Labour finds itself in opposition for the first time in 13 years. Many of its MPs – including five out of six of its declared leadership candidates – have experience of nothing but being the governing party. It is, then, a bit of a shock for them, understandably. They are still finding their feet. We can only hope that they will find their feet soon, and that those feet will be responsible, considered and fair. (Yes, I am aware that I’m taking this analogy slightly too far).
So far, though, they appear to be crass, hypocritical and shameless. This is bad for political discourse and opponents of this government (particularly now there is not a second opposition party). It’s undignified, and if this is the benchmark for their conduct over the next five years, they do not deserve to hold government after the next election. But it is also saddening.
Labour is a party, like the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, with a long and noble history. It has produced some of Britain’s greatest politicians – Attlee (a personal favourite of mine), Morrison, Bevan, Wilson, Callaghan, Castle, every single member of the Gang of Four, Blair, Robin Cook – and has enacted some great changes – the Minimum Wage, devolution, the NHS. It would be churlish not to recognise these significant achievements, whilst also considering carefully the significant differences I have with Labour policy. I respect the Labour Party and its leaders greatly. Yet Labour is in danger of tarnishing a good reputation with an unprincipled opposition.
Take the 55% rule. There are good arguments against this rule. They are founded on a democratic basis – though I disagree with many of these arguments. I believe that if you wish to have a fixed term Parliament – as I do – you need a higher threshold to dissolve Parliament. It is fair enough, though, to oppose fixed terms. But Labour doesn’t. Or, rather, they didn’t in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Nor did they oppose a higher threshold. Indeed, they had an even higher threshold than that proposed by the coalition government – 66%. Labour’s hypocrisy on this is risible. You cannot creditably claim something is an ‘affront to democracy’ when you have implemented something, but to a greater extent, when you were in government.
On the David Laws saga, too, Labour have shown themselves to be a party of shameless schadenfreude. Labour has an enviable record on gay rights. The Civil Partnerships Act, repeal of Section 28 and equalisation of the age of consent are all evidence of this. They, too, have many prominent gay politicians. Yet, when David Laws has used the defence of his privacy, and his desire to keep his sexuality a secret (something we must all respect and understand if we have an ounce of consideration in our body), we have had some Labour figures reacting by saying that this wasn’t a defence, and that Laws should have lost his job. Some, such as Ben Bradshaw (a politician who I used to have some respect for), castigated Laws for not ‘coming out’, an arrogant and disgraceful position to take.
The fact is, as Matthew Parris has pointed out, many other Cabinet ministers, Shadow ministers and Lib Dem Shadow ministers, in 2009, had egregious expenses claims without having to lose their job. Yet when David Laws resigned, Labour was universal – on Twitter, certainly – in its joy. Why? A man has been forced out because he sought to keep his private life secret. A man who was a vastly intelligent, careful, passionate politician, and who was an exact fit for the job of Treasury Chief Secretary. Regardless of whether you disagree with him – and as someone on the mainstream of the party, I am bound to disagree with David, at least sometimes. His departure was a sad event. It should not have been greeted with whoops and cheers.
This cannot, then, continue.
Labour, it seems to me, is living its own version of that famous Dean Acheson quote:
“Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role.”
It has lost government, but has not found a role. It needs to discover it quickly. It can do this. It has a very talented parliamentary party - much more so than the Tories did in 1997 (due to the sheer number of retirees at the election). It needs to do so for those opposed to the coalition government, and for those, as democrats, who seek an opposition to hold the government to account (as I do). Labour has a great history. They need, now, to rediscover it and not wallow about in petty point-scoring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a really, really stupid argument.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, we in Labour are going to oppose you in any possible way. This means pointing out any mistake and highlighting where you're going wrong. This is what we are in fact doing.
We pointed out the problem with Laws, and we pointed out the problem with the 55% idea. Yet, your reponse has been to furiously kneejerk and warble out barely comparable you-too-isms and emotional appeals.
