Brian: I agree that Newlabour has never looked shabbier. I must say that the dishonest, corny, and embarrassing statements from the leading candidates are so self-serving and cringing, that I cant watch any more. I can recall that some people here were celebrating the advent of a deep and open debate. Instead, we have seen triviality and deception. A very ugly time; and it portends some really awful years ahead for the party.

Adam Ingram's admission yesterday that he new about torture, but misled the commons is another absolute scandal from the last government. Which again takes any credibility away from a candidate like David Miliband for the leadership election.
In opposition they are almost as bad, with "i agree" being the new soundbite, almost in terror of being found out that NewLabour are more right wing than the coalition. All the usual suspect are turning up on TV and in the media spouting centre right drivel. While John McDonnell and Diane Abbott struggle for nominations, what a scandal. I have never seen Labour in such a mess, even Compass is fighting a campaign for across the spectrum leadership
election. As the current process is so baised toward the right wing. Now more than ever we need a real social democratic opposition to counter what is coming. Check out how many ex bankers are in the government and on the benches. Also the lobbying that is going on from bankers and big business to protect their beloved profits. I think you can start laying bets to when Vince Cable resigns, when that comes we need to have an opposition. Not another bunch of neoliberal sycophants.

Mark: You mean Replicant Gove's completion of Tony Blair's agenda ?

Time for the labour leadership contenders to speak out about Michael gove's education plans

The Last Hope for Labour. More candidates should stand. The leadership election if not managed correctly will turn into a farce. It is so unfair that the election is orchestrated in such a manner that the outcome, that is, the rules have been rigged to ensure the outcome is satisfactory to the political elite taking part. There are more able candidates in the party that have not volunteered their services. The influence on Ralph Miliband has ensured a career in the Labour Party for his two sons

Dugsie, I am just as fearful of your legendary left-hand uppercut !

You won't have had any way of knowing this until now, but Harry and I share the same alma mater as Jon Prescott. An insult to one is an insult to all.

Just because he talks a bit posh, people think that they can mock him. Just remember his fearsome right hook.

Lewis: I must say, I rather like the image of Prescott as the Rough Beast. Perhaps he will take the role in Disney's version of the Second Coming; music by Eddie Bollox; make-up by Davidmil; narrative script by Lordrutherford of Dreamville; guest appearance by a Fockin' Scot; brochure contributed by Compass; complaints by Dugsienorthyorks.

"They had to get a Scot to replace him."
Lewis i would watch out for that one, look what the last bunch did. As for the new Lord Prescott being persuaded by his wife, Lady Macbeth springs to mind here. Can "when dunsinane comes to cawder" be translated to "when the mob comes to the bastille" or "when integrity comes to westminster".

I heard today on BBC something shocking I didnt know..that UK trade union membership in the private sector has dropped to just 15%. So I did some research, which is my wont. Look at this:

Collective Bargaining Coverage: EU Countries (% of workers employed)

Austria 98%
France 98%
Slovenia 96%
Belgium 96%
Finland 90%
Portugal 90%
Sweden 90%
Denmark 80%
Netherlands 79%
Spain 70%
Norway 70%
Greece 65%
Germany 61%
Luxemburg 60%
Czech 44%
Hungary 25%
Italy 35%
UK 34%

Source: ETUI

That goes a long way to explaining the victory of the most extreme form of neo-liberalism in Thatcher/Blair/Brown Britain

Lee, it is allowed. It would be very un-Milibandian if it were not. The development of his thinking between The State in Capitalist Society and Socialism for a Sceptical Age makes ploughing through them very interesting.

In these neo-liberal times I will defend anybody on the Left, if they are under attack from the Right. - Not always a particularly intelligent and fruitful course, to be sure. But I very much regret that Miliband did not live long enough to write a critique of Labour under ‘new labour’ tutelage. He was much more a reformist socialist than his theories and analysis would suggest, in my view. That is hardly a hanging offence, and it is hardly his, or much of the New Left’s, fault.

As far as a discussion of ‘values’ goes, this is little more than a neo-liberal device, - a smoke screen to confuse those who are committed to the Labour Party. Behind it the various strands of ideology opposed to any material moves to socialism and democracy, entrench themselves in the LP.

Dugsie says that values are fine but that it is policies, which matter. Yes, but.. If values as a concept is more than just a branch of neo-liberal marketing, then they, (values) need to be rooted in a worldview, a class based view of material progressive. From this come specifically working class values, (and all values, working class and not are class specific,) forming the basis of working class policies. It is pretty clear that whatever criticisms can be made of Ralph Miliband, his ideology, his values and then the critique and policies he advanced, were socialist.

How different from the political home life of our own dear Milibands.

Lewis: "They had to get a Scot to replace him. "

*************************************************************
Aye, they were that fockin' desparate, ye ken !

Brian,we're back to Plato's Republic where only those who shun the trappings of high office are worthy enough to be considered for it (Book1\37).

Which then answers the Lee quote "who is shambling to Bethlehem to be born?".Obviously Lord Prescott struggling into his ermine robes before heaving his way to transmogrification in the House of Peers.

Couldn't Chris Laws be considered?Paul tells us that he is an urbane and intelligent man.His ex-employers speak most highly of his professionalism and expertise.They had to get a Scot to replace him.

Dugsie: Authentic feelings and values are important. Statements of feelings and values as a PR gimmick, are just that. Funny thing I have found is that people withe authentic feelings and values dont tend to talk about them. They simply act on them and the feelings and values are contained and explicit (or at least implicit) in the actions. Newlabour know that they have to talk about feelings and values, and then engage a PR specialist to do it for them.

Feelings and values are important. Translate them into policies and we would be getting somewhere.

I lie...I just read Balls. Dont ask ! Its words, like all the others, and the key message seems to be that the Public Relations campaign didnt work...people like to think you are concerned about them...its OK if you screw them as long as you smile and nod while you are doing it. Blaaaahhh ! Where is Angela with her funeral pyre ? This is pretty bleak stuff.

OK Frances, I read Ed, but I wont read Balls. That would be too much.

Ed is pretty vapid and clearly not a giant intellect. See:

"On the banks, we needed a more progressive, imaginative response to rethinking the future of our economy."

He basically says nothing, and that kind of nothing that would make him a good Tory. I see no distinction between what he is saying here and whsat Cameron has been saying for the last few years. HOWEVER, despite the mediocrity, there arent the obvious kind of alarm bells and dishonesty one gets from David Miliband. He comes across as a decent, intellectually limited guy, without much imagination, and a style and way of sying so little that is consummately Tory. Nothing to get excited about here. Are we surprised ??

Ed Miliband is saying that our values must shine through. I repeat that it is the role of the younger brother to rise by popular acclaim and depose his elder brother. He knows his brother's weaknesses better than us - probably exactly as identified by Lee. So he is bringing us feelings and values to triumph over Don't Call Me Dave.

Is he our man?

It's Buggins turn. The only issue is, who is Buggins going to be this time ? They don't want us to consider a social democratic alternative to New Labour. So, when push come to shove, they will ensure that one isn't available.

Burnham is horrifically self-revealing too:

Can you imagine a candidate opening his hustings comments with a Schwartzenegger swagger about how brave he is to take on this terribly tough task, and to spend the first 11 lines on this theme ??? That's just what the public and the party is most interested in, Andy !! Will you be wearing your leopard skin thong for the occasion ?

"The decision to run for the Labour leadership is not an easy one. As the Guardian revealed on Saturday, even the most self-assured candidate has doubts. But that is as it should be. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly: this is the most important job in politics and not one for dabblers. I've had to make plenty of tough decisions in my political life. As chief secretary, the number two at the Treasury, I delivered a challenging Comprehensive Spending Review. As secretary of state at DCMS, I dealt with internet security, and at Health I was responsible for the reform and future direction of a national treasure, the NHS. The decision to enter the race for leader, though, was my toughest."


"At times like these, in the face of election defeat, it is easy to turn in on ourselves, to indulge in hand-wringing. While we need to learn from our mistakes, an even bigger one would be to let introspection take the place of fighting for our future."

Is it that easy ? Is Andy hiding something ? Why is he telling us about hand-wringing ? "An even bigger" what ? So introspection and fighting for the future are categorically incompatible ? Doesnt learning from our mistakes involve introspection, or is it just a cliche that we trot out from time to time without meaning it ?

"These were people who had voted Labour all their lives, yet felt disenfranchised by a party which seemed to have stopped listening.
But listening is only part of the equation. What people want to see is how we respond to what we hear, how we act upon it." (So is he going to listen or not ? O damn, run over by the next cliche !!)

