Return of the broad church

Return of the broad church

A leadership contest would be good for our democracy - and good for Labour too

John McDonnell
Monday April 30, 2007
Guardian

As the prime minister leaves office, what could be more natural than Labour party supporters wanting a say in where the party should go next, especially after 10 years in power? Why then do Gordon Brown's supporters appear intent on avoiding a leadership election in which party members and trade unionists can participate? Perhaps it isn't the fear of losing that worries them but anxiety about what a leadership election could bring forth.


Labour leaders up to and including John Smith largely respected the broad church within the party. However, for more than a decade the Blair-Brown New Labour faction has discouraged the voicing of any alternative views. If, in a leadership election, there was a sizeable vote for an alternative vision for the future, Labour's broad church tradition would have been reasserted. Any leader wanting to unite and mobilise the party in the runup to the next general election would have to respect this re-emergence, both in policy formulation and in the construction of government.

In recent weeks I have been canvassing in Wales, Scotland and many local authority areas in England. There is a widespread expectation that the efforts of Labour Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly members and councillors will be overshadowed as voters cast their ballot on the basis of Westminster politics. Yet a vote for Labour on Thursday is a vote against the worst excesses of New Labour in Westminster.

Without even having revenue-raising powers, the Welsh assembly has forged ahead with policies on education and health, resisting the marketisation seen in England: league tables and Sats have been abolished, and there are no city academies or trust schools; there are no foundation hospitals, and prescription charges have been abolished. In Scotland, care charges for the elderly have been abolished and there are no student top-up fees. Many Labour councils have similarly proud achievements. These are policies backed by most Labour members - and on which I am standing.

If we are to prevent the Tories returning to power we need to understand not only how New Labour has failed to live up to the hopes of the country in 1997, but also why. The leadership debate is as much a challenge for the Labour left as it is for New Labour. It provides an opportunity not just to demonstrate that the left has an understanding of the 21st-century globalised economy but also that it has the imagination to excite and mobilise our communities around an alternative vision and set of policies.

New Labour's leaders have adapted enthusiastically to the changes corporate-driven globalisation has effected, bringing the ideas and practices of the market into everyday life. All too often socialists and progressives have ceded ground to New Labour by being too defensive, even backward-looking. We cannot turn the clock back, but that does not mean we should accept the global market economy as the last word.

We need a new approach that deepens the quality of democracy throughout society, while establishing social rights to affordable housing, a citizen's income, free education, childcare and healthcare, as well as care in older age - in essence a new constitutional settlement for the 21st century. Such a debate would re-engage all those who since 1997 have not voted, and many young people.

In deciding not only the next Labour leader but also the next prime minister, the forthcoming contest is an opportunity to re-engage the British public in genuine political debate. That can only happen if there is a contest - and that can only be good for democracy.

· John McDonnell MP is a declared candidate for the Labour leadership and the author of Another World is Possible - a manifesto for 21st century socialism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2068326,00.html


Display: Sort:

Re: Return of the broad church (#1)

Couldn't agree more with Mr McDonnell.  I just hope that his words here are listened to.

Re: Return of the broad church (#2)

This has been John's message  all along. Glad to see The Guardian  finally giving the campaign some  column inches.

Re: Return of the broad church (#3)

Unfortunately I see very little sign that the Labour left have grown any more tolerant of those who do not "tick all the boxes" of the Campaign Group's list of policies.

Re: Return of the broad church (#4)

Well, McDonnell's clearly indicated that he'd be prepared to share a cabinet room with people from a different wing of the party, as was always the case until the mid-90s. Shame the same can't be said for the currently dominant faction.

Re: Return of the broad church (#5)

It's not like the 'left' wing of the PLP is particularly large - they're struggling to even get enough nominations to get McDonnell on the ballot paper.

You make it sound like there's a 50-50 left-right split in the PLP, with the right hogging all the Cabinet places.

Re: Return of the broad church (#6)

That might be how you heard it but it's not what I wrote.

There has always been representation from across the Labour spectrum in Labour cabinets and shadow cabinets. Until the last 10 years.

The increasing right-wing bias in the PLP has been exacerbated, as everybody knows, by the parachuting in of people like Shaun Woodward and young loyal careerists in favour of local candidates of whatever persuasion.

