The problem of rewriting the dictionary - Labour and antisemitism

As an outsider looking in, Labour's repeated problems with antisemitism seem almost surreal. How is it that the party has got itself into this mess? Why is it so reluctant to accept the standard definition of antisemitism? Why is there so much resistance to allowing Jews to determine when they've been discriminated against? Why is a Jewish MP being disciplined for calling out antisemitism in the party?

At first I couldn't understand it. But then the more I thought about it, the more an answer suggested itself. A lot in the Labour Party and on the left more broadly have got themselves into a complete mess because they've gone down a route of limiting the definition of terms such as "racism" and "sexism", to the point that they've predetermined who can and can't experience them, creating problems when this definition conflicts with reality.

I first noticed this many years ago in student politics (where I encountered a number of people who are now Labour MPs - or ex ones - across all sections of the party). It was particularly noticeable that a good number of people in and around the "Liberation Campaigns" (Women's, Black, LGBT, Disabled Students) of the National Union of Students had a pretty firm notion of sexism and/or racism that rejected the idea some people could experience them - "men don't suffer sexism" or "white people don't experience racism". (The use of the terms "homophobia" and "ableism" instead of "sexualityism" and "abilityism" somewhat diminished the issue there.) Instead everything was viewed through the prism of liberation theory, regarding these terms as meaning societal structural oppression and a clear hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed (with detailed tiers for those who experience multiple repression). Aligned to this is the view that only those experiencing repression could say that that is what it is.

But this approach has the effect of a siege mentality with some pretty rigid views on who is contained within the siege. And it also leads to confusion, argument and alienation as genuine concerns about discrimination in the reverse to standard form get brushed aside and potential allies alienated. It also isn't very good at coping with the idea a group of people can be both oppressors and oppressed depending on the context.

To cut to the chase, the Israel/Palestine situation is a complex matter of the kind that doesn't lend itself to easy solutions by shouting slogans. So naturally it attracts those for whom protesting and shouting is the solution to a problem. And whilst Jewish people may be the majority in Israel, they are a minority elsewhere, thus in both positions. Plus a lot of antisemitic rhetoric accuses Jews of having too much power - attacks on bankers, "Jewish world conspiracy" and so on.

Consequently a significant part of the left has wound up defining "racism", and thus "antisemitism" in such a way that just cannot understand a lot of the antisemitic rhetoric flying around. Its whole outlook does not allow Jews to define antisemitism, especially in regards to rhetoric around Israel, because that completely undermines a world view in which everyone is either an oppressor or an oppressed and they've already allocated the former category.

If the left is to overcome its problems here, it has to move beyond such rigid liberation theory and accept a more broader definition of discrimination, racism, sexism and so forth. Otherwise it will continue to cause pain and hurt whilst not actually solving things.

A vote for X, Y *or* Z is a vote for Z? or Why Corbynistas don't care about "electibility"

It's one of the oldest cries in electoral history. Politicians will declare that a vote for one of their rivals is a vote for another. But they don't always mean it the same way.

Consider a case from fifteen years ago in the US when Al Gore and his supporters declared "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!" Ralph Nader responded with "A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush!" Presumably George W. Bush declared "A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush!" just in case anyone misunderelucidated.

Gore was making the classic attack on smaller parties and independents, arguing they would split the vote and let the rival in. But Nader clearly wasn't - nobody seriously believed Nader could win. Instead Nader argued that Gore was so similar to Bush that the country would get much the same, whichever one was elected. Now hindsight may suggest something differently and at the time supporters of Gore (and for that matter Bush) could doubtlessly rattle off a huge list of differences between the two candidates & their manifestos but it had no effect. Because Nader's voters either doubted the sincerity of the differences or felt that on the fundamentals both candidates were as bad as each other. A Nader vote at least allowed them to side step actually having to chose between the two and being somehow responsible.

And this isn't confined to the US. Over here in the old days the Liberal Democrats often portrayed both major parties as much the same. However at the same time at the local level the party would position itself as the only credible opposition to one of the big two in the hope of getting tactical votes from supporters of the other. Come 2015 it found this contradiction tearing its vote to shred as Labour & other left-minded voters decided that "yellow Tory" was no different from "blue Tory" and they weren't going to compromise vote for one over the other.

This is part of the reason why the Jeremy Corbyn bandwagon has proven immune to every single appeal to consider what will make the Labour Party an election winner again. The hard left of the Labour Party was never enamoured with Blair and New Labour but largely kept their heads down at the time. But looking back many despise those years and feel all they got was a conservative government in a red rosette. They don't want to make those compromises again. If the country is to have a conservative government it won't be by their votes or through their party.

This attitude exists on the right as well - there's a lot of voters who do believe the "LibLabCon" [sic] is all the same and aren't going to rush to vote one over the other and instead stick with Ukip.

What's the solution? It's old fashioned positive differentiation to show how a party is offering something different and better.

Now does the Corbynistas' attitude seem so strange?

Some thoughts on the election

During this election I was mainly focused on the local West Ham constituency where I was the agent for Festus Akinbusoye, our brilliant local Conservative candidate, and also on the Stratford and New Town by-election, where Matthew Gass ran a strong campaign. Both recieved more votes than any previous candidate I have records for. And that includes me.

Of the national picture I had no clear idea with the polls seemingly all over the place or showing more margin of error than usual but an underlying tiny Conservative lead.

Come the count my priorities were local, especially in the first couple of hours. So when I saw the exit poll showing us as the largest party with an increase in seats I just dismissed it as wildly inaccurate and went off to watch the ballot box openings. As it turned out the poll was inaccurate - but in the other direction.

Politics students up and down the country can now write essays on the question "Who had a worse election result in 2010 - Ed Miliband or Peter Kellner?" The polling industry is clearly going to have to reassess its methodology - the UK is just one of a number of countries ranging from Canada to Israel where polls have spectacularly got it wrong in recent elections.

I will not deny it, getting an overall majority was an expected joy. Seeing particular politicians defeated also brings a cheer, especially Ed Balls. For any Conservative who had to endure Portillo's defeat this was balance.

And Nigel Farage and George Galloway have proved to be great national unifiers. People across the whole political spectrum united in delight at their defeats.

Amongst the smaller parties it was a shock to see the Ulster Unionists return to Westminster. It's even more amazing that the Revd. Willie McCrea lost his seat to a pro gay marriage candidate. Let's hope this is the start of something in Northern Ireland.

The SNP surge in Scotland is one of the biggest shocks and a reminder that there is no such thing as a safe seat when such huge majorities crumbled. It's odd to think that my grandparents' old home in Edinburgh is now in the only Labour seat in Scotland. But Scotland has spoken firmly and cannot be ignored.

And the Lib Dems have had a spectacular crash. There are many mistakes they made, and I may blog on them separately, but one thought spring to mind. It seems that the only people who thought the Lib Dems made a pro Liberal Democrat difference in government were either Lib Dem activists or frustrated Conservatives. Many have pointed to disillusion left-leaning Lib Dem voters deserting the party for Labour, the Greens or the SNP. But equally some right-leaning Lib Dem voters felt that the government was more to their liking than they expected and they didn't think the Lib Dems had much influence. So they concluded that it was down to David Cameron. So Nick Clegg has achieved the detoxification of the Conservative Party.

When David Cameron first became leader he set out to see off the Lib Dem threat. First he tried direct appeals, hoping for mass defections, but it didn't work. Then he tried dismissing and ridiculing them, but it didn't work. Finally he tried bearhugging them. And it crushed them.

We now have five years to complete the rebuilding of the economy and society. We must not shirk the task.

Is this poll serious?!

UK Polling Report: Conservatives break 50%? has the latest figures from MORI and they are incredible:

Conservatives 52% +4
Labour 24% N/C
Lib Dems 12% -5

Yes the Liberal Democrats are polling less than a quarter of the Conservative share. According to an internal party group document Liberal Vision - The Cameron Effect (pdf) the Lib Dems are facing a huge drubbing at the next election and this poll could take them to their worst result since 1970.

Meanwhile Labour is flatlining, down to just the rock solid core vote. This is an even worse level than they got in 1931 (see When Labour was even more flappable).

