Lessons from the Labour deputy-leadership race

It’s a good job I’m not a betting man, because I would have put my money on Alan Johnson winning the Labour deputy-leadership election.

As it happens, he was beaten into second place at the very last minute by Harriet Harman, losing by less than a percentage point on the final round. Interestingly, the shortfall was almost exactly the same in the first and final rounds.

What is far more interesting, however, is that John Cruddas won the first round, and Harriet Harmon came second. Their success carried them all the way to the penultimate round. Thus, despite Peter Hain’s early ejection, this suggests that there is still a lot of life left in what is usually called the “left” of the party, and what I might prefer to call the socialist wing, Old Labour or (borrowing some of their own more irritating semantics) the “unreconstructed” elements within the Labour Party.

What is also fascinating and shocking is the turnout: at least a couple of MPs and MEPs failed to vote, but more notably, almost half (46%) of members did not vote either. This suggests that a large part of the party was either unimpressed by all the candidates (and this seems unlikely, as the offered genuine diversity and choice) or believed that the vote was of little importance or value. With Harriet Harman now elected, we can expect that the post will prove of little importance or value, too.

As for levy-paying members of affiliated Trades Unions, just 8% bothered to cast votes. This last raises some interesting questions. If only 8% of levy-paying members bothered to vote, what proportion are actually interested in Labour Party matters? What proportion are even supportive of the Labour Party? And perhaps most importantly, what proportion are actually aware that they pay the levy?

If I understand correctly (and please let me know if I’m mistaken) Trades Unionists pay the levy automatically unless they specifically opt out. If this is the case, then this vote raises the spectre that a huge proportion are paying the levy unwittingly. If so, there may be a case for legislation requiring Trades Unions to reverse this situation, so that would-be Labour supporters must actively opt into levy-paying.

In the meantime, Liberal Democrats would be well advised to draw to the attention of Trades Unionists that they may be unwittingly funding a Party that they do not support, and perhaps oppose. A case for a publicity campaign, perhaps?

It would have made Big Brother IX far more interesting

I love Matthew Parris. Today the redoubtable Tory columnist has a sympathetic word to say about Ruth Kelly, who has been let down by her future boss, and has an excellent suggestion for making the Labour deputy leadership contest more interesting.

It makes Thursday’s bearable.

Labour deputy leadership promises of renewal founder in politics as usual

A day late, I have just watched the Newsnight special on the Labour Party’s deputy leadership contest. What a depressing experience!

Every single one of them stressed their desire to “Restore trust in politics” (Benn) and “renew the party” (Blears). Yet by-and-large they all committed the same sins that make politicians so contemptible.

Asked to give a “yes or no answer” to four policy questions, only Alan Johnson was prepared to say what he believed without either hedging or explaining. When pushed about replacing Trident, new nuclear power, ending the charitable status of independent schools and an amnesty for illegal immigrants, their answers were:

Cruddas: No Yes Yes (failed to answer)
Hain: Yes Yes No No
Johnson: Yes Yes No Yes
Harman: (failed to answer) Yes No Yes
Blears: Yes Yes No No
Benn: Yes Yes No No

When asked who they would vote for if they were not themselves standing, all five of the front bench candidates refused to answer, insisting that they were “in it to win it” (Blears). Only John Cruddas was honest enough to answer – perhaps because he was asked first and did not know that the others were so spineless; he said he would vote for Harriet Harman “because of her gender activism” (he might as well have said because she was a woman).

In fact, the straightest answer came when asked if they would have voted for the Iraq war (they all did) if they knew then what they know now. Both Cruddas and Harman said they would not and added that Labour ought to apologise for its mistake; Hain said he could not wriggle off the hook with the benefit of hindsight (which I thought was an honourable answer); while Johnson and Hilary Benn said they were glad Saddam was gone. Blears still fudged; she wanted to look forward, not back (having clearly not moved on since 2005*).

On one issue they all agreed, however. None supported caps on the size of donations to political parties (though most supported caps on spending) and the Trades Unions ought to be exempted from any ban on large donations. Some things, it seems, have not changed in the Labour Party.

--

*Interestingly, I tried to link to Britain: forward not back, Labour's 2005 election manifesto, but it has mysteriously disappeared!

Laws against discrimination will not make society more tolerant

I’ve been steering clear of the Catholic adoption row so far. Nothing like coming late to a story! I think it may have been because I have found the whole affair depressing. Rather than take up arms, I’d rather put my head in my hands.

This is partly because I feel that this row has been deliberately engineered by Cabinet Ministers who want to take the opportunity to burnish their socialist credentials prior to the Labour Party's deputy leadership election by confronting both a conservative organisation (a church) and their own lame-duck leader. This is not to deny that there are real issues here, but I am sure that they could have been addressed far more maturely if there were not political points to be scored.