Re: Return of the broad church (#7)

Yeah, because Woodward is an absolutely typical example. Not an exception - never!

Besides, you might object to who get's selected - "careerists" are you call them - but the majority of people on selection panels obviously dont. A case of bitterness through not getting your own way?

Re: Return of the broad church (#8)

On the contrary, I've never sat on or in front of a selection panel. But if you think they can't be manipulated or gerrymandered then you must be even younger and more innocent than me.

Re: Return of the broad church (#9)

Glass, not worthy of you.The Labour Left  has always been a minority. In 1976, when Tony Benn  stood for Leader, he got  37 votes ( it was before the electoral  college) and was judged to have done well.He was in the Cabinet.Name one left figure who has been appointed to the Cabinet in the past five years....Labour  in Govt WAS once a  broad church. It isn't any more....

Re: Return of the broad church (#10)

Yes, the Labour left has always been in the minority on the PLP but the reason that they used to be more represented in Cabinet is because they used to be a large minority - Foot and Benn got a combined 40% of the vote on the first ballot in 1976.

Nowadays they're struggling to get nominations (not even votes) totalling 10% of the PLP. It's not a right-wing conspiracy that their collapse in numbers in the PLP has seen a parallel collapse in Cabinet representation.

Re: Return of the broad church (#11)

It's pretty much a right-wing conspiracy  by the leadership that there are fewer left MPs - Charles Clarke stopped left-winger Mark Seddon (former Tribune editor, NEC mmeber) when he was Party Chair.The NEC tried to hi-jack a  local MP, Linda Riordan, now in the Campaign  Group. Numerous other examples. I daresay even John McDonnell  only  slipped through the Blairite net as no-one expected him to win in Hayes and Harlington. Fortunately for him, he keeps increasing his majority.
Christine Shawcroft would make a cracking MP and has tried several times. Katy Clark  ( also Campaign group) told me it was a bit of an accident that she got selected.If you're left-wing and want to be an MP then basically you have to look the part and keep quiet until you're selected.Otherwise the apparatchiks  with connections get in every time.

Re: Return of the broad church (#12)

can i point out that Benn wasn't part of the hard left in '76, he was post-'79. Foot was the more left-wing candidate in '76. Glass house, there used to be an almost even split, but Blair has purged the left in a disgraceful way. The 'broad church' idea means that people like John Smith would have let Canavan, Livingstone and Rhodri Morgan happily fold into Labour, indeed it is rich of Blair to have championed a pure form of OMOV, when Smith was leader, only to resort to stitch ups in the London selections, using the block vote to get Dobson chosen. People like Ben Bradshaw, are lucky Blair intervened in internal selections in this way.

Re: Return of the broad church (#13)

Not so. I was there! Benn was what would today be called hard left in 1976.Foot was  by then perceived as less left-wing.Campaign group  was formed  in 1981 after Benn  was letdown by Tribune MPs....Benn was sacked by Harold Wilson for his backing for worker's co-ops  and the left Alternative Economic Strategy.The City hated him with  a passion.....

Re: Return of the broad church (#14)

well then he certainly had fun supporting the Callaghan government, then attacking it post-79

Re: Return of the broad church (#15)

Benn  stood as Deputy in 1981 against Denis Healey when Callaghan was PM - he was  opposed to much Government  policy.In those days the NEC  had real cloutand they supported all kinds of stuff Govt didn't agree with -Daily Mail Front Page July 23  1981 "Benn bans The Bomb" -Labour's NEC Votes To Dismantle Nuclear Bases.
Don't think Uncle Jim was too pleased about that one.....

Re: Return of the broad church (#16)

Mind you, old right-winger Denis Healey is none too chuffed with Blair either:
'Tony Blair had no reason to go with Bush. He had insisted on the UN, but still did. He could have made that [the UN] the reason. He has no understanding of foreign affairs or defence. My generation had been in two world wars.I know more than Tony Blair. My main interest is Iraq and it's been an absolute bloody disaster.

Re: Return of the broad church (#21)

Callaghan reign was 1976-1979, he stopped being leader in 1980.

Re: Return of the broad church (#36)

Ans when Foot became Leader he placated the Right.....