But is this poll realistic? I've long wondered if the polling companies have taken on board that it is no longer considered embarrassing to admit voting Conservative, and potentially embarrassing to admit to voting Labour. So the poll may be badly weighted. Whilst it's nice to imagine the effect of these results, the next election will only be won through hard work and convincing the public. I don't think it's settled yet.

And another one goes

Now David Cairns has quit. (BBC News: Minister quits in Brown protest) And Gordon Brown just claims it's not the time for an "internal debate". At a time when the world economy is in severe trouble the last thing this country needs is political instability caused by uncertainty over the future of the Prime Minister.

So what are the Labour leadership rules?

It's often the case that the leadership rules for a party go unnoticed until people start speculating about the weakness of the incumbent. And then they discover all manner of obscure clauses in the rules that can prove fatal. For example how many people knew that the "15% lead on the first ballot" requirement in the old Conservative rules referred to 15% of the total electorate rather than those voting (a modification made in 1975), which proved critical in 1990?

And now whilst Gordon Brown is running around sacking all and sundry for daring to suggest a leadership election might be the solution to his problems (BBC News: Whip sacked over leader bid call, Ex-minister seeks Labour contest and PM sacks critic Gardiner as envoy) it has come to light that the rules may not have been followed. A clause apparently requires nominations to be sought each year, but the nomination papers have not been sent out to all MPs automatically for years. This could lead to an interesting showdown at the next Labour National Executive Committee meeting.

But regardless of the outcome it seems too late for anyone to challenge Gordon Brown now. The only way he can resolve the ongoing leadership saga before it causes further damage to this country is to take matters into his own hands and initiate a leadership election himself.

But Gordon is not bold but Brown.

The leadership election is on!

My apologies for not blogging for a while but several other matters have consumed my time lately. But news caught my eye today of the imminent leadership election. After just a year in post, during which confidence in him has steadily eroded and many have looked to other leading figures who in the past declined to run for the leadership, he's finally taken the plunge to face his critics head on and called a leadership election to settle the matter.

So is Brendan Nelson going to keep his job? Will Peter Costello finally actually stand for the leadership after a record of not doing so that dwarfs David Miliband's? Or will it be Malcolm Turnbull?

What, you thought I was talking about another party's leadership problems? You seriously expected Gordon Brown to find his bottle? Or David Miliband to find a nomination form?!

For more details about the Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2008, see ABC News: Nelson calls leadership spill

So can a Labour mayor run for three terms?

Here's an interesting story: BBC News: Mayor expelled from Labour Party. Martin Winter, has been seeking a third term as Mayor of Doncaster "but Labour rules do not allow someone to run for a third time".

So why is he having to go outside the party to pursue this aim, yet Ken Livingstone was put to the people of London yet again? Does Labour believe in term limits or not? Or do the rules change depending on the personality?

What are Labour scared of?

"The Attorney General has obtained an injunction against the BBC to stop it broadcasting an item about the cash for honours investigation." (BBC News: Attorney General halts BBC probe)

Is this because of unfounded accusations or have the BBC discovered a smoking gun?

So there *is* an alternative to Gordon Brown

The forthcoming Labour leadership contest today got to the nearest thing to excitement it has yet come to (and that's really saying something) with the announcement that Michael Meacher is going to stand. (BBC News:
Meacher enters Labour leader race) Whilst umpteen leading Labour figures are fighting it out for one of the most pointless jobs in politics the Labour leadership election has so far been notable only for the sheer dearth of talent it has revealed and the despair of many in Labour at the prospect of Gordon Brown and his poor poll ratings. One would hope that a serious alternative candidate could bring some excitement to the contest but currently the election looks about as inspiring and effective as Ming Campbell.

Additional: I've been reminded that Meacher was so effective and respected as Environment Minister that he had to get Greenpeace or somesuch to pay for his attendance at an intergovernmental summit on climate change!

Where does New Labour find these ministers?!?!

From Iain Dale's Diary: Now it's Harriet Harman's Turn for a Gaffe. She's written to the leader of Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Cllr. Brian Silvester, asking him for his support in her quest to become Labour's Deputy Leader. But Silvester is a Conservative!

Just why does she think she is well qualified for this non-position?

I'd be prepared to pay more tax for this...