"By ignoring the issues which cause us political discomfort, we simply confirm to our erstwhile supporters that we hear only what we want to." (Andy confesses how Newlabour works...if there is an issue which causes him political discomfort, he ignores it; otherwise why would he be telling us this ? So we have to pretend not to ignore it, because people can spot you ignoring things !)

"That doesn't mean we should act on what we've heard in a knee-jerk, reactionary way" (Who suggested you should ?? You are telling us that we shouldnt be reactionary ? Thanks, I would never have realised that, but obviously for Andy, its quite a struggle and he has to keep reminding himself)

"I believe that now is the time for us to move forward on the national minimum wage and to develop it into a real living wage. This cannot be done overnight: it will take time, especially in difficult economic circumstances. But I am committed to delivering a living wage that benefits those on the lowest incomes and brings additional benefit to our economy." (Classic Sir Humphrey promise that has no commitment despite the word "committed". We just have to trust "no knee-jerk Andy" !!)

"There are some things which are uncomfortable to hear ..... For too many of our local communities antisocial behaviour continues to be a nightmare." (Uncomfortable for whom to hear ? Obviously for Andy, because the bloody voters arent 'hearing', they are telling you, you twit ! And we know what Andy does when he hears something uncomfortable..he ignores it)

Ooo, I cant take any more of this; I must stop...it's so fucking depressing and mediocre. A candidate for a prefect election in high school can do a better job! Will someone else take over ?

Frances: I will have a go. My thesis is that David Miliband, like Blair, is a Hollow Man. This means he has no authentic feelings, values, passions, or morals. HE has to CONSTRUCT his public persona because it does not flow from within. He constructs it based on putting together phrases that he imagines will be impressive. You can spot the synthetic nature of how he constructs his statements because they are clumsy, non-consequential, contradictory, platitudinous. Here are some examples from his Guardian Hustings:

"This is a comfortable analysis, but wrong. While the points are true, there is something more fundamental." (writing without thinking or feeling...doesnt even bother to go back and rewrite)

"the underdog and the squeezed who will always need our support" (the underdog and 'squeezed' will be there forever under me, guaranteed)

"Reform of the way government works and the way politics is done to counter the deadly accusation that we stood for centralised government." (not because reform will produce better results but to counter DEADLY (!!!..what the hell is that supposed to mean here ?) accusations that he stood for centralised gvt.

"The tragedy of the 2010 election is that for too many people we ceded the mantle of both progress and reform" (He ceded the mantle of reform for many people but not everyone ? How does one arrange to do that ?)

"We were trapped by Labour's demons of the 1980s when politics has moved on." (Hilarious...what are 'Labour's demons of the 1980s', and how does he imagine whoever reads this will know what he is talking about ??)

"We should dream of a different not just a better society" (Wouldnt a 'better society' automatically be a 'different society' ?)

"But our purpose is not just to have dreams; but to make them a reality." (He feels it necessary to point out that dreams arent enough, as if this is necessary. Obviously the idea just occurred to him, and he is pretty excited about it)

"The new leader needs to .... be a credible prime minister" (O yeah !!)

This doesnt only show David Miliband's emptiness and lack of authenticity. It also shows that, like Blair, he is hugely over-rated in the intellectual department. He is, in reality, shallow and bereft of complex ideas, and clearly isnt bright enough to realise that his statement is rubbish.

Frances, ditto "i feel the hand of history on my shoulders" and the classic "we will eradicate poverty and depravation in africa"
Only a psychiatrist could give you the real answer, and i'm sure that Blair has already seen one, and is on the appropriate medication. As should at least two of the candidates that are standing for the Labour leadership contest.

Joe Harley, who is responsible for the computer systems at the Department of Work and Pensions, earns up to £249,999.


'I met some guy
Look, I think that any world you're in'

This is Blair speaking isn't it? No one talks like that in real life.

Today's Guardian has a full hustings with statements from all six candidates.

Does any one have the skills to analyse and compare.

Lewis, indeed that is true. In fact the advent of the next Newlabour spiv-in-chief prompts the need to expand the metaphor. Why not a three edged sword ?

Having expresssed my reservations about Ralph Miliband, I remind myself how far to the right we have moved, and how vapid and intellectually light-weight our new sound-bite politics has become. Here is Ralph, and his idiot, nerdy son David:

David: "I met some guy in Soho yesterday, when we were launching the Labour lesbian and gay manifesto. And I said to him, 'Look, you've punished us enough about Iraq, all right? So don't start punishing yourself. "Some people feel very, very strongly about it, and I respect that. There are people who resigned from the government because of Iraq. But what on earth is the point of punishing yourself or punishing the country for Iraq given that the alternative government, the Tories, also voted for it?"