Re: Return of the broad church (#37)

not true. and Benn was in Callaghans government. Collective responsibility means that he cannot go around critisising Callaghan in the way he did in '81, and keep his job in '76-'79

Re: Return of the broad church (#17)

The last time I was on Mr. McDonnell's Website, I was threatened. The fact is that the left that Mr. McDonnell purports to represent is fundamentally the opposite of what he describes. Indeed the Labour Party is a broad church, but the asserion that it was a harmonious relationship before Mr. Blair is nonsense. Go on Mr. McDonnell's Blog and look up what he writes. he spends more time attacking the Labour Government than the opposition, he goes on and on about New Labour conspiracy theories and needs no excuse to insult Mr. Blair or trash the Government's record.

Mr. McDonnell, you will never gwt exactly what you want, but if you think nothing has happened over ten years you are as deluded as everyone else. And please stop this nonsense about tolerating the differences- your supporters do everything they can to stop debate and to just insult anyone who disagrees. I think it was Liam Fox in the Trident debate who said that you call anyone who opposes you antidemocratic. I would add that you are and intolerant revisionist, you paint over the excesses of the 80's and the way anyone who wasn't hard left was treated.

The thing that insults and hurts, is that it took you 3 paragraphs to mention the election, an election we will be hammered in because people like you can't show a little loyalty in public and defend our record, yet even then you still attack our government and say that this is a chance to kick Blair.

why don't you have a real positive campaign, dont spear your opposition like the liberal democrats or shut down the debate luke a Tory. these are not labour traits.

Re: Return of the broad church (#18)

Exactly. When it comes to debating, the left are very poor at allowing others to voice their views. When anybody reasonably right-wing comes forward with anything to say they get brandished as Tories. Lefties always call themselves names like 'Real Labour' and 'True Labour', even though they're the ones who do the most damage to our government. If they spent as much time attacking the Tories as they attack Blair, we wouldn't be having these election worries.

If returning to a 'broad church' means giving any ground to the left, then no deal. We've been successful for the past 10 years without the likes of McDonnell - we certainly don't need him now. He's just hankering for a cabinet job. Thankfully Brown will have the sense to not even consider it.

Re: Return of the broad church (#38)

The  best of the Campaign Group  could have had a Cabinet job years ago if they had jacked  in their principles like everyone else.Margaret Beckett, for example, used to be a member. So was Dawn "Red Dawn"  Primarolo.

Re: Return of the broad church (#42)

Surely "The  best of the Campaign Group " is a contradiction in terms?!

no joking aside, I don't think we should have a go at people for changing thier views- views change over time as do people, and I dont think that if you reassess your opinions that you are jacking in your principals- they never change, buy analysis does.

Re: Return of the broad church (#44)

When it comes to debating, the left are very poor at allowing others to voice their views

If returning to a 'broad church' means giving any ground to the left, then no deal

I think that's what they call contrary.

Re: Return of the broad church (#46)

Not at all. The left can shout their views from the rooftop (and they regularly do), but I don't have to agree with them and the Labour party shouldn't have to be bullied into accepting them.

Re: Return of the broad church (#19)

"The last time I was on Mr. McDonnell's Website, I was threatened."

Can you provide some evidence for this, like a link? I suspect your definition of being threatened and mine would differ slightly.

McDonnell has been out campaigning for Labour in these elections, as he states on his blog, but in my experience of campaigning at local level (can't speak for him) the most effective way to get people to vote Labour is to distance yourself from the current leadership.

Re: Return of the broad church (#43)

Re: Return of the broad church (#45)

Arjun.  There was six of one and half a dozen of the other there really, wasn't there?  You were stirring things, and you got some back. (I hope any of my detractors reading through the comments on said thread note that I stepped in to defend the young fellow!)

Re: Return of the broad church (#47)

That looked quite vicious on there - not surprising.

But my favourite comment was this one:

Finally, congratulations to Ms Royal in securing the nomination of the French Socialist Party. There is a palpable sense of excitement and change across the world, with right wing regimes being beaten all the time. There has never been a better time to be on the left.

Haha! You have to admire their humour don't you!

Re: Return of the broad church (#48)

Well, I'd hva to agree with you on that one, JR!

It's absolutely ridiculous for a Labour Left-winger to praise Royal - especially in light of the fact that, ahead of the PS leadership election, she split the left by making phoney promises to some of its younger leaders in order to put an end to the idea (and, indeed, the possibility) of a serious Left-wing challenge (the PS left obtained around 40% of the members' votes on the occasion of last years congress as opposed to less than 20% in the subsequent leadership election).  Why don't you like her, JR? She seems like your kind of gal'!

Re: Return of the broad church (#49)

"have to agree"

Re: Return of the broad church (#51)

leave Royal alone. Or are we doing a Gisela Stuart by endorsing candidates who aren't part of parties in Socialist International?

Re: Return of the broad church (#53)

Well, I could tell you to leave Benn alone!

Have you even read her programme??? I take it your answer will be "NO", but I still feel like asking! The programme in question (which I am holding in my hand as I right)  is rather unclear and does, by the way, consist of a scattered mix some mildly Blairite elements (such as  lowering corporate tax) and some clearly arch-conservative policies 5such as sending juvenile delinquents to boot-camps where they would be put under military supervision).

Now, this doesn't mean that I have endorsed any other candidate - frankly, I don't see what difference my approval/disapproval clould make whatsoever; you clearly think too highly of me!

I am as a matter of fact in France right now - I might even do some campaigning for her before the end of the week!

I am starting to wonder whether you have literacy problems Jkit, aqs a simply wrote that she was not my favourite candidate for the PS, that's all! Not for a second could you honestly claim that, by doing so, I deliberately endorsed anothe, non-SI, contender. In fact, any such claim would be an outright lie! But, if such an endorsement truly would bother you, take it up with Royal, who just endorsed a non-SI, centrist candidate, Bayrou, to the horror of her Party's General-Secretary (who happens to be her husband), in the Prime-Ministerial election, which are to be held later on this year!

I rest my case.

Re: Return of the broad church (#54)

Oh, I forgot to mention, that the same is true of the Labour Party, which I always back, regardless of whom its leader is!

Re: Return of the broad church (#65)

I meant to direct my comment to the more centrist of the bloggers, I didn't assume you want Sarkozy to win.

Re: Return of the broad church (#56)

The fact that Royal is willing to tolerate the 35 hour week, is enough of a reason not to give her my support! Plus she's far too socially conservative for my tastes.

Re: Return of the broad church (#57)

Good god

Re: Return of the broad church (#59)

Why "Good God"?

I'm almost afraid to ask...

Re: Return of the broad church (#61)

Allez Sego!

Re: Return of the broad church (#68)

"The fact that Royal is willing to tolerate the 35 hour week, is enough of a reason not to give her my support!"

Yeah, I'm sure the people who brought us the 'knowledge economy' didn't say we'd all still have to work that many hours a week to keep it going.

A 24-hour week seems reasonable.

 

Re: Return of the broad church (#73)

assumes that's a joke

Re: Return of the broad church (#77)

I think that one of the problems with a 35 hour week is that it limits the amount of time people can work, and therefore earn. People on low incomes will obviously feel that they need to work longer hours for a higher income, but if they can't then have lots of free time, but less income with which to occupy time.

I think that companies should employ people for them amount of hours a week that maximises marginal prductivity, and obviously individual choice should determine how long eople wish to work a week. However, obviously the Government should make sure no one is going oppresive hours like 50 a week.

Re: Return of the broad church (#79)

50 hours a week oppressive? That's only 8am til 6pm every weekday with the weekend off! That's nothing.

Anything more than probably around 72 hours a week might be considered oppressive - but certainly not 50!

Re: Return of the broad church (#80)

JR,

How many hours a week do you work?

Re: Return of the broad church (#83)

I'm a full time student, so in an unconventional way I work anything between 40 and 60 hours a week.

Re: Return of the broad church (#84)

and i can tell you 30 hours a week is oppressive.

Re: Return of the broad church (#85)

What's that got to do with anything?

Re: Return of the broad church (#86)

You said the following:

"50 hours a week oppressive? That's only 8am til 6pm every weekday with the weekend off! That's nothing.
Anything more than probably around 72 hours a week might be considered oppressive - but certainly not 50! "

Therefore, I take it that you work such frankly horrifyingly long hours. Otherwise, you'd be in danger of talking out of your arse about something you know nothing about, and I'm sure that you would never be guilty of such a thing. So, once again, how many hours a week do you work?