Whilst I think there is far, far too much waste in public spending and that the money can be better spent on more efficient and higher quality services, as shown by some councils (A Tale Of Two Councils - or Why I Wish I Had Hammersmith & Fulham Council), I also have limited faith in Labour to achieve this. So until the next election the choice is between higher taxes and serious lapses in what's needed. That's the honest truth - expecting Gordon Brown to discover efficiency after nearly ten years is like expecting Ruth Kelly to be a true believer in equality.

Nowhere is this deficit in provision clearer than in the current crisis of limited prison numbers. Even paedophiles are being kept out of jails because of it. (BBC News: Full jails change child porn term) This is simply unacceptable.

If in the short term I have to pay an extra penny or two in income tax or another 2 1/2 % VAT to finance new prison places (and specifically this - I don't want it flooding into the general pot to be wasted in traditional Gordon Brown style) then that's a price worth paying until we can get a government that will sort out the finances properly. Dogma about low taxation doesn't do diddly squat in a situation such as we have now.

But let's be honest - New Labour doesn't work that way. It sees any increase in tax as an opportunity for waste, for pointless jobs, for new administrators to set targets and massage the figures to meet them. Meanwhile it's the public who are at risk.

New twist in Loans for Lordships

An interesting article on BBC News (The Lords suitability question ) has highlighted the otherwise surprisingly overlooked point in the peerage scandal - three of the four Labour loaners nominated by Tony Blair were found to be unsuitable for peerages before the Commission found out about the loans. Meanwhile all six of the other Blair nominees were passed by the Commission.

The commission has two tests for political nominees: were they of good standing in the community, both in general terms and with regard to regulatory agencies; and would their presence in the Lords enhance or diminish the reputation of the Lords.

Is it any coincidence that every single one of the people nominated by Blair and found to be unsuitable was subsequently found to have made loans to the Labour Party? Just where was his character judgement?

And why has this point not received more media attention?

Is this the beginning of Blair's Charles Kennedy moment?

There have been seven resignations from the government over Tony Blair's refusal to set a date for when he is going. This follows the round robin letter of "normally loyal" MPs calling for him to end the uncertainty. Finally someone in the Labour Party has found the will to admit what everyone has known for ages.

At the start of the year Charles Kennedy faced umpteen internal demands for an end to the drift and his failure to deal the problem resulted in the escalation that eventually led to his public brutal overthrowal. Kennedy tried dismissing his critics as disloyal and pretending the problem was small - and his critics proved him wrong by getting louder and more and more public. Now Tony Blair seems to be going down a very similar route. How long will it be before the next resignation?

The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze

For those who haven't seen the announcements by Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes, the two have teamed up to produce The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze.This book covers over a hundred examples of New Labour sleaze from the last nine years and has been by fellow bloggers and blog readers everywhere.

In their own words from the press release:

Iain Dale:This is the first time a group of bloggers have come together to write a book. The power of blogging is that it is instantaneous – and that's more or less what this book will be. The blogging community has played a leading part in exposing the lies and hypocrisy of New Labour. By bringing together all their sleaze and scandal into one magnificent tome we aim to demonstrate why Tony Blair heads the sleaziest government in living memory.

Guido Fawkes: New Labour promised to be 'whiter than white', yet during the last 9 years they have averaged a sleazy escapade almost every month. The time is right to compile them all into one handy volume. Getting the blogosphere to come together to write the book will get it produced fast and furiously by diverse new writers.

The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze is published on 19 May, price £7.99 and can be ordered from Politicos Bookstore.

A worrying trend

BBC News has a piece on the electoral battle in Tower Hamlets. This local authority contains, amongst other things, both my university (Queen Mary, University of London) and George Galloway's constituency (and very occasionally George Galloway himself).

What worries me the most is this comment:

Labour is pinning its hopes on getting white voters to the polls, to compensate for loss of Muslim support to Respect.

Turning elections into crude sectarian headcounts does nothing to improve democracy. There are many problems in Tower Hamlets but they are not going to be solved by a party being seen to owe its electoral success to one ethnic group. All it does is perpetuate the idea that the body meant to help the population as a whole is only going to support that group. This approach merely breeds political extremism as a reaction.