If the machinations of Labour politicians were enough to depress me, however, I’d have wept myself dry long ago. Instead, I have found the tenor of the debate equally depressing. This has become one of those polarised arguments where one is either manning or storming the barricades; a totemic issue around which a lot of anger and bile is being expressed while children remain to be adopted. The fact is that the Catholic adoption agencies are unusually effective at finding places for children - particularly troubled and teenaged children, who are the hardest to place. As with many religious schools, the attempt to mould society in a progressive image may result in the loss of a great deal of expertise and skill.

Not that I’m suggesting that what is required is some sort of woolly, third-way, middle-of-the-road compromise. I’ve never been that kind of liberal! I am the kind that rejects conservatism because I believe in progress, and rejects socialism because I believe in the rule of law. The rule of law is particularly important to this discussion, because it is often mistakenly assumed that the “rule of law” is synonymous with the “rule of laws”. A lot of the debate has been about how the Catholic Church must obey the law – there can be no exemption.

To make my point, I was prompted to finally break cover by a question from a friend, who asked “what are your thoughts on the homophobic Catholic Church clinging doggedly to their 'right' to discriminate, over and above the law? ”. In responding, I stated that

I am rather disturbed by what I infer as a belief that the law is something that we can use to force minorities to comply with the wishes of the majority. It was not so long ago that homosexuality was illegal. Would you then have railed against “homosexuals clinging doggedly to their ‘right’ to sodomy, over and above the law”?.

The rule of law does not mean that anything that is enacted in law is justified. The German Enabling Act that gave Adolph Hitler and his cabinet the power to enact legislation without reference to the Reichstag was a law, but it was a violation of the legal principles to which we refer when we talk about the rule of law (and should also sound eerily familiar to students of British politics).

Rather, the rule of law relies upon the fact that certain basic liberties are beyond the scope of the law to dispense with as particular parliaments choose. Younger nations have written constitutions which make this clear, but our constitution – though not enshrined in a single document – is no less rich. One of these basic liberties is freedom of association. Stepping back from adoption and looking at the law in the round, the effect is to compel people to associate (in this case conduct business) with people with whom they would otherwise choose not to associate. Furthermore, the law is arbitrary in its application: it prescribes certain types of discrimination (e.g. age) while ignoring – and thus implicitly sanctioning – others (e.g. weight).

I do not think that tolerance and understanding are best spread by law enforcement. They are best spread by interaction, debate and education. That requires openness on all sides. It is, of course, easier to get to the short-term end one wants (no discrimination against homosexual adoption, for example) by using the law to crack down on dissent. But I suspect that the longer-term ends (a society of tolerant and open-minded people based on mutual respect despite differences of lifestyle) are retarded as a result.

In the end, we create a society that does not discriminate because it is not allowed to, rather than people who do not discriminate because they do not want to.

More nuclear nonsense from Peter Hain

Yesterday I wrote that Peter Hain was reported as having shifted from card-carrying member of CND to a supporter of Trident on the grounds that unilateralism had cost Labour votes in the past.

Today, on Sunday AM, he gave Andrew Marr a different reason for his U-turn. Rather than crass opportunism, as it appeared on Friday, he now says that "...since we are where we are, and the history of having an independent nuclear deterrent, I do not think that people in Britain will accept us giving that up." So basically, the reason for replacing Trident is because it is there. One is reminded of the World War One song "#We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here...#"

Saying that he had been a CND member in the past and "I don't apologise for that" (hardly a ringing endorsement!) he then expressed shock and irritation that Marr would suggest that Parliament should have a free vote. No vote on conscience over whether to develop the most massive of all weapons of mass destruction at a cost of tens of billions of pounds; "You couldn't expect a serious government, in charge of one of the world's global powers - Britain - making a recommendation to Parliament and just say 'you can do what you like, chaps' ."

Hain repeatedly mentioned that "this is a serious government", as though by reiterating the mantra he could give the government more credibility, but he was also clear that the Labour Party members would be whipped through the lobbies.

In fact, the Northern Ireland Secretary is wrong. There is absolutely no reason why Parliament could not vote on its conscience on this matter, except that the parties might reasonably argue that if retaining the deterrent were in the 2005 manifestos then everyone who stood on that manifesto has committed already to upholding it.

On the general principle that no serious government in charge of a global power would allow a free vote, one cannot help but note that the United States Senate and Congress are not bound to follow their Government's line. If the worlds' superpower can have a free vote on its tens of thousands of warheads, can the UK not have a free vote on replacing the system for delivering its 64?

Peter Hain swaps CND for MAD in act of opportunism

The Times reported yesterday that Peter Hain allowed his CND membership to lapse a couple of years ago, and now supports a Trident-replacement.

What tempted the former peacenik to support a continuing independent nuclear deterrent for the UK?

According to the Times, "Mr Hain... said that Labour had been punished heavily in the past when it had fought on a unilateralist manifesto."

So it's about keeping his seat and access to the Ministerial limo, then, rather than what he believes to be right for Britain and the world.

A lesson to everyone about the man who would be deputy-leader of the Labour Party.