Re: Return of the broad church (#87)

I don't know if you think you're someone important, but speaking to people like that gets you nowhere in life. I probably work a damn site harder than you and that's all you need to know.

Re: Return of the broad church (#88)

Well, I strongly doubt that, but I don't want to get into a childish slanging match with the likes of you.

Once again, given you stated that 50 hours a week is "nothing" (!), how many hours a week do you work? Have you ever worked 50 hours a week? Perhaps whilst juggling work with, say, a family?

Re: Return of the broad church (#89)

Are you going to publish John's piece in yesterday's "comment is free"  on here too.... I've read it, but many people on John's blog seem to have trouble locating it...

Re: Return of the broad church (#52)

Can't see any threats on there.

Some insults from both sides but no threats.

Exaggeration, as I suspected.

Re: Return of the broad church (#74)

There must be something wrong with people like you, you go on about not being heard yourself, then when you are given the chance to speak, you just threaten people and resort to insults. do you think threatening me with a shovel is not a threat? Now I see why you oppose trident.

Re: Return of the broad church (#75)

what are you talking about??????

Re: Return of the broad church (#20)

Threatened by whom? I have had some pretty nasty stuff to  put  up  with  on this  very  fair website from posters who don't  agree.I don't  blame Alex Hilton.
 John  has recently sent out a letter urging  people NOT to give  Labour councillors  a kicking because of Blair. Last weekend, he was knocking  on doors in Wales and the wek before scotland .
He always  refers to the good things the Govt has done at his meetings.Why can't you just get it into your heads  that" it's the policies, stupid". It's this blinkered, one-trick-pony  GOVERNMENT which has brought all this public anger on themselves.As the ordure is going to hit the fan tomorrow, wake up and smell the coffee.If things don't change ( anyone see Oscar-winner Blair almost blubbing at  fantastic prospect of Brown premiership in Scotland so I'm not holding my breath) don't start  blaming the left for the major upsets  that lie ahead.As no-one has allowed us a proper say in any policy-making for years,it's hardly  our fault.

Re: Return of the broad church (#23)

What evidence have you got that "it's the policies stupid"?

We've dropped 5-7% since the general election. Are you seriously saying that the policies implemented since the general election have dropped our support that by much? Which policies? I doubt most people could name more than a couple of post-2005 policies. I've asked earlier on is the thread but no one answered.

Re: Return of the broad church (#24)

Trident, increasingly authoritarian attitudes to asylum-seekers and immigrants, cuts in public sector pay, support for private equity companies, increasing  taxes for the low-paid, blocking measures  like the Agency Workers Bill and Trade Union Freedom Bill, not implementing Warwick properly, privatisation of esential services  like Coastguard and probation service,  only 12 MPs voting  for the  Iraq War Enquiry. That enough for now?????? Oh,almost forgot. Not supporting policy on council housing as agreed by Labour Party conference.

Re: Return of the broad church (#25)

And you think that, since 2005, 5-7% of the voting population haves taken their votes elsewhere because of the policies you outline?

Re: Return of the broad church (#26)

You asked me to name  policies. I have.The ones I have outlined will have cost us many core voters.You know, the ones New Labour doesn't bother about.....like, er, trade unionists, public sector workers, that kind of thing.

Re: Return of the broad church (#27)

Glass, why will we drop support in Scotland? Because of lack of core support. People with 'Old Labour' views in Scotland may move to the SNP. They won't move to the Lib Dems, because they kept Labour out of power for 18 years. They won't vote for the SSP, because they're divided, and they're asscoiated with Militant. Maybe switch to Greens, but won't for them on the constituency ballot. Hence, people move to the SNP. This is going to be mirrored across the rest of the UK too

Re: Return of the broad church (#28)

Is this the same SNP that wants to slash corporation tax? Yeh, real old Labour.

Re: Return of the broad church (#98)

I'm sure the Labour vote wasn't down much. Essentially Labour lost because they've been in power for so long and many just decided it was time to give someone else a chance. This is shown by polls showing that 75% of Scots who did vote don't support the SNP's separatist ambitions. Iraq remains an issue, and was cutely exploited by a populist SNP with no record to defend and who had neatly parked the separation issue. Then of course, there is the vagaries of the way the parliament is set up and the new STV system itself. Talk was that the SNP would win by 6 or 7 seats, but scraped home by 1. Labour in Scotland has introduced some good stuff, like the ban on smoking in public spaces. Coming to a place near you soon!!

