The Tale of Tony Trout

Spying, corruption, prison and a pet deer

This story is a classic. Thank you, Greenville News. A local Greenville councilman, Tony Trout (TONY TROUT!), is done for spying and wiretapping. He gets sent to Beckley, a West Virginian prison camp (headline: Disciplined prison life awaits Tony Trout). And then you get this:

A man identifying himself as a former camp inmate in a popular online prison forum said one of the best parts about Beckley is the wildlife: hand-fed raccoons and skunks, even a deer named "Buttons" that would stick its nose in inmates' pockets for candy.

And suddenly we're in a Disney film or Dr Doolittle, but with a criminal edge. Buttons?!

The Greenville News blogosphere don't seem to think much of the whole set-up either. One commenter compares it to "Camp Old Indian", a holiday camp, which prompts an outpouring of nostalgia. "Rusty Nail", says he, "went there for several Summers when I was a 'YOOT' growing up in Greenville." Another says he still drives up there to reminisce about "how simple and good life seemed to be way back then".

It's all too much. But somehow I think old wiretapping Tony Trout could probably do a lot worse for his moral fibre than spend a few months feeding sweets to Buttons. Makes me think our criminal justice system should start seriously considering the introduction of tame deer and raccoons. Into the manifesto, I hear you cry.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The divisions within Labour

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change.

Labour is a party torn between its parliamentary and activist wings. Since Jeremy Corbyn, who this week appealed desperately for unity, was re-elected by a landslide last September, Labour has become the first opposition in 35 years to lose a ­by-election to the governing party and has continually trailed the Conservatives by a double-digit margin. Yet polling suggests that, were Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenged again, he would win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, many of the party’s most gifted and experienced MPs refuse to serve on the front bench. In 2015 Mr Corbyn made the leadership ballot only with the aid of political opponents such as Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Of the 36 MPs who nominated him, just 15 went on to vote for him.

Having hugely underestimated the strength of the Labour left once, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not do so again. In the contest that will follow Mr Corbyn’s eventual departure, the centrists could lock out potential successors such as the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Under Labour’s current rules, candidates require support from at least 15 per cent of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

This conundrum explains the attempt by Mr Corbyn’s supporters to reduce the threshold to 5 per cent. The “McDonnell amendment” (named after the shadow chancellor, who failed to make the ballot in 2007 and 2010) is being championed by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Jon Lansman of Momentum, who is interviewed by Tanya Gold on page 34. “For 20 years the left was denied a voice,” he tweeted to the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, on 19 March. “We will deny a voice to no one. We face big challenges, and we need our mass membership to win again.”

The passage of the amendment at this year’s Labour conference would aid Mr Lansman’s decades-long quest to bring the party under the full control of activists. MPs have already lost the third of the vote they held under the electoral college system. They face losing what little influence they retain.

No Labour leader has received less support from his MPs than Mr Corbyn. However, the amendment would enable the election of an even more unpopular figure. For this reason, it should be resolutely opposed. One should respect the motivation of the members and activists, yet Labour must remain a party capable of appealing to a majority of people, a party that is capable of winning elections.

Since it was founded, Labour has been an explicitly parliamentary party. As Clause One of its constitution states: “[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” The absurdity of a leader opposed by as much as 95 per cent of his own MPs is incompatible with this mission. Those who do not enjoy the backing of their parliamentary colleagues will struggle to persuade the voters that they deserve their support.

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change. Rather than formalising this split, the party needs to overcome it – or prepare for one of the greatest defeats in its history.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution