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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…)

The whole campaign, from what I recall, plodded along rather predictably. The only visual “moment” from the national campaign I can think of was of Tony Blair giving Gordon an ice cream cone. Hardly the Prescott punch or Sharron Storer moment.

In Glasgow, I was fighting for the new seat of Glasgow South, Cathcart having been consigned to history by the recent boundary review (although the Holyrood seat retains the name). There was a good, rather than excited, atmosphere in the campaign rooms – a former café on Clarkston Road, directly opposite my constituency offices. Every day we would arrive early, push up the metal shutters and wait for the inevitable trickle of constituents – both supportive and hostile – to begin. And every day I would print off a new number and display it in the shop window: the countdown to polling day. This was as much a reminder to activists as voters as to how long we had to complete the tasks of labelling, postering and canvassing we had set ourselves. (And I’ve just remembered that 2005 was the last General Election when candidates in Glasgow could attach posters to lamposts; the council have since banned it, to a mixed response from party activists.)

Despite expectations that Iraq would feature heavily in the campaign, I don’t remember that being the case at grassroots level. It was certainly raised on the doorstep, many times. But most voters for whom Iraq was a barrier to voting Labour were, for the most part, unfailingly polite. And when I asked them how they had previously voted, many of them turned out not to be Labour voters in the first place.

It’s a fact that time goes at a fraction of normal speed during election campaigns – well, if you’re a candidate, anyway. So it took about just under two years from the start of the campaign for polling day to arrive. That was hectic, as usual. I was picked up first thing by my campaign manager and taken to the polling station at the end of my road to cast my vote (and no, I’m not telling you who I voted for – it’s a secret ballot). The previous election, when I was first elected, Carolyn came with me to vote and a press photographer captured the moment for posterity. This time round, however, Carolyn was having to balance work and motherhood, so I voted alone.

Over the long day (about 52 hours, give or take) I tried to visit every polling place in the constituency and exchanged a few words with the tellers and the activists (of all parties) standing outside. There’s always a sense of tense calm on polling day itself, an awareness that the arguments are done and dusted, there’s nothing more to be done except await the voters’ verdict. So there’s little point in falling out with your opponents by then.

It was obvious that the LibDems were making a big effort among the substantial Muslim electorate in Glasgow South, exploiting their highly principled* position on Iraq. And I wasn’t surprised to discover later, at the count, that they had leapfrogged the nationalists to come second.

On BBC1 at ten o’clock, David Dimbleby revealed the exit poll prediction: a Labour majority of just 66 seats. I raised an eyebrow; lower than I had expected. But maybe our majority was being underestimated? It turned out not. At eleven, Carolyn and I left the house and met my election team at Queen’s Park Football Club and a small fleet of vehicles headed to the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre for the count.

Ah, yes – the count… In 2001, Cathcart had been counted last of the nine Glasgow seats and Carolyn and I had been very, very late to bed. And so it proved omce more four years later. It was after three in the morning before the Returning Officer called all the candidates together to show us the spoiled ballot papers and to read us the result. I was relieved that my majority had held above the 10,000 mark, although in per centage term it was slightly down on 2001. The LibDem candidate was actually the first person I met that night who told me, quite authoritatively, that I had won.

All I remember about the actual announcement of my result was being accosted by three or four reporters as I walked down from the platform immediately afterwards and asked whether or not I thought Tony Blair should resign. Well, of course he should! After all, he surely had to be punished for leading Labour to a third election victory in a row! The b*****d…

I had always believed that Tony’s announcement in 2004 that he would lead the party into one more Genereal Election and then serve a full term before stepping down was a mistake; the frenzied media speculation which began at 10.00 pm on polling day was entirely predictable.

Tired to the point of exhaustion, Carolyn and I headed back to the social club at Queen’s Park where we were just in time to see Galloway’s victory over Oona King in Bethnal Green. Then, a moron from a neighbouring Constituency Labour Party who, shall we say, had faced some difficulty in reconciling his own views on Iraq with the government’s, called me a fascist. Comradeship, eh? But I was too tired to make a big deal of it. Instead, after one drink, we headed home.