As the article also says:

Millwall, a ward which briefly elected a BNP councillor, Derek Beacon in the 1990s.

That was the first ever BNP victory in the country.

And they're standing candidates in the borough...

How to get a peerage the Labour way - stand against them?

Scotland Yard is examining claims that Labour offered the late Independent MP Peter Law a peerage if he refused to stand at the last election. Both Law's widow Trish and John Marek, another former Labour Assembly Member who went independent, have stated that Law told them he had been offered a seat in the Lords if he chose not to stand in Blaenau Gwent. One wonders if there's any end to the peerage scandals.

As Iain Dale points out this could be a criminal offence:

Just a reminder that such an offer would be illegal under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, which says: "If any person accepts, obtains or agrees to accept or obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."

So maybe someone in Not So Very New Labour will end up with some convictions at last!

Forty Eight hours to save John Prescott's career?

Iain Dale has an interesting post suggesting that there's more to come on John Prescott and that he will be out of office by the end of the weekend. One has to wonder if there'll be anyone left for Blair to make the scapegoat for Labour's results on Thursday.

Also an anonymous poster has left the following interesting comment:

A rule change to the Labour Party Constitution in 94 also rendered the Deputy Leader redundant if something happened to the PM. The rule change that year stipulated that should the leader become unavailable while the party is in office, (I paraphrase), 'the Cabinet, meeting in consultation with the NEC, shall elect one of its number'. So Brown or Straw.

As for who stands in for Blair at PMQs while he's abroad, there's nothing to stop a reversion to the old system, where the Leader of the House stands in.

I can only recall one appearance of Geoff Hoon at PMQs before and he got into a mess so I can't see anyone rushing to make him the regular substitute for Tony Blair!

So John Prescott is not at all "a heartbeat from the premiership". This can only relieve the country!

What has Labour got to say for itself?

Tonight Labour is running its next Party Political Broadcast. After a dreadful week with Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons, after crisis upon crisis, just what is Labour putting forward as its best reason for voting Labour in the local elections?

Dave the Chameleon. Again.

(You can download this rubbish for yourselves, but be warned that's a Quicktime file you'll be clicking on.)

And nearly all the broadcast seems to be reusing shots from last week. Hasn't Labour realised the adverts are not succeeding - if anything this negative campaigning is making the public like Cameron even more!

Iain Dale has an interesting suggestion:

I would have thought a 3 minute piece to camera by the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister apologising might have been more politically beneficial.

So why not try that instead? After all in the television studio there won't be audiences to heckle them.

Constituencies do not belong to parties, they belong to the voters

My flatmate is that exceptionally rare creature - a Conservative who comes from Blaenau Gwent. This was the constituency where in the last general election the party received its second lowest share of the vote in the entire country. Because of him I've been paying particular attention to events there following the death of Peter Law.

Law broke with the Labour Party in protest over the imposition of an all-women shortlist for selecting the parliamentary candidate upon the local Constituency Labour Party - a selection process in which approximately only 14% of the local party membership participated. Running as an independent Law's thumping victory was one of the high points of the night and a stark reminder to all political parties that there is no such thing as a "safe seat" and that no-one can take the voters for granted.

Shortly before Law's death it seemed he had been vindicated when it was announced that Labour would not impose such a shortlist on the selection of its candidate for the next general election. However it seems they are still trying to take the people of Blaenau Gwent for granted. As Peter Black AM notes, Labour has been trying to push for an early by-election. As Law was an independent MP there is no holding party in Parliament who would otherwise determine when the writ for the by-election would be moved. And so Labour try to force a fast poll to maximise their chances of regaining both seats - and winning Law's seat in the Welsh Assembly would give them an overall majority.

However they appear to have been thwarted. The by-election for the Welsh Assembly seat can only by called from the National Assembly and Presiding Officer Dafydd Elis-Thomas has refused to consider dates until after Law's funeral. Unless Labour were to try and hold the two by-elections apart (and the Welsh Assembly seat is the bigger target) this should stop them.

No party owns Blaenau Gwent. I hope that come the by-elections the voters will remember that Labour still hasn't learnt the lesson they were taught last May.