Loyal out of necessity, not conviction

Peter Kenyon Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Let's not fool ourselves. Our Leader says he's listening...so it's all going to be alright? He says he is going to give us a say...so it's going to be alright? Much of the media commentary implies that we (mere mortals) are hapless bystanders of the bubbling Westminster cauldron.



There are three issues arising from me as refusenik-bystander:

1) he is not listening

2) he is not really going to give us a say

3) we are not helpless bystanders

Parliament reassembles tomorrow. In the morning there should a Cabinet meeting. I have no idea what's on the agenda. But what we can deduce is that this meeting offers any member of the Cabinet who has got what it takes to be the next Leader of the Labour Party an opportunity to show their mettle.

The litmus test remains the 10p tax issue. For any keen student of our Leader the transcripts of PMQs since the CHX wrote to John McFall MP, and his pre-election BBC Radio 4 Today and post-election BBC TV 1 AM programmes all show that GB is mouthing the word "mistakes", but doesn't actually understand their nature, consequences or the necessary remedies. In short, he is in denial. Gordon Brown does not believe that he could have made such a calamitous political error.

So here's the challenge for those leader-wannabees at tomorrow's Cabinet.

Political Betting is citing Miliband D at 5/2 as leading the field - the vast majority of whom are members of the Cabinet. So whose got the guts to lead the charge? Miliband D was keen on the BBC Radio 1 World at One programme yesterday that there has to be collective responsibility. So let's be hearing it in PMQs on Wednesday, if not before. Memo to the Leader's PMQ coaches and script-writers:

Labour is committed to compensating anyone on £18.5 per annum pre-tax income who is losing out from the abolition of the 10p tax band. No ifs, no buts.

I'm not holding my breath. But every Labour Party member should be taking note for the next Leadership election, if and when it comes, as it surely will if we go on a day longer with the present stubbornness. Any more weasel words on this subject and no member of the present Cabinet deserves to be on the Leadership ballot paper. PLP please note.

FYI the keenest odds on a non-Cabinet member are being quoted for Jon Cruddas. He's speaking in the House of Commons tomorrow night at a post-election Compass event. I'm not expecting him to mince his words.



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Loyal out of necessity, not conviction | 8 comments (8 topical)

Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#1)

by jkitleft on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM GMT

What really disgusted me, was that people were saying 'It's just one budget where these people (5.3 million of them) are losing out, when they've been treated well by the other 10 budgets of Gordon Brown', or words to that effect.

1) The point is that you shouldn't be introducing higher taxes on the poorer at all. You should be working to achieve that all people earning wages below the annual sum of the minimum wage, don't pay any tax at all.

2) It isn't that the poorer have lost out once. It's that the uber-rich have won again and again and again and again and again. For 11 budgets in fact. Simon Heffer made an excellent point on Question Time recently: he said he had spoken to a Labour MP who suggested that it was nonsense that Labour didn't support lower taxes. They support them for the poorest, and to an extent, for the middle classes.

It is a national scandal that hundreds of billions of pounds could be collected from the rich, to be put into our national coffers, that is currently not being paid.


Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#2)

by otware on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:59:30 PM GMT

I too am interested in Cruddas. He's shown himself to be a great campaigner, he's far more in touch with the grassroots than any of the New Labourites in government. As much as I like McDonnell's policies and his conviction, he will never be a leading figure in the Labour Party - I see his role as a campaigner, the chief spokesman of the left (a role that he is very, very good at: he is now one of the higher profile Labour MPs).

I say bring on Cruddas and Trickett. 


Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#3)

by doctordunc on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM GMT

I don't think now's the time to be critical of people who are more-or-less on the right side and are saying the right things.  However, if and when a leadership election comes along, I'll be supporting John McDonnell.


[ Parent ]

Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#4)

by grimupnorth on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:15:23 PM GMT

I say let's  support those who show the most  consistency when it comes to  principles and those  who have tirelessly championed the cause of Real Labour  against New Labour for many years, not just  now it's fashionable. John McDonnell put  in  a stream  of  impressive performances on TV and radio over the last weekend. Support the Calder Valley resolution at Party Conference which would help ensure John makes  it  onto the ballot  next time, along with candidates from other sections  of the Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#5)

by treborc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM GMT

yes voted for the war in Iraq, voted for the welfare reforms, voted against trident, moderate vote for gay rights, voted strong for ID cards. Yes Cruddas looks like he is jumping on the band wagon, always look at the voting records.


[ Parent ]

Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#6)

by otware on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:12:43 PM GMT

I'd still rather have him than Brown.


[ Parent ]

Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#7)

by Free Radical on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:45:03 PM GMT

Treborc is right, Cruddas does not, for me have an attractive voting record at all - he says he now regrets voting for the Iraq war (who doesn't) but his views on civil liberties are really enough to put me off - he is illiberal to the same degree as our current home secretary it seems to me. This is unfortunate as some of his analysis of the party's state is appealing and intelligent.


[ Parent ]

Re: Loyal out of necessity, not conviction (#8)

by jkitleft on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:19:26 PM GMT

I say, create the role of Chairman, to be a non-cabinet role. Provide ideas like say, instead of having PPS's, have them the other way around. So have a 1922-style commitee, where the elected members are assigned roles, and report the views of backbenchers to the respective head of government department (e.g. a Foreign Affairs representitive reports to David Milliband)


[ Parent ]

Loyal out of necessity, not conviction | 8 comments (8 topical)