And another thing…

JOHN Kampfner’s decision to support the LibDems should come as no surprise to anyone.

I recall a truly bizarre feature in the New Statesman in the few weeks running up to the 2005 election in which readers were invited to vote tactically against Labour MPs. That’s right – against! He was one of the delicate flowers, I assume, who think large Labour majorities are just too, too fwightening, and so wanted to curb our power with an injection of opposition politicians.

(Intriguingly, almost all of the Labour MPs so targeted were on the so-called “Blairite” wing of the party – go figure!)

As Neil Kinnock rightly points out today in a letter to The Guardian, Thatcher got her best result when the SDP/Liberal vote was at its highest.

Why hasn’t Kampfner sussed the fact that any swing away from Labour and towards the Liberals can only benefit the Tories?

Or maybe he has.

MICHAEL Foot retained a huge level of affection in the Labour Party right up until his sad death, announced this afternoon. Whatever his suitability to lead the party, there was never any doubt that here was a decent and honourable man, gifted with a tremendous intellect, and a fine orator.

History would probably be kinder to him if he had rejected colleagues’ encouragement to stand for the party leadership in 1980 after the resignation of Jim Callaghan. Whether an alternative leader could have prevented Labour’s meltdown at the subsequent election, however, is a matter for endless conjecture. Either way, Foot was no match for the media-savvy Margaret Thatcher and when the inevitable defeat came, it was far worse than he or anyone else in the party had anticipated. It would be grossly unfair to blame Foot entirely, or even wholely, for Labour’s defeat; there were plenty of other suspects in the frame at the time. Nevertheless, he resigned immediately after the 1983 general election to make way for his friend and protege, Neil Kinnock.

It was after Foot resigned that I read his wonderful two-volume biography of his hero, Nye Bevan, whose seat Foot inherited on his death in 1960. As a record of the early years of the Labour movement it can’t be beaten. Foot was a great writer, too.

I only met him once, very briefly, at a Labour Party conference while I was still a staffer. He was chatting to Larry Whitty at the time and I had to interrupt in order to pass a message onto Whitty. But I never had the chance to have a proper conversation with him, and I regret that. Personally, I cannot extricate Michael Foot from my own memories of the darkest days of Labour Party infighting and civil war. He was a good man, but he was also the wrong man to lead the party at that time.

Then again, perhaps he was simply unlucky enough to have been chosen as the leader of an un-leadable party.

IN KEEPING with my (slightly) new look election-ready masthead to the blog, here’s a video that’s as close to the positive message I advocated two months ago, arguing that Labour could do worse than try to replicate Ronald Reagan’s outstandingly effective partly election broadcast, “It’s morning again in America”.

This is about as close as we’ve come so far, and it’s actually pretty powerful, although I still think we could do with some of the emotion and heartstring-tugging the Americans are so good at.

Hat-tip to Allan Davies:

IT’S NO secret that I’m on friendly terms with Tory blogger Iain Dale. But his post today is nothing less than a peurile attempt to smear a retiring Labour MP in a way which, had it been directed by a Labour blogger at a Tory MP, Iain would no doubt condemn.

So, what has he said, exactly?

The anouncement certainly came as a surprise to SNP activists in Rutherglen and Hamilton West since they’ve seen McAvoy out and about campaigning for what they assumed was his re-election.

“…for what they assumed was his re-election.”? So, MPs only campaign for their own re-election? They don’t campaign for, say, their own party generally? My predecessor, Lord Maxton, helps out during most elections here in Glasgow South; according to Iain Dale, that makes no sense because he’s not standing for election. Go figure.

It could of coyrse (sic) just be absolute coincidence that his announcement comes after Jim Devine claimed a male Labour whip advised him to claim his expsenses in the way he did.

Er, yes, it could be exactly that – coincidence. Plus the fact that Tommy is 66 years old, which, in most people’s view, would make his announcement entirely understandable.

This claim was followed up by the Labour Party launching an internal inquiry to identify the whip whom Jim Devine fingered:

Inquiry? If Jim Devine fingered the whip in question, then there would be no need for an inquiry. If he refused to name the whip, then what would be the point of an inquiry? It couldn’t possibly come to any conclusion about the whip’s identity, any more than you can identify unnamed MPs who brief to journalists.