"Look I think that any world you're in – whether it be politics, or business, or health, or … you've always got to work to … to … to … stay engaged with people outside your world. I think what's important is that this is where fashions come and go but substance endures and authenticity endures. You see the trouble for Clegg and Cameron is that they're trying to be someone and Gordon is actually trying to do something. And I think that that's important in politics. You know, all of us in the cabinet, we're trying to do something."


Ralph: "Since the late seventies, and particularly since the arrival in office of the Thatcher government in May 1979, a vast amount of writing has been produced on the left to account for the troubles which have beset the Labour Party and the labour movement as a whole. [*] The search for explanations—and for remedies—has become more intense than ever since the second Conservative victory at the polls in June 1983, not surprisingly as it was an exceptionally reactionary government which was then resoundingly confirmed in office—despite mass unemployment, the erosion of welfare and collective services, and a manifest incapacity to arrest let alone reverse Britain’s economic decline. Clearly, these are very hard times for the whole left, and it is very natural—and very desirable—that such times should produce intense thinking and re-thinking about what is wrong, and what can be done about it. However, I will argue here that the tendencies which have been very strongly predominant in the writings of the left in the last few years do not offer socialist solutions to the problems now confronting it: they constitute a ‘new revisionism’, to borrow John Westergaard’s phrase; [1] and this new revisionism marks a very pronounced retreat from some fundamental socialist positions. Far from offering a way out of the crisis, it is another manifestation of that crisis, and contributes in no small way to the malaise, confusion, loss of confidence and even despair which have so damagingly affected the Left in recent years."

"What the present Labour leaders are basically about is not at all
complicated, or mysterious, or very new: they are about the more
efficient and, in a limited sense, the more humane functioning of
British capitalism. What distinguishes them from their Tory and
Liberal political colleagues and competitors is not their will to create a socialist society on the basis of the social ownership and control of economic power-they have no such will-but a greater propensity to invoke state intervention in economic and social life than these competitors are willing to accept."

"Tamely following every American statement", and act, and policy, is precisely what the Labour Government has done throughout its period of office. The notion of a "special" British relation to the United States has sometimes been discounted in the recent past. It should not be, for it has been reinvigorated by the Labour Government, in a special sense: no government, apart from satellite and client states proper, has been quite such an eager and faithful supporter of American purposes and enterprises.
Vietnam is of course the most obvious as well as the most ignoble
instance of the spirit which has moved Mr. Wilson and his colleagues. In the face of one of the clearest and most authentic cases in this century of a popular struggle for national and social liberation, the Labour leaders have not hesitated to support America's attempts to drown that struggle in blood, or to endorse the most spurious American claims as to the nature of the conflict."

"Paul's dissection of Laws"-
A two edged sword though,Lee.
The Labour leadership candidates will presumably undergo a further media baptism of fire as well,personal,financial and general.
Funny how it works out though.
Asdown's indiscretions revealed by the most peculiar burglary by the most peculiar burglar in all the Driberg Thorpe etc. nexuses.
But Major's torrid affair with Currie a total mystery until years after his premiership concluded.
You'd almost think that the Belgian Secret Service had their own particular political favourites and villains and that they used media contacts to promote and denigrate.
That can't be Wright can it?It's just a Michael Dobbs cast off plot.

'Harry: I think I am about to commit a heresy. I was not that impressed by Ralph Miliband. Is that allowed ? Paul will let me know.'

He was no incorrigible Fabian. Nocos said so.

Just a reminder that there is no necessary connection between what David Miliband says and what he is going to do. As he is a person of miniscule scruple, he will say whatever he feels the occasion warrants and requires. If he wins the leadership, he will do exactly what Blair did...consolidate a group of sycophants around him, demand loyalty to his bizarre "Next Labour" agenda, which will be incomprehensible, but draw sighs of admiration from the "campari progressives", and treat the left as if it is entirely non-existent. How much longer the unions can tolerate these mincing effete spivs, is the question. How they have tolerated them so long is a mystery to me. "There's no once else" doesnt really explain it..they could, after all, save the money or spend it on better causes.

Harry: I think I am about to commit a heresy. I was not that impressed by Ralph Miliband. Is that allowed ? Paul will let me know.

Lee : We will also be looking at a third Miliband - their late father. Ralph Milband the Marxist intellectual. Something of a contrast.

Paul - I didn't mean to suggest for one minute that they were going to give up the command and control. People don't in general voluntarily give up power.

But if Mandelson and Campbell go - who is going to mastermind it. All the old enforcers are gone and it could develop cracks.

The point I was making was that sometimes when I am telling people about the command and control legitimised by fear of the left I feel paranoid. I was delighted that one of them finally came out and admitted to crimes against the party in public.

Frances, I saw the Miliband interview to which you refer. - It was David. All I can say is, beware of what ‘progressives,’ will admit to and why they might do so. Beware of Geeks Bearing Gifts, in this case, as it were.

As the Right from Compass to the Commons frequently do, Miliband was speaking that part of the ‘new labour’ narrative which suited his purpose of the moment; and if you recollect, it helped Miliband D to present himself as authoritative and as Prime Minister material in waiting. Recall how his tone, timbre and body language were different from his usual combination of Blair-lite glockel- stopping condescension, (as if he were a Blue Peter presenter say the unkind,) tinctured with his own particular brand of amiable camp. He had very definitely planned and practiced what was a very solid performance.

He very deliberately chose the ‘opposition to the Left’ part of the neo-liberal narrative and how necessary were the ‘Command and Control’ tactics of ‘new labour.’ He was hardly going to offer a disquisition on the strategic aims of the narrative like for example, privatisation, war, workfare, boom and bust and the carrying forward the Thatcherite inheritance from the Tories; - an inheritance upon which his career and that of every other so-called ‘progressive,’ is built.

His references to the Left and supposed entryism, were delving into now rather dog-eared ‘new labour’ half truths still useful to grasping Rightists forever on the make.

He spoke of ending the Command and Control culture of the Labour Party. But Miliband is not naïve. - Nor are other members of the Labour Party. Deconstructed his comments probably mean that he thinks the Left is totally isolated and that the structure of competitive elites germane to the economy and civil society, can be safely embedded in the Labour Party. - Not least because that embeddedness is illustrated anyway by the candidacy of himself, his brother, Burnham, Balls, Abbott, - and if he had not de-facto withdrawn from the contest, Jon Cruddas.

If the Compass clarion call for an ‘open pluralist society’ has any meaning of substance it is in essence for secure and largely unchallenged elites to operate in competition with each other in the Labour Party and in civil society.

Harry: In Dronfield we are having a meeting entitled "Who Are The Milibands?".
****************************************************************
They are the heirs and successors to Tony Blair, dedicated to keeping alive his legacy, and therefore continuing the Thatcher Programme. If its too embarrassing, they will deny that, or even deny that Blair exists at all. It will be all "we should not be looking back; we need to move on, going forward", or some idiotic cliche like that. Ed is marginally better than David who is an unapologetic appeaser of Amnerican torture; but neither has any idea of where to move forward...it's all posturing. They are incapable of offering anything but platitudes, and are really hopelessly weak, intellectually light-weight candidates. They are also so firmly up America's ass that it will just be more of the same if either wins.

Dugsie and Brian : Ralph Miliband spent the second half of his life looking for and trying to faciliate the growth of elsewhere, but without any success. If he had experienced New Labour he would have said "I told you so" and have plodded on. Just as some of us plod on with one foot in and the other foot out. In Dronfield we are having a meeting entitled "Who Are The Milibands?". See the blog "Dronfield Blather" for details.

I'm sure that you are correct Brian, but where is this 'elsewhere' ? I took some time off from the Labour Party a few years back, about forty years after my first sabbatical, to look for 'elsewhere'. I looked long and hard, but couldn't find it.

httpcolon//www2dotlabourdotorgdotuk/

I've never heard of any of them. I have to go by Blunkett and Blears and Flint. I'm delighted with David Lammy. Chukka is making a mark fro Compass.

I suppose if Andy B's votes go to David and Ed Balls' mainly to Ed M then it's down to the 102 still waiting to see which is the winning band wagon so they can jump on and get a job.

This is panning out even more pathetic than last time.