Re: Return of the broad church (#32)

Ok, I'll ask again.

Do you have any evidence that these policies have lost us 5-7% of the vote? Or are you just naming policies you don't like and assuming that everyone else is as motivated by them as you are?

Re: Return of the broad church (#34)

The core voters, Glass. Public sector workers infuriated by Brown and Patricia Hewitt's policies, traditional Labour voters upset at Trident renewal and  Iraq. Trade unionists fed-up at Labour's failure to restore trade union rights taken away by THATCHER. People who care about civil liberties. People hacked-off with Reid and Liam Byrne blaming immigrants and asylum-seekers and  introducing  punitive measures to please Middle England and the Daily Mail.Got it now?

Re: Return of the broad church (#58)

Virtually none of those are new policies and were just as true before the 2005 election - and we still walked that.

Re: Return of the broad church (#60)

Really?  In my constituency we had to BEG  people to  vote Labour  on the basis Blair was going "soon" and if our MP  had not been a rebel believe me we would  have lost. Her majority  is now 1500. Unfortunately, Blair  did not go "soon" enough which is one of the major reasons we are  going to do so badly, sadly, today. And yes, Glass, no getting away from it, policy.

Re: Return of the broad church (#62)

You've prevented no evidence that we're down in the polls because of policy other than repeating the claim!

Iraq, Cameron and being in power for 10 years in power are the reasons (which actually feed off each other).

Re: Return of the broad church (#63)

Iraq- Yes
10 years (of Blair)- Yes
Cameron- No

It's a combination of Iraq and Blair's government which helps Cameron to succeed. 10 years ago, we might have been more of a broad church. His third way politics are interesting. But Clinton, Prodi, Schoeder, Chretien, Royal and others label their politics 'Third Way', but they did not go as far as Blair, and their politics seem to be more progressive, or social democratic.

Re: Return of the broad church (#71)

The left in all those countries said exactly the same thing about those leaders.

Re: Return of the broad church (#31)

Yeh grim, because those policies you outline are real vote winners with the British public. During campaigning and leafleting, if there's one thing that I heard on every doorstep it's that people want more rights for asylum seekers.

And more rights for trade unions who can hold the country to ransom again - yep, excellent idea.

And they wonder why the left is seen as out of touch.

Re: Return of the broad church (#22)

Why must it be that Labour is divided between campaign group members and New Labour? Blair hasn't done amazingly without more left-wing politicians. He has been obsessed by the fact the fact that he would lose the next election when he got into power. Now he is obsessed by legacy, and is making moderate changes to anything i.e. education, health, when if he really wanted a legacy he could have made more radical changes. I'm not saying he was a bad prime minister, but he is often all show and no substance. His real legacy is making anyone in New Labour afraid of anyone even moderately left-wing like Robin Cook, and being able to present these kind of ideologies as 'unacceptibly left-wing'.

Re: Return of the broad church (#29)

That in itself is a pretty impressive legacy.

he is often all show and no substance

So minimum wage, peace in Northern Ireland, devolution, constitutional reform, independence of Bank of England, getting Olympics for London, constant economic growth in every quarter of every year without high unemployment, inflation and interest rates - none of that counts as substance?

The reason why we'll do so badly in these elections is because of the awful pessimism and lack of loyalty shown by those on the left of the party.

Re: Return of the broad church (#30)

yeah, party infighting within the 'New Labour' faction has nothing to do with it, Nor does the worsening situation in Iraq.

Re: Return of the broad church (#33)

the lack of unity and loyalty, in the public's eyes, is the warring Brownites and Blairites in the past year, even though they believe in the same thing, it's just tribalism.

Re: Return of the broad church (#35)

Yeah, right.Strange how Bliar's announcement he's going to name the day next week has  reduced the  gap  in Scotland,then.

Re: Return of the broad church (#39)

Ha! Somehow I think Scottish politics is slightly more complex than that! I doubt Scottish voters convert their allegiance in droves after Blair hints that he might make some sort of speech outlining his future in the following week.

Re: Return of the broad church (#40)

it's a disgraceful legacy, not an 'impressive legacy'

Re: Return of the broad church (#41)

he may have attacked militant, or called for pure OMOV, but he himself is undemocratic. He has made sure that deselection take place in any CLP that has chosen a left-wing candidate. Sometimes it has failed. This isn't Tommy Sheridan, Pat Wall or Derek Hatton we're talking about. The 'impressive legacy' cost us the Uxbridge by-election, Ben Bradshaw is only a minister because of it, Linda Riordan was almost deselected. He made sure that left-wing candidates were weeded out of the London Assembly, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, causing him much embaressment when electors chose Livingstone, and Michael was ousted as First Minister of Wales. Mark Seddon was blocked. These, to name a few, are the kind of techniques used in the '80's, but it's worse, because Blair said he wanted to promote internal democracy, and condemned Militant for using the exact same techniques he uses.

Re: Return of the broad church (#50)

Pat Wall was an excellent, hard-working, constituency MP! No honest person could ever deny that!

Re: Return of the broad church (#55)

Yes he was. So was Dave Nellist. To return to the original  point of this thread, we need  the Broad Church back.I was talking to Hilary Benn ( for work, not name-dropping) the other day and he agrees - well, he must do as  his  dad is backing him  for DL and John 4 Leader! Hope forthe future, maybe.......

Re: Return of the broad church (#64)

Benn does gain support from people like Skinner as well

Re: Return of the broad church (#69)

for similar reasons probably....

Re: Return of the broad church (#82)

This is sort of off topic, but I think we forgot Terry Fields, another fine Labour MP!

Re: Return of the broad church (#66)

I think you'll find that the Exeter selection was rerun not because of a purge of the left, but because the previous candidate was discovered to have given evidence in a South African court case against anti-apartheid activists which led to them being hanged.

Re: Return of the broad church (#78)

then i stand corrected

Re: Return of the broad church (#67)

We all now know that John McDonnell and Michael Meacher will meet on the day Blair resigns and whoever has the lowest number of nomination promises will stand down. But I have heard rumours flying around the Westminster bubble that some supporters of Gordon Brown are prepared to promise their nomination to John in order that he becomes the left candidate. The plan is that they then decline to sign the official nomination paper, leaving John short of the 45 he needs to get through and clearing the way for Gordon's coronation. I'm optimistic that John will see through this Brown plan and not fall for it. I want John to get through, but not like this. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

Re: Return of the broad church (#70)

Don't always believe rumour.  Just wait and see comrade

Wiseman

Re: Return of the broad church (#72)

Oh for god's sake!

Grow up

Re: Return of the broad church (#76)

What happened to the Miliband blog???

Re: Return of the broad church (#90)

I shut it down. There didn't seem to be much point carrying it on once he'd confirmed he wouldn't stand

Re: Return of the broad church (#91)

Might I add, ... "and because, fortunately, Miliband's prospective candidacy was much more 'short-lived' than the New Labour clique which spawned it!"

Re: Return of the broad church (#92)

Ever thought of doing stand-up?

Re: Return of the broad church (#93)

Yes, actually, I have... Not because I find myself particularly entertaining, but because many other people claim that my jokes and tremendous use of satire/irony are spot on!

Should I classify you as one them....???

Re: Return of the broad church (#94)

No.

Re: Return of the broad church (#95)

eh?

Re: Return of the broad church (#96)

Oh, per-lease! Don't act as if you hadn't perfectly understood me! To tell you the truth, I frankly believe Labour would do much better without boy David; Ed is quite another story (I can live with him, that is), but we really would better off without the eldest of the Miliband brothers - much better of actually! Oh, Ralph, why did you ever leave us!?!

Re: Return of the broad church (#97)

Sorry. Totally confused - you're gonna have to spell it out.

Re: Return of the broad church (#81)

"Redleft",

It's interesting that this seems to be your one and only post to LabourHome. I won't go into my more cynical analysis of your post, but as someone who is heavily involved in John McDonnell's campaign, but I can't even begin to tell how farcically untrue what you've written is.

Nothing like black rumours such as this to try and discredit a campaign though, is there?