Conciidentally that was also the day (February 10th) that John Ward suggested Tommy McAvoy may be the whip;

First of all, who’s John Ward? Oh, he’s a blogger? Well, why didn’t you say, then? Case closed…

Ward doesn’t offer any evidence at all to support his conclusion that it was Tommy, other than because he’d eliminated some of the other serving whips at the time. And his in-depth knowledge of the whips is rather exposed anyway when he says that Helen Jones “may terrify the bejesus out of most Labour MPs”. Hardly a description that a single Labour MP would recognise.

Iain then dredges up some well-worn stuff about Tommy’s property purchases in London, almost as if, in some way, that linked him to Devine. Which it doesn’t. At all. In any conceivable way.

But as far as investigative or intuitive journalism goes, this is the “best” bit”:

Finally, and as an aside, I’ve noticed of late that suggestions for friends on Facebook have been throwing up a significant number of Labour MPs. It made me wonder if they were setting up pages as part of their re-election campaigns.

If it is for re-election why did Tommy McAvoy set one up if he was retiring anyway?

You see what he did there? “It made me wonder if they were setting up pages as part of their re-election campaigns.” It made him wonder? And if a piece of information causes a Tory blogger to wonder about the possibility of something, then that is evidence, is it? “If it is for re-election…” If. IF!

Iain clearly doesn’t understand either the Labour Party or parliament itself. Why should he? He’s neither a Labour Party member nor an MP (yet). Many Labour MPs choose to go through the mandatory reselection process which occurs during each parliament for one of three reasons: they want to stand again; they haven’t made up their mind about whether to stand again and want to keep their options open; or they intend to stand down but would prefer to announce closer to the election.

I was surprised to discover that Tommy is even as old as 66 – he’s certainly a very young-looking 66 – but who can honestly blame him for wanting to stand down after 23 years as an MP and 13 years as a government whip?

The claims Iain makes are entirely unfounded and unjustified. They are gossip, nothing more. And to suggest, with a nod and a wink, that Tommy has somehow been pressed by the party into standing down against his wishes is nothing more than a smear against a good man about whom Iain Dale knows nothing.

“I KNOW that Labour hasn’t done everything right and I know I’m not perfect… take a second look at us and take a long hard look at them.”

Those words from Gordon Brown are probably the most powerful – and potentially the most damaging for the Tories – he has uttered in this long campaign so far.

WELL, I’m a bit hacked off today, to be honest.

James Purnell has announced he’s standing down at the election and, frankly, that’s a blow for those of us who saw him as a future party leader and Prime Minister.

I don’t really blame him for making the decision which he believes is the right one for him. He’s a friend and I wish him well. But, rather selfishly on my part, I would have preferred him to be a member of the Commons after the election and to see him reinstated around the Cabinet table.

Politics is rubbish sometimes.

RING THE church bells! Alert the emergency services! Stock up on essential items and barricade the doors!

For The Times has revealed the stunning news that Cabinet ministers are not only members of the executive but are also (whisper it) politicians!

Cabinet members are using the opportunity of an official tour of the country in order to take part in political meetings with party members and trade unionists. No doubt a complaint has been sent to the police and charges are being considered…

Dearie me, but what a precious lot we are. Ministers of both parties have regularly taken advantage of ministerial visits to promote their own parties. Since the visits are taking place anyway, it would be ridiculous to insist that they restrict themselves to government activities, even if there’s some space in the diary to accommodate a little extracurricular activity. You might as well tell them they can’t have a meal or phone their families, since those are not strictly government activities either.

I vividly remember visiting a Network Rail signal control centre as the rail minister and then meeting the local Labour MP and some of his activists and having my photo taken with them outside the station. Local Tories present were most upset by this and complained to my private secretary who, as a civil servant, was obliged to take no part in my party activities. She politely explained that I was perfectly entitled to do whatever I wanted, provided I wasn’t using public money or asking civil servants to get involved.

This is all part of the modern trend to despise anything remotely connected with party politics – the only thing deemed even worse than politics itself. There are lots of reasons that people don’t vote, and one of them is surely that the media (and some politicians) are constantly sending out the message that party politics is A Bad Thing, that public money should never be associated with it and that it is something to be tolerated rather than promoted.

Well that’s codswallop. Party politics is part of our democracy and we should celebrate it instead of treating it like a sexually transmitted disease – to be sneered at and even combated, but never talked about in polite company.

And if any of the Cabinet fancy coming to Glasgow South, I’ve plenty of leaflets that need putting through doors.

WHATEVER happened to comradeship?

Ever since the AV referendum was proposed, any Labour politician who dared to oppose it has been accused of being all sorts of things: neanderthals, dinosaurs, blocks to progress…

Not for the first time, we have descended to a depressing level of political discourse where those trying to promote their own agenda simultaneously try to adopt the moral high ground while throwing mud at anyone who disagrees with them. Their message, basically is: Of course we are right – any fool can see that, and if you disagree with us, then you are, by definition, a fool.

(Having said that, I did refer in a radio interview last week to supporters of AV being “Guardian readers”; but at least that was factually accurate, if a tad dismissive.)

The willingness to have an actual debate was always something I loved about the Labour Party. I’m no longer convinced we’re capable of that any more. The Fabians, Progress and Compass, although representing only a tiny minority of Labour Party members, nevertheless claim to speak for the whole party on matters constitutional.

This reminds me of the arguments we used to have back in the eighties and nineties (round about the time that most of the office bearers of those three organisations were about to graduate from the maternity ward) over whether Constituency Labour Parties’ general management committees (GMCs) should continue to have the exclusive right to select parliamentary candidates, or whether the whole membership should have a vote. Looking back, it’s hard to believe that such a debate even took place. But it was a principle that John Smith staked his entire leadership on at the 1993 conference, and won.

That patronising attitude is, alas, still alive and well in the modern Labour Party, or at least, in parts of it: “We are the elite and we know best”. Well. maybe they do, and maybe they don’t. But no-one can tell me that as a Labour MP I’m not entitled to express a view that is shared by a majority of party members. Even if that means making them occasionally spit out their muesli in horror (see? I did it again…).

THERE are (too) many people who view Malcolm Tucker, the foul-mouthed, bullying spin-doctor of The Thick Of It, as identical in almost every way to Alastair Campbell, on whom the fictional character is allegedly based.

So deeply is their conviction that when Campbell seemed to break down momentarily on The Andrew Marr Show, he was accused of a clumsy attempt at audience manipulation.

I’ve only ever met Campbell on a few occasions, but was convinced each time that here was an entirely sincere and intelligent, if combative, individual with a fierce devotion to the Labour Party. He’s also someone who I don’t believe would offer his devotion and loyalty to anyone without good cause. His loyalty to Tony Blair was based on many years working closely with the former Prime Minister; Campbell judged that he was someone who deserved that loyalty.

Yet loyalty is only a part of the reason why Campbell continues to defend him. He genuinely believes that he and Blair acted honestly, courageously, honourably and in good faith.

It would be even more surprising if Campbell didn’t occasionally buckle under the tremendous pressure he has been subjected to over the years by a small section of the public and the great majority of the media.

His critics’ dismissal of Campbell’s “moment” as dishonest cynicism betrays not just their own lack of humanity, but their complete lack of human understanding.

I HEAR that a Sunday Telegraph poll tomorrow will confirm the recent trend of predicting a hung parliament.

In many respects, this is good news for Labour, following so many months when our complete electoral obliteration was being predicted. Nevertheless, my blood runs cold at the very thought of a hung parliament, whoever is the largest party. The temptation and the pressure to begin horse-trading with the minority parties would be immense. And in the event of “negotiations” between the LibDems and either Labour or the Conservatives,  the party manifestos would be unceremoniously binned in favour of whatever lowest common denominators could be salvaged from the talks.

There have always been plenty “comrades” whose sole reason for campaigning to get Labour back into power after 18 years of opposition seemed to be in order to give that power away to the minor parties. They wouldn’t even need the excuse of a hung parliament to enter a coalition with the Liberals if they got the chance.

Those unfamiliar with the situation when Labour and the LibDems formed a coalition government at Holyrood should also acquaint themselves with the phrase “the tail wagging the dog”. Because that’s how democratic whatever form of proportional representation forced on the country by the Liberals would be: the party that came third dictating to the biggest party – and the whole country – how it should govern.

Things seem to be moving Labour’s way, and for me (and for the whole of the country, believe me) the best outcome will be a Labour overall majority. But if that were not achieved (and let me make it clear: I still think it can be) then it’s important that whichever party formed a minority government isn’t forced, through threats of votes of confidence by the main opposition party, into bed with Clegg (31 is an uneven number, after all – Ba-boom! I’m here all week…)