried?

            You clearly didn’t understand what Rob was saying.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

            I think I would re-issue my recommendation at this point that all posters examine carefully their use of the word “you” (á la the HoC debating rules): perhaps banning it would be too harsh, but it becomes much harder not to be civil if one cannot direct one’s aggravations at a recipient…

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

         ….. but why does that make the Gala out of bounds? We can’t ignore our core vote, assuming they will faithfully turn out for us.

  • mHomfray

    Given so many ‘core’ voters didn’t bother last time it’s important that a variety of audiences gain our attention. Labour are not going to sweep the south east next time because most who live there agree with the coalition, but we do actually need to stress what is good to conserve. That’s the aspect of Blue Labour which makes perfect sense . No more emphasis on endless, pointless, mistaken ‘reform’and so-called ‘modernisation’. Meaningless twaddle

  • john p Reid

    Blimey mike homfray , the agreeing with Blue labour about appealing to those in the South East, I might even start reading your blog now

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

      I think Blue Labour were actually misrepresented – they really should have known better than to choose that name , which was a pun on Blond’s ‘Red Tory’ – but some of what they had to say made a lot of sense. Glasman is, unfortunately, no politician in the sense that comments which would have been perfectly reasonable in the lecture theatre were misreported and misinterpreted.

      Blue Labour were often portrayed as Blairite whereas their stance was/is actually much more ‘ethical socialist’, with scepticism towards postmodernity, embraced as ‘fact’ by the Blair project

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

      I think Blue Labour were actually misrepresented – they really should have known better than to choose that name , which was a pun on Blond’s ‘Red Tory’ – but some of what they had to say made a lot of sense. Glasman is, unfortunately, no politician in the sense that comments which would have been perfectly reasonable in the lecture theatre were misreported and misinterpreted.

      Blue Labour were often portrayed as Blairite whereas their stance was/is actually much more ‘ethical socialist’, with scepticism towards postmodernity, embraced as ‘fact’ by the Blair project

  • Brumanuensis

    “It’s also a way which harks back to ancient traditions rather than looking forward to a vibrant, modern North East, which maybe isn’t the best imagery for a leader looking to be the harbinger of change”.

    The fact that the DMG is essentially an exercise in nostalgia – a sort of Northeastern ‘Ostalgie’ – is precisely what nullifies its potential as a political danger, much the same way that the 5th November is no longer seen as a sectarian get-together and Tony Benn, as you yourself note, is now seen as a cuddly, grandfather-like figure who can get his diaries serialised in the Daily Mail (like all good socialists).  It’s mainly a family event, which is probably why attendance at the most recent gathering was twice as high as the average when there were actual operational coal fields in County Durham. People feel ‘safe’ going to it. And the fact it’s essentially a regional tradition means that no-one in the south-east would be interested in it anyway. You might as well expect people in the north to become outraged by David Cameron’s attendance at the Henley Regatta or Ascot. 

    The idea that we should steer clear of events like the DMG illustrates Labour’s insecurity, a sort of internalised shame about its traditions, rather like my great-uncle’s embarrassment about his working-class background. There’s nothing illegal or immortal or tasteless about the DMG. The real question is, why should we pretend to southerners to be something we’re not? Deceitfulness is not a vote winner.

    I’m also surprised at the antipathy, given that erasing ‘ancient’ traditions is not something we normally condone. We don’t ban the Lord Mayor’s Show for fear of appearing quaint to foreigners. I’m reminded of Santayana’s observation ‘A country without a memory is a country of madmen’. The DMG is an act of memory. It commemorates. It doesn’t repudiate the present. It is pointless to complain about it. Calling it an ancient tradition is a bit ‘Cool Britannia’ and we know how well that ended.

    Besides, what would Ed Miliband do to be in spirit with the ‘vibrant, modern North East’? Go clubbing with some call-centre workers from Sunderland?

    I’ll also just note that ‘There are no pits there [in the South East]‘, is flat-out wrong. The Kent collieries had a higher percentage of their workforce on strike in 1985, than Yorkshire. Typical soft northerners.

    • Brumanuensis

      Obviously ‘illegal or immoral’, not ‘immortal’.

    • Alan Giles

      You have to feel sorry for Ed. Not only does he have to worry about how his words and actions will appear to his big brother and his pals, and the Daily Express, now he has to consider whether what he does will have Robert Marchant reaching for his smelling salts.

      The fact that EM represents a Northern constituency, that he wasn’t advocating wholesale renationalisation of British industry, or summary dismissal of the Queen doesn’t seem to matter to Mr. M. The really terrible thing is that he associated with….the working class. Shocking. Sorry Mr M but there is more to life than prawn cocktail offensives.

      There are times Marchant reminds me of the early days of George Orwell – as Eric Blair, he had been bought up to believe the working class smelt.

      The only difference is Orwell/Blair was born in 1903 and went to Eton. That is well over 100 years ago. As far as I know Marchant didn’t go to Eton and wasn’t born till at least the 1960s (he recently admitted he didn’t remember the 1970s), so he should know better.

      I think, with all due respect, he is a bit of a snob – a male version of Hyacinth Bucket.

  • derek

    Hmmm! Whether it’s the Kinnock’s fall on the beach after securing the leadership election, or Arthur being arrested on a picket line or Thatcher being pelted with eggs, those images remain firmly implanted but there moments in time and mean little to the real chase for a successful nation, so it’s not about the smartest suit and it’s not about where you make a statement, those freaky controllers should have realised by now that it’s about the content and the purpose .
    By the by! the brass bands were great but the pipe band stole the day! 

  • Alun Ephraim

    There was once a time when the Gala wasn’t far off being the Labour Right at play. This was during its heyday as a political event, back when the Durham Miners were a force within the Party. There are some fascinating photos of Gaitskell enjoying himself a great deal at the Big Meeting, generally accompanied by Sam Watson (DMA boss and Cold Warrior)… who liked to use the Gala as anti Soviet propaganda (and with a degree of justification, I would argue). It would be nice if people like Marchant were aware of that kind of thing, but I suppose it’s easier to eat the intellectual (is that the right word to use in the context of people so lacking in critical faculties?) comfort food that is neophilia from… er… fifteen years ago.

  • Daniel Speight

    This article seems to show fear of the working class 9/10, any significant change from New Labour and the ‘third way’ 2/10.

Latest

  • News Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Unions The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]

    Read more →
  • News Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 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. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

    Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

    Ed Miliband is speaking at the Google “Big Tent” event this morning, and as we noted earlier this week, he’s picking a bit of a fight with them over their tax affairs. Understandably, most of the press coverage in advance of Miliband’s speech (and presumably afterwards too) is about Google’s tax affairs. That’s in part due to David Cameron’s unwillingness to challenge his adviser, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, when the two met earlier this week. The Downing Street media team [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

    Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

    It was good to see the vast majority of Labour MPs voting for marriage equality yesterday, although here are some special mentions – Iain McKenzie, Frank Roy & Mike Wood - voted FOR after voting against in the 2nd reading Anne Begg, Gordon Brown, Bill Esterson, Pat Glass, Michael Meacher, Ian Mearns, Yasmin Qureshi, Virenda Sharma, Shaun Woodward - these MPs didn’t vote in the 2nd reading, but all voted FOR this evening (not all abstentions, a number were unable to attend [...]

    Read more →