As we got ready for bed, I noticed I had received a voicemail from Jim Knight, who was defending a majority of 153 in South Dorset. He was calling with the happy news that, against the odds, he had increased that to 1812. That was a nice note on which finally to go to sleep.

* yeah, right…

Next instalment: 1983

David Cairns, MP for Inverclyde, promptly hit the “reply” button and wrote: “Finally, some proper news!”

Four haggises - or "haggi" - yesterday.

This time, I’m stepping up to defend the principle of product placement in TV drama. Compass are upset because it’s all about the kids, see? Apparently the ban on product placement during children’s programmes is all very well, but most children’s daily diet of TV is gleaned from non-specific children’s programming. So if, as expected, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport’s recent consultation leads to a policy decision to allow TV companies to sell screen time to well-known brands, then parents will be forced to feed junk food and alcohol to their under-fives. Or something.

(Sorry, I just took a break from my keyboard to pour myself a refreshing glass of Diet Coke©; it really is the Real Thing© – and delicious too… Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes…)

So, if Compass have their way, production companies would have a major source of income denied to them, forcing them to rely ever more heavily on the TV licence payers. Domestically-produced TV drama would become as rare as a Scottish Tory and we would have thousands of redundancies in the industry. And for what? Some disputed research in 20 years’ time that may or may not tell us that children’s health has improved and that the banning of product placement on non-children’s television may well have played a part, even though no-one can say exactly how much of a part or confirm definitively whether it had any affect at all.

Result!

(Excuse me a second: I have to vacuum the living room before Carolyn gets back. Fortunately, I have a Dyson© DC25 whose revolutionary bag-less design makes all those household chores a breeze…)

Would it be so hard for our “think tanks” on the Left to come up with policy ideas that stopped banning stuff? Why are they so keen to feed the (entirely justified) accusation from the Right that too many on the Left want to restrict individual choice, and don’t trust adults to make their own choices? Don’t they realise that if all these ideas were actually adopted by a Labour government or became part of a Labour manifesto, you’d hear the likes of Tim Montgomerie and Iain Dale high-fiving from miles away?

I reject absolutely the notion that there is anything remotely right-wing about wanting to leave lifestyle decisions to grown-ups. To claim that a desire to respect indivdual choice is incompatible with being Left wing is… well, bloody stupid, actually. And those of us on the Left who still have the sense to speak out about such nonsense do so not because we seek the approval of Tory commenters, but because we want Labour to be successful as a political party and as a government.

Now, I’m going to relax for the rest of the evening, and I’ll start with the delicious aroma of Tassimo© coffee – real coffee, but instant – and perhaps a little bit of that sweet… oh, what’s it called? Can’t remember, but I know for a fact that one a day helps you work, rest and play. So it can’t be bad.

The answer is, of course, Margaret Beckett. As Smith’s deputy, she assumed the full title on his death, not just that of interim leader.

I was reminded of this little historical nugget when I was in the Government Whips’ Office earlier today. On the far wall there are the framed photographs of every Labour leader since the founding of the party (the serving leader always occupies his or her own spot on a separate wall). And I noticed that Margaret’s picture has recently been slotted in between Smith’s and Tony Blair’s.

And quite right, too. An omission that should have been corrected much earlier.

Tom,

“Balls has lost his bearings.”

“Fairer elections? Ed says Balls to that!”

And – succinct, to the point, with extra points for creative vowel usage:

“BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLS.”

We’ve received some amazing slogan ideas for Ed Balls’ billboard since I wrote you about it last week. The preceding gems are just a few of them.

But because we haven’t heard your brilliant, Balls-busting billboard idea yet, I’m hoping you’ll share it with us now:

http://www.voteforachange.co.uk/EdBallsBillboard

We’re bringing home the message to Balls that we won’t stand by as he tries to scupper voting reform.