I hope Paul agrees with this. We have to be very careful not to exaggerate the political sensibilities of the Newlabour Blairites. They are not a passionate, deeply committed, ideologically mature group who are in opposition to the left from deeply held values and ideas. The reality is, like Blair, they are almost bereft of political sensibilities; they have no strong ideology, values, or moral principles. They are typical representatives of their class, somewhat ranconteur, self-loving, self promoting, and intellectually light. Their main drive is to be in power and enjoy the perks, psychological lift that provides, and safeguard the privileges enjoyed by their class. They are interested in winning, and have little idea what to do with that victory other than playing it safe enough to keep getting votes and protecting what is valuable to their class. In this sense, they are much like most of the Tories (someone like David Davis, whom I admire and disagree with strongly, is a rare, passionate and deeply committed politician. There is no such a person on the Newlabour Front Bench). The Newlabour cabal does know how to wield power..its had thirteen years to do so. Lies, deceptions, withholding of the truth, and supressing information are their main tools (just like the Tories); when it comes to the Left, they dont really attack, they just ignore and the Left has no idea how to respond to this technique. Mandelson is a very adept machiavellian, who knows exactly how and when to ignore, supress facts, and manipulate events. All of these techniques have been learnt from the Tories over time. Blair himself was a natural Tory but so bereft of substance and so embarrassing, that he could find no entre into the Tory Party and set up his own Thatcherite project inside Labour. We let him do that. More fools us !

Dugsie, if either David Miliband or Andy Burnham win the leadership election i think for the left it will really be decision time. NewLabour are rallying around David Miliband, list the MPs who are spouting support for him. And they are all the centre right Tory clones that embraced neoliberal dogma, pro war rhetoric and low wage economics. Diane Abbott and John McDonnell are struggling for the 33 MP support. Hopefully one of them can get there just to at least have a debate that can put the left's opinion across. Ed Miliband or Ed Balls might be unifying candidates, but need to embrace social democracy biblical style. The only contingency plan i can see if a right wing candidate wins. Is the left giving up on NewLabour and permanently going elswhere, i know i will.

It may be too early to consider what can be done if ( when ?)one of the New Labour candidates wins the leadership election. However, given its strong probability. we ought now to have this contingency in mind. By we, I mean authentic social democrats. The government is clearly dominated by 'free market' obsessives from the right of centre neo-Thatcherites to the Orange Book Lib Dems. We must hope that the more Social Liberal Simon Hughes wins their deputy leadership election.

Clearly the New Labour bureaucracy controls the leadership election, through its control of the PLP. Given the politics of the governing coalition, it is likely that the new leader will position the Labour Party slightly to their left, in propaganda terms. We surely need to be concerned with matters around substantive policy issues and not be misled by cosmetics.

'There is not of course an instrumental relationship between the emergence of an elite based restructuring of the party on the one hand; and the emergence of a very particular kind of economic and social structure, corporatist and definitely elite based, on the other. But the two phenomena are definitely linked.'

Don't know about instrmumental. If you define yourself against another set of thinking then both the thinking and the people who think it become the enemy. It's kind of instrumental.

One of the Milibands spelled it out recently. NewLabour got in to power in opposition to the left - Militant - entryist - whatever - and used command and control to negate all power vested in members. Command and control were his words. He said they saw the members and unions as the enemy. Generously he said the command and control could be lifted a bit now the party is full of neutred sheep (not his exact words). The idea is still around - Stan uses it and Mary on arrival assumed it - that any one challenging NewLabour is a mad leftie and dangerous. Let's hang on to nurse. The party is now sterile.

NewLabour may have started by defining itself in opposition to extreme left influence but this suspicion developed in to suspicion of mildly leftish influence as NewLabour developed its identity. In the end it became control and neutralisation of anything that was off message and not NewLabour. Much like any dictator who after a bit is just defending his own regime from allcomers.

That's why I say decapitation is the only way - not the sons of NewLabour carrying on the dynasty.

Unfortunately they seem to have control of the transitional arrangements - the potential candidates who can stand - and who can vote.

The only thing I would add to Paul's dissection of David Laws is the fact that his behaviour was not unique but typical of the horde of MPs who fiddled their expenses. They all knew they were cheating, and they hoped it would escape detection. That is the description of a spiv. "I did nothing wrong" is exactly the defense of a spiv. It means, "I read the rules, and I found enough loopholes and ambiguities to decide I could fiddle with the strong expectation of not getting caught, and a damn good excuse ('the rules are wrong') if I were." Its the equivalent to "there's a misprint here in the local ordinance that as a result allows me to steal your car." The fact that Laws is homosexual is irrelevant except to the extent that it plays into the hands of homophobes.

Lewis, I quite seriously entertain the hope that Mary and yourself will get together and occasionally provide random political jottings on how you see Spain developing.

So far as David Laws is concerned, I have little sympathy for him. Instead of protecting his privacy and his sexuality, he shows every sign of having wanted to use these desires for privacy to cover up the fact that he claimed £40,000 from the pubic purse, to which he must have known for at least a year, he was not entitled. He is an intelligent and urbane man. He could quietly have retuned the money any time last year and by now the political and media elites would have forgiven him and forgotten about the matter.

The then current ‘Green Book,’ warned MPs against financial claims and conduct, which were suspect, or looked suspect. His were both. But what is particularly galling is that Laws is a very rich man. He could easily have met what was a very much discretionary expenditure from his own ample resources. – Thus avoiding the public attention and curiosity he wanted to avoid. Every MP and Minister should on principle take their full salary however wealthy they may be. But to fiddle expenses he did not actually need to claim is crass in the extreme.

Personally, I’m pissed off that he should have played the pink card in such circumstances. I note that Stonewall took a similar view this morning.

Mark, uncharacteristically bracing as Frances’ tart observation is, I’m inclined to agree with it. The Labour Party has not been, as you would wish it to be, for years. There is not of course an instrumental relationship between the emergence of an elite based restructuring of the party on the one hand; and the emergence of a very particular kind of economic and social structure, corporatist and definitely elite based, on the other. But the two phenomena are definitely linked.

The Labour ‘machine’ is ideologically and politically structured to minimise the role of its membership as a whole and certainly of rank and file trade unionists who pay the political levy. Its decision making processes are in effect outsourced away from the membership and Conference, placing greater influence in the hands of networks of what I refer to as the emancipated petty bourgeois, like Compass and others. - By emancipated I mean, in their terms free of much, if any, influence of the millions of workers who pay the levy and whose party Labour is.

The culturally and politically vital tradition by which the LP nurtured and brought forward genuinely social democratic intellectuals of the Right and Left, from the trade union movement, the co-operative movement, and socialist societies, (including the Fabian Society in its political prime,) is in danger of passing from working class memory.

In class terms, in political terms it is a grotesque absurdity that such policy discourse as is most influential within and upon the Labour Party and labour movement comes from conferences organised by ‘new labour’ organisations like Compass, Demos, Progress, etc. Grotesque as it is, this reflects both changes in the economy and in the willingness of enough workers particularly in the intellectual and cultural industries and increasingly in the franchised and privatised public sectors, to identify roles and privileges for themselves that are dependant upon an intensification of the process comodification of as many aspects of civil society as possible.

Those workers in the cultural intellectual industries who have reservations about this process and who wish to moderate it rhetorically and actually, have much more in common with their peers who wish to push it forward, than they do with the stratified mass of other workers whose political and economic power is most adversely effected by these economic changes.

'Can we agree that the Labour party members are the masters and the leadership contenders are the servants'

You're having a laugh right?

Lewis and Paul. You both provide worthwhile comments. Can we agree that the Labour party members are the masters and the leadersship contenders are the servants. There are three nominated candidates for the leadership and if it goes to form everybody is a winner. Al three contenders are friends and close associates. The Labour Party and the general population are yet again having the wool pulled over their eyes. It cannot go on like this. The collective Labour machine should be calling the shots not a small number of political elites.

Paul,"is Laws on the skids?",yes,with Mary's stilleto behind him apparently!In "Crime and Punishment" the free thinker tells us that science has proved that compassion is passe and this principle is now incorporated in the English political economy.But am I alone in finding her strictures a little over the top?I could quite understand that David Laws probably had issues with a life choice and the still very unreconstructed circles he was moving in.He obviously made stupid decisions.God knows I detest Orange Book Liberalism,but it's not that personal.As Hughes and Thatchell have resolved their long ago differences why would Mary resurrect them?It's very easy to be courageous on behalf of other people.As a devout physical coward I could urge her to conduct a crusade against the "Irish Mafia" whose breath taking impact on the Marbella and Spanish economy is now emerging.But I value her insights too much to pit her against people who enjoy inflicting injury.

Lewis: I continue to be bemused at the idea that somehow if the coalition were to fail and Newlabour retake power, it would signal something fundamentally different. It wouldnt. Both parties are for implementing the right-wing Blair/Thatcher agenda of enriching the corporate and financial sector elite. As in America, the two main parties are simply two competing committees within the same political club. Ecah has a few things at which they are a little more progressive than the other; but fundamentally they believe in the same political, social, and economic system. The idea that because a political party is willing to run some social programmes and pay some concern to the marginal, it is somehow social democratic, is absurd. Even Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan ran social programmes, and the ones run by Silvio Berlusconi (especially the national health system) are actually somewhat more progressive than those that operate now in the UK. Britain today is not even remotely social democratic.

Lewis, the great voodooists of the global financial system have down graded Spain have they? What they are saying is that the ability to extract surplus value from Spanish workers is not what it was, or should be. The Credit Rating Agencies always strike me as the parasites on the parasites as it were. Even in capitalist terms they create nothing, yet at a stroke they can make or break economies. To these did Bush, Brown, et al submit their commitments to an intensification of capital accumulation and the remaking of societies.

Is it really that decision making in particular states is slow, with more than a hint of inertia? Allowing for the different levels of capitalist, - more specifically neo-liberal- development, - is it not more likely that the instruments available to the various states are relatively few and in the context of the current crisis, not very well developed; deliberately not very well developed? In addition, is it not more likely that in specific states, institutional and cultural factors add to the foregoing to determine how decisions are made?

I just have great big reservations about an emphasis on the response to the crisis that depends on notions of inertia and complacency. – Or on notions of brilliance for that matter.

‘new labour’ in its various parts is prancing about. But in reality, the differences between the late Gvt and the current one are of rhetoric and degree. “Nothing to do with me gov. My hands are clean,” they say as individual leadership candidates, or as policy groups. The reality is that Labour policy as of now, would not be very different from the coalition Gvt. The banks know this, capital in general know this. The in practice narrow policy differences between Labour and the Coalition, make as much clear to most voters. Look at them policy by policy. As an example, consider the cry from the heart by Sane, on another thread.

I don’t say that things cannot or will not change significantly, only that Labour is not without a policy paradigm. This evening, we know what Labour would do if it formed a Gvt tomorrow. The Tory-Lib Dem Gvt, is ‘new labour’ with some of the mistakes rectified.- For example: more social housing; concerns about civil liberties as they prejudice the wealthier urban middle-class addressed; policies to encourage the end of the decline in manufacturing; a slightly less onerous income tax regime for the poorest of the working poor.

As I write this, is Laws the Chief Sec to the Treasury on the skids?

Here's my question for the potential Leaders. Answer YES or NO!

Are you in favour of a new British Rail free from private ownership but receiving the same massive subsidies enjoyed by the present dysfunctional franchised profit-first system?

Paul,the Spanish government's Fitch credit rating has been lowered another notch.
In my opinion this is due to political inertia and complacency across all political parties at all levels,a culture of slow responses certainly not peculiar to Spain.In other words the markets are panicing faster than the politicos can ruminate,and the markets don't believe this will change.
I could make a little list of measures that might alleviate this,and I'm sure you could make a much better one,as could Mark whose approach I've always respected.But,ultimately,the public is entitled to have a good general idea of what a Labour led administration would do if charged with dealing with the crisis tomorrow.They held office for 13 years,and have been out just a few weeks after all!This isn't short termism,it's common sense,surely?

Lewis, you are correct that Labour needs to be ready in case the coalition Gvt dissolves in the near future. I do not think it will, but I take your point. It is certainly not in the interests of Labour to the Left of reformist and less reformists neo-liberals, that this Gvt should hold office for anything like a full 5-year term.

But your point is not really contrary to the points Mark makes. And if the points Mark makes cannot be seriously engaged with, now, in current circumstances, when can they be engaged with? Or, are we to leave it to the elites from a socially and politically narrow PLP; to the array of predictable, mutually well connected elites with which Compass habitually clutters its conference platforms? We always hear from these elites; we know what they think and pretty well what they are going to say; they do not need to forgather to speak to each other. It is at best only tangentially for the benefit of Labour Party members and the wider electorate, that these elites display themselves with such wearying regularity.

This particular Compass Conference is only improved from its self referential norm by the presence of John McDonnell in the Leaders’ debate. But they could hardly exclude him.

Mark,if the coalition dissolves in the near future then Labour must be ready to resume government in short order.This means an accepted leader and a clear programme.Great philosophical debates are not an option.Appeasing opposing factions is certainly not an option.Decisions will have to be prioritised and actioned,almost certainly in the teeth of determined and bitter protests from notional allies,in the national interest.Tell me where I'm wrong.