There is nothing unprincipled about opposition. When something is being proposed that is idiotic, or someone is doing things worthy of condemnation, we will in fact oppose and condemn. That is what opposition is about, and the sooner you realise that it isn't all roses and sunshine and we aren't going to be your unofficial comrade in arms depsite some mewlings about how lovely Attlee was, the better.
OK, let's go through your argument.
ReplyDelete"This is a really, really stupid argument."
:/ Do you actually know how to argue without being rude?
"Like it or not, we in Labour are going to oppose you in any possible way. This means pointing out any mistake and highlighting where you're going wrong. This is what we are in fact doing."
Hmm, if you actually read the post properly, you'll note that I actually said I wanted an opposition. I don't expect Labour to not oppose - in fact, I want them to do the opposite. I want them to do so. But I take issue with the style of opposition.
"We pointed out the problem with Laws"
No, you didn't. What you actually did - and this is partly what inspired me to write this - is act gleefully when a man was forced out for trying to protect his private life.
"e pointed out the problem with the 55% idea"
This isn't you-tooism. It's pointing out that the crux of Labour's argument is hypocritical. You can't say we're withdrawing power and being undemocratic when you did a similar thing, except 'worse', when you were in government. Indeed, you promised fixed-term parliaments in your manifesto. It's good to oppose, but when there is agreement - as there is in this case - why make political hay? It's irresponsible.
"the sooner you realise that it isn't all roses and sunshine and we aren't going to be your unofficial comrade in arms depsite some mewlings about how lovely Attlee was, the better."
That's not what I was suggesting. I propose you read the article to actually understand what I was saying, rather than inventing it.
I read the damned post. What you said is you want a different style of opposition, and then you listed things you were angry that Labour had opposed.
ReplyDeleteLet's take the 55% rule: you are angry that Labour opposed it because it supported something similar in the Scottish and Welsh Parliament. It is not hypocritical in the slightest to make distinction between the national and the devolved Parliaments, any less than it is to distinguish between Westminster and local councils; the two fill fundamentally different roles and there are different requirements set upon it.
But even if it were hypocritical, even if Labour were being massive hypocrites on the issue, that doesn't actually matter because Labour arguing against it is fully within their role as opposition. The point of opposition - hell, the point of all politics - is to criticise and critique. Proposals should be considered on their merits, and arguments against should be put up where they exist. That is genuinely constructive opposition.
Not to mention, opposing the 55% scheme just because we proposed something somewhat similar isn't hypocrisy. We both want fixed-term Parliaments, sure (well, I don't, but the party leadership does), but we don't want the 55% rule at all.
Compare it to, say, tax. Both sides want taxation to be kept, but we want it at different rates, so should we just support any proposal from the other side which continues with it? Are we to drop all debate because on any issue there is similarity between the parties somewhere?
On Laws: you still don't grip the basic problem here with why people wanted Laws out for that particular issue. It's because he defrauded the public purse of a substantial amount of money, and his sexuality is not an excuse for doing so.
I'll admit to being gleeful that he's out of office, mind, but that's because I believe the man is a threat to Britain and the British people given his radical agenda of privatisation. But even then I'm far from my own party's line.
What you essentially want is for Labour to stop opposing the Liberal Democrats if, broadly speaking, there is agreement on an issue, or if they would do roughly the same in that situation. This hasn't happened on issues like your Parliamentary reforms, and shouldn't happen, because there needs to be oversight and there needs to be alternative proposal.
You are both being silly.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the Liberal Democrats do not have a "long and noble history." It has a history that could literally fit onto a sticky note with four words... "David Steel and Paddy Pantsdown."
Secondly, while I agree with the London based arse about the devolved assemblies being different I must say that opposition for the sake of opposition is stupid and redundant. There is a difference between positive debate from somebody with their Shadow Cabinet "hat" on and the shrill and petty arguments wheeled out by the backbench rotunda of Northern Wankers also known as the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Finally, for the first time in his entire life Ben Bradshaw was right about something.