And because we’re doing it by putting up a billboard in his Normanton constituency, we want the best possible slogan our campaign’s collective brainpower can dream up.

Don’t miss your chance to tell Balls exactly what you think about his opposition to a referendum.

Willie

The thing is, after Monday’s post about how insanely obsessed certain people can become on the issue of electoral reform, I spoke to Ed during a vote about the attempts by Councillor Sullivan to reduce his majority on Normanton as revenge for… well, revenge for something or other. And I confess I was disappointed by Ed’s revelation that he’s not only a supporter of AV but of a referendum. Boo!

Is it possible, do you think, that the director of “Vote For A Change” has based his entire campaigning strategy on an unsubstantiated rumour, or that Willie hasn’t even bothered to lift the phone to speak to Ed’s people about the truth (or otherwise) of those rumours? Surely not?

My latest email from Vote For A Change contains this nonsense:

Tom,

What rhymes with “hypocrite”?

Ed Balls is trying to convince Gordon Brown to take back the promise of a referendum on electoral reform being put in to law before this spring’s election.

Bad, right? It gets worse: Balls recognises our system’s broken. He is in favour of change. He’s just not willing to work for it, because he’s afraid a referendum will hurt Labour’s electoral chances.

We’ve got to bring the message home to Balls: we won’t stand for his obstruction of the reform we so badly need.

So we’re putting up a billboard in Balls’ Normanton constituency, telling him exactly what we think of his opposition to a referendum. And we need your help to come up with a slogan for it.

Your slogan idea can be rhyming, pithy, cutting, or earnest – all your brilliant ideas are welcome.

Willie Sullivan

The email comes from Willie Sullivan, who is not only a former employee of the Scottish Labour Party, but is also a serving Labour councillor in Fife. The only reason this strange organisation could be erecting a billboard in Normanton at this time is to try to cause Ed Balls some electoral difficulties – as revenge, I assume, for his eminently sensible position on electoral reform. So a Labour councillor is actively campaigning to undermine a Labour cabinet minister in his own constituency in the run-up to a general election just because the cabinet minister in question has a slightly greater sense of proportion on a particular policy issue than does Vote For A Change. A Labour councillor publicly calling a Cabinet minister a hypocrite? What the hell’s going on?

Maybe I can answer my own question.

LibDems tend to be able to support electoral reform without looking any more wild-eyed and crazed than usual, because it’s just one of their many wild-eyed and crazy policies. It’s just part of the furniture in CrazyTown, Bonkersshire, so no-one pays very much attention; everyone expects you to support it if you’re a LibDem – in fact, you would be deemed rather odd if you didn’t.

In the Labour Party, however, support for electoral reform is very much a minority sport, so those who feel deeply about it tend to be on the obsessive wing of the party. Pretty soon, everything else (growing the economy, improving pensions, the health service, schools, childcare, that sort of thing) becomes unimportant compared with the One Great Truth. And I’ll give you a beautiful example of that.

In the run-up to the 1992 election, David Cairns, now the MP for Inverclyde, had a conversation with a woman whose name I shall not divulge – let’s simply refer to her as “Mad Mrs McMad”. She was lecturing David on the evils of the corrupt first-past-the-post system which resulted, she claimed, in Labour not even bothering to campaign in “safe” Tory seats. It even resulted, Mrs McMad continued indignantly, in Labour putting up black candidates in places like Wimbledon! (Kingsley Abrams stood for Labour in Wimbledon in 1992.)

So focussed was Mrs McMad on her own pet obsession that she failed to have any self-awareness of her own ignorance and racism. I doubt if she remains a member of my party today. I hope not, anyway.

But that’s what happens when you start to believe that an issue, rather than your party, is the most important thing. Willie Sullivan is a Labour councillor, not because he’s Willie Sullivan, but because he had the words “Labour Party” next to his name. I hope he remembers that before he starts trying to undermine Labour MPs about to fight a crucial election.

Because victory in that election is a hell of a lot more important to the people Willie claims to represent than his silly little policy ever will be.

Positive, upbeat, optimistic, standing on your record in government. That’s how elections are won.

Today it may be the other side’s turn for criticism. This story in the Mail on Sunday may not be entirely accurate. There may be some details left out. But for the moment, it’s all we have, and the facts appear to be that a Christian teacher has been sacked after offering to pray for a sick child’s recovery. This, apparently, could have been interpreted as bullying (hat-tip to Iain Dale).

So the question I want to ask is: what do the left-wing and Labour-supporting blogs have to say about this apparently appalling example of moronic discrimination against Christians? What is the left-wing saying? There is no left-wing intellectual analysis that would justify this chain of events as they have been reported this morning. Are there any who are expressing indignation? Given that the overwhelming majority of voters – including a massive majority of traditional Labour voters – will share my own anger at this story, the Left risks looking utterly out of touch by remaining silent.

Why must we allow the right wing to claim that white, middle class Christians are the only minority group in the country that the Left don’t give a damn about?

Someone offering to pray to a God in whom you do not happen to believe is not bullying, even when you haven’t invited such intervention on your own behalf. I have prayed for lots of people who are not Christians and I will continue to do so, with or without their permission.

Christians are also accused of “bullying” whenever they seek to evangelise. “How dare a Christian tell me I should convert to their faith!” is the shrill, defensive nonsense we often hear. Well, I’ll tell you what: if you don’t want to become a Christian, don’t become one, okay? Problem solved. No bullying, just an exchange of views with no minds changed. Move on.

Christians are instructed by Jesus Christ to evangelise on His behalf. If non-Christians – and yes, that includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Seikhs and buddhists as well as atheists – feel offended by this form of outreach, well that’s a pity, but they’ll just have to deal with it as best they can.

UPDATE: Humble pie time for Harris, it seems, and rather than delete the above post (which was my first instinct, to save my blushes) I’ll simply add this: Bob Piper has done the rest of us a favour and has actually read to the very end of the article – which is what I should have done had the red mist not descended after the fourth paragraph and motivated me to open my laptop. Bob rightly accuses Ian Dale (and by inference, me) of a Pavlovian response to this story, and of failing to acknowledge that the (supply) teacher in question is simply under investigation – the normal procedure when a complaint is made.

Still, an object lesson in blogging to end the year on. Thanks to A Very Public Sociologist for alerting me to my mistake.

Still, I trust lots of left-wing bloggers (including Bob) will come out in support of this woman in the run-up to the internal investigation…

Inevitably, there are those who relish the idea, who don’t need much encouragement to embrace class politics as they would an old, beloved yet recently ignored comfort blanket.

These would-be class warriors cite recent polling evidence that attacks on bankers and student politics-type proposals for a High Pay Commission are popular with the electorate.

I have absolutely no doubt that that is, indeed, what electors are telling the pollsters. Just as they consistently told pollsters in the run-up to the 1992 general election that they would be prepared to pay higher taxes in exchange for better public service.

As Rentoul rightly says of the more recent public reaction to the tax on bankers’ bonuses:

The bonus tax is popular in the short term (on the “tax anybody but me” principle), but I think it will have a negative effect on perceptions of Labour over the long term because it makes the party look as if it doesn’t like success.

Rather than using opinion polls as a basis on which to judge the wisdom of class politics, let’s take a rather different measure: general election results. In 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, Labour promised tax increases (but only for the wealthy) and got hammered. In 1997, 2001 and 2005, we pledged not to increase the basic or higher rates of tax. And golly! Look what happened!

So, now that we have been running a consistent deficit in the polls for more than two years, what kind of logic dictates that we can win next time by reversing our previous election-winning strategy, by reverting to our old class-based ways?

No party that is seen to sneer at wealth, or which is suspected, because of its language, of treating the wealthy and the wealth creators as the enemy, can hope to win the confidence of the electorate.

Recent political history has established that as a fact. It’s perfectly understandable that, when economic times get tough and political times get tougher, that we should retreat into our traditional positions. There is certainty there, after all – the certainty that comes with drawing “dividing lines” on a map.

But comfortable though such a position may be, elections cannot be won from it.

He has written a first class article about the latest spat over GB’s perceived “class war” attacks on the Tories.

And you know something? Stuart is absolutely spot on. Take this, for example:

So the Conservatives have questions to answer, but they don’t concern Eton. The real question to pose should be: is aspiration really encouraged and rewarded by tax cuts for the richest 3%? If you believe it is you’re a Conservative. If you believe tax cuts start from the bottom up you’re a progressive and Labour remains your natural home…

This toff rhetoric sends these lost voters running for the hills because it is the exact opposite of why they returned to Labour in the first place. They supported us because we were a healthy, outgoing, positive and optimistic Labour Party that wants to help those who want to do better. Labour is rightly the party for those struggling to get by; but we must also remain the party for those who want to get on.

You can read the whole thing here.

I really hope Stuart can retake Putney for us, because we desperately need perspectives like his in the Parliamentary Labour Party and in government.

LAST year, during Labour’s ill-fated by-election campaign in Glasgow East, I met and worked with a young party activist called Yousuf Hamid. Not only was he excellent company and an energetic worker, he has also started up one of the best of the new Scottish blogs around.

I don’t want to sound patronising, or to make Yousuf blush, so I’ll just recommend a visit. You can also follow him on Twitter.

Last night I received this email from Willie Sullivan, who helps run the campaign:

Tom

I’ve just heard some great news for the campaign – and I wanted to tell you straight away. It’s what we’ve been asking for all along.

The Government’s Democratic Reform Council met yesterday: they have decided to call a vote in the Commons on a legally binding clause that will provide for a referendum on the voting system.

This is the first time the Commons will be able to vote on holding such a referendum in decades.

It’s huge – and it’s down to your hard work for our campaign.

But we haven’t won yet – opponents of reform, especially in the unelected House of Lords, will do their best to kill the bill and stop voters from having their say.

Tomorrow, the press will report this story. It’s going to be big news. But we haven’t won until a referendum is actually called.

We need to put pressure on the politicians – opponents of reform need to know we won’t let them stand in our way. With your help, I know we can do it.

Thanks for everything you have done,

Willie

And here’s how I replied:

Thanks for the alert, Willie – I’ll make sure I’m there to vote against.

Tom

The latest case in point is the recently-founded Tory Tavern blog, who writes:

So, a fantastic few days blogging from Mr Harris. The landlord has one remaining nagging thought, though. With his common-sense, honest and open approach to politics, his rejection of electoral reform, his commitment to unionism, his criticism of Labour plans to raise taxes on the rich, his dislike of political correctness and his view that Gordon Brown should resign…is he sure he’s in the right party?

So let’s tackle those points head-on.

First off, I don’t think that having a “common-sense, honest and open approach” to politics is or should be the preserve of any one party; there are bloggers from all the main parties who subscribe to those values – and plenty who don’t.

Support for the First-Past-The-Post electoral system is still the mainstream view among MPs and activists in the Labour Party, so supporting it publicly is hardly taking a “maverick” stance.

As far as unionism is concerned, the Labour Party is far more committed to the Union than the modern Conservative Party is. A Tory party committed to making Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs second class members of the Commons would be a greater threat to the United Kingdom than the SNP could ever be.

On taxes, Tony Blair and New Labour won the confidence of the electorate by persuading the country that Labour no longer believed in taxing for its own sake, that if they have to be raised at all, it should be done reluctantly, as a last resort, and to fund a specific spending commitment. That’s what I – and the vast majority of Labour MPs – still believe.

My frustration with political correctness is actually illustrated by Tory Tavern’s citing of it as evidence that I’m in the wrong party: why on earth must the Labour Party allow itself to fall into the trap of defending it? I haven’t met a single person – of any party or none – who can defend the more witless examples of political correctness. The young boy sent home with a note to his parents revealing that he had uttered anti-German sentiments while his class was being taught about the Second World War? The student who was arrested and forced to spend the night in the cells for calling a police horse gay? And don’t even start me on “Winterfest” or “NeutralFest” or “Let’sMakeSureNo-oneCanPossiblyBeOffendedByReferencesToChristianityFest” or whatever. No-one defends that kind of nonsense, and if Labour Party members do, I’ve never met them.

To the above list of indictments, I should ask for my views on benefit dependency and single parents and my robust approach to asylum to be considered as more “offences” to be taken into account. These have been portrayed by the media as being “anti-Labour” or at least “anti-Left wing”. In fact, on the single parents issue, while I did receive some messages of support from Conservative colleagues in the Commons, I was overwhelmed by the support I received from Labour colleagues who told me it was “about time” someone said what I said.

I don’t specifically adopt these views in order to drive up traffic on this blog or to earn praise from right wingers. I believe that the views I hold are shared not only by the vast majority of what most people understand to be Labour’s “core vote”, but by the vast majority of the wider electorate. And I espouse those views because (a) I believe they are right, and (b) I believe Labour would be more popular if more of its representatives at every level were to voice them.

And that’s the whole point: I want Labour to win the general election and to stay in government, because that, in my opinion, would be in the best interests of my country and my constituents.

So, yes, Tory Tavern, I am in the right party. And if I had my way, your party would have a longer term in opposition ahead of you than behind you.

I know how she feels, though in my case it was a senior minister who ordained that I should not appear, despite the Beeb actually wanting me on the panel. This was in the aftermath of the hoo-ha over my blogpost asking why everyone was so bloody miserable. I was still a minister at the time, and wanted to remain one. So, cravenly, I submitted and withdrew.

“Thanks, Tom, we’ll make it up to you,” I was told. Weeks later I was sacked.

Politics, eh?

Conservatives 37 (-6)
Labour 31 (+5)
Others 32

I can go to bed (reasonably) happy now.

If some of Labour’s parliamentary candidates reckon we can’t win unless we promise a referendum on the alternative vote on the same day as the general election, maybe they should be examining their own so-called “democratic credentials”.

The ambition of the 34 candidates is truly soaring: “hundreds” of LibDems throughout the country would switch to Labour if we were to hold a referendum on the same day. Phew! That many, eh? Nearly enough to affect the result in … well, a seat, probably.

They propose a “government Bill” to facilitate such a referendum. The only problem there is that such a Bill is very unlikely to succeed. Apart from those Labour MPs who would oppose it (including Yours Truly), the Libdems would be likely to campaign against it on the basis that it’s not precisely the exact system that would most benefit them be most democratic.

And can we please stop all this nonsense about the 1997 manifesto commitment? That was a promise of a referendum, not on AV but on AV+, a version of AV which would be even more calamitous than straightforward AV, with “assisted places scheme” MPs (like those in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly) being “elected”. We have never made a manifesto commitment to a referendum on AV.

You have to wonder why Labour candidates are so keen to get into Parliament if all they want to do is bargain away power to the LibDems. “Ah,” they will argue, “but the Tories were in government for most of the 20th century and we must make the 21st century the century of progressive politics.”

Yeah, okay, I’ll sign up to that. But you know the best way of electing a Labour government? Not through messy, sordid little deals with the minor parties, but by winning more votes than the Tories. That’s how they stayed in power for most of the last century – by beating us in elections; by offering the electorate policies that were more popular than ours.

By carping on about voting systems, we simply reinforce the notion – and I hope and believe it’s a wrong notion – that we have nothing to offer the voters but electoral calculations.

I don’t have time to do a Google search on which seats Labour has held in the last eight years – or even four. Or two. I expect one of my readers will be kind enough to do that for me.

The point being: Cameron has most definitely not sealed the deal.

Terrific result – better than my own rather modest prediction of a 3000 Labour majority. Far too early to start making sweeping predictions about the parties’ prospects in the wake of this result. I’ll just say “well done”, not only to Willie, but to Colin Smyth and all his staff at the Scottish Labour Party for running an outstanding campaign. Particular personal congrats to the formidable Kate Watson and her fellow Labour organisers who ran a fantastic operation out of the Roebank Street committee rooms in Dennistoun.

It’s been a blast, folks.

Me: Hi, sorry to bother you. I’m campaigning on behalf of Willie Bain, Labour’s candidate in the by-election. Can I ask if you’ve decided how you’re going to vote?

Voter: Well, I have a problem. We’re going on holiday the week before the election.

Me: Really? Well, you can always apply for a postal vote.

Voter: Yeah? How would I do that?

Me: Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Which party do you vote for?

Voter: SNP

Me: Look, if I were you I’d concentrate on having a great holiday and forget about politics. Thanks for your time…

I am sorry that there was a mistake that has come to my attention in the recording of this division.  Your name was marked down as voting Aye instead of Dr Evan Harris. I have contacted the Official Report who will correct the record in the bound Hansard volume and on the internet version. Please accept my apologies for this error.

I wasn’t actually aware of this message until today, but I was alerted to the fact that something was wrong when I met a colleague today while campaigning in the Glasgow North East by-election. “Did you come down to London on Monday just to vote against the government?” he asked.

Not me

“Of course not,” I replied. He then informed me that news of my “rebellion” had been discussed in the tearoom.

As it happens, there was a vote later on on Monday night which, had I been present, would have resulted in my rebelling against the government, in support of the so-called “freedom of speech” amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill (about which I have blogged before).

But I wasn’t present, and didn’t rebel on any vote – a fact which I have now communicated to my own whip (who was unaware of any such rumours anyway).

Why does it matter? you may be asking. To those who are of a political – rather than a party political – persuasion, it probably doesn’t. They probably imagine that the more often you vote against your own party, the better. That’s not a view to which I subscribe. I’ve voted against my party whip a total of twice since I was first elected. That’s twice more than David Cameron has voted against his party’s whip and a hell of a lot less than some Labour colleagues who seem to see themselves as in permanent opposition to their own party.

As for Monday’s mix-up, I’m glad someone noticed that I’m not Evan Harris, who (REST OF SENTENCE DELETED ON LEGAL ADVICE).

But trawling through The Herald’s excellent online archive, I came across a piece I wrote in August 1993 – a year before Tony Blair became leader – entitled “Labour activists and Jo Public” in which I wrote:

While Labour continues to be seen by the electorate exclusively as a party of the poor, the weak, and the dispossessed, much of its membership is unable – or unwilling – to accept that it must be able to relate and appeal to the haves and not just the have-nots if electoral victory is to become a reality.

It was written less than a year after I left the employ of the Labour Party in Scotland (as it was known then). Apart from the surprisingly negative view I had of some of my fellow activists at the time (I was going through a bad patch, politically and personally, I seem to recall) I think my analysis has held up pretty well in the intervening 16 years.

“Tax the rich” is the obvious knee-jerk reaction from some. And they will have their chance to press home their case once Harriet Harman’s report on inequality is published in the new year.

The logic seems to be this: Labour’s eschewing of traditional Labour tax-and-spend policies has led to the current disparity between the lowest and the highest paid; soaking the rich would therefore, of itself, make Labour popular enough to win a fourth general election as well as narrowing the incomes gap.

Except that this analysis seems to overlook the fact that Labour won the last three general elections with a commitment not to reintroduce punitive tax rates. Are the electorate really turning to David Cameron because they believe he will tax them more?

And there is absolutely no point at all in taxing the highest earners more unless you intend to do something positive for the lowest paid with the revenue raised. Sure, reducing the incomes of the rich would, at a stroke, reduce income equality. Even if you just banked whatever tax you raised and didn’t use it for anything, income inequality would be reduced because you’ve reduced the incomes of those at the higher end of the income scale. Job done?

Well, no, obviously. Such a move would stink. There is nothing intrinsically good or moral in taxing for its own sake. If, on the other hand, extra tax revenues were used to achieve something – raising tax thresholds for the lowest paid, for instance – then that would be worth looking at. The only problem is: how much extra tax would you have to raise to make any meaningful impact on thresholds? Top rate tax rises bring diminishing returns, so there’s no bottomless pit of readies in that direction.

What, other than tax thresholds, are the mechanisms for raising the poorest up? We know how to bring the richest down, but once we’ve done that, how do we use that money raised to benefit the poorest? Increasing benefits? In general, no. Keeping people and families on benefit is a sure-fire way to entrench real, absolute and relative poverty. Increase tax credits? Fine, but apart from the pension credit, tax credits are mainly aimed at making work pay. I’m not aware of any evidence that low tax credit rates are responsible for low take-up of paid employment.

There are certainly plenty of areas of social policy which could do with the extra money, but none of them would directly or easily close the incomes gap.

Tony Blair and – let’s not forget – Gordon Brown put a great deal of effort into reinventing Labour as a low tax party. As a result, we won three general elections in a  row, and as a result of that, we introduced the minimum wage, tax credits and the New Deal, raising nearly a million pensioners and 600,000 children above the poverty line.

So why has incomes equality increased? And is it the inevitable consequence of a booming economy, as the UK’s was until the global recession started to bite?

More to the point, does anyone seriously believe that if the Tories instead of Labour had been in power since 1997, incomes equality would have been narrower than they are today? Without the minimum wage and tax credits it would surely have been even greater.

The Tories, of course, will be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of this debate within the party, and praying that we come down unequivocally on the “soak the rich” side of the argument.

Personally, I’d rather we stay in government.

I admit that as a young man with parliamentary ambitions in the early 1990s, I was not a strong vocal supporter of all-women shortlists in the Labour Party. Even today, I’m resigned to their inevitability rather than enthusiastic about them.

Faced with the prospect of losing my chance even to put myself forward as a Labour candidate on account of the fact that I was born male, various male comrades and I started to discuss what could be done – within party rules, of course – to frustrate the party’s aim of imposing all-women shortlists.

The key, we concluded, was mandatory reselection. Once in each parliament, every Labour MP hoping to continue in parliament must be reselected to fight the subsequent election. It was suggested that, in a seat where the (usually male) MP was intending to retire, and where there might be a prospect of the national party imposing an all-women shortlist, then a “mock deselection” could be organised. Instead of announcing publicly that he intended to retire, the incumbent would instead announce he was planning to stand again. An aspiring young (male) candidate would then mount a challenge to the MP’s continuing candidacy, a challenge to which the incumbent would mysteriously succumb. No retirement, so no vacancy, so no imposition of all-women shortlist.

Genius, eh?

Undoubtedly, there will be those in the Conservative Party who will consider pursuing such cynical strategies. But they’re wasting their time. What did for all-women shortlists in the 1990s was the fact that employment law made them illegal. That’s no longer the case.

I still don’t support all-women shortlists. On the other hand, I can’t see any alternative to increasing the numbers of women in the Commons. And there’s no doubt that, in Labour’s experience, whenever an all-women shortlist is announced, a much wider range of female candidates are encouraged to apply, secure in the knowledge that it won’t be a carve-up to the advantage of a favoured son.

I’ll be interested to see how this debate pans out in the Conservative Party.

I’m not at all sure that the “well, it’s a rubbish paper anyway” is an appropriate response, given how grateful we were for their support over the past 12 years. And attacking a newspaper for its journalistic standards can easily be seen as an attack on its readership. And a lot of people still read The Sun.

And for “people” read “voters”.

Labour has always had a difficult relationship with the media. We always will have. But all that means is that we’ll just have to try harder to build bridges, make contacts, put arguments across and explain our views. Boycotts of The Sun specifically and News International generally will hurt us more than them.

The loss of The Sun’s support is a blow to Labour. It’s a setback. Trying to pretend otherwise would be seen, rightly, by the electorate as an attempt to kid ourselves. Let’s not make a bad situation worse by taking the huff with every media organisation which doesn’t like us.