Registered user login:

Bright'sBlog

Bright's Blog

Politics uncovered by Martin Bright, New Statesman political editor

Bright's Blog Homepage

The factions square up

  • Posted by Martin Bright
  • 14 August 2008

There is, as ever within Labour, a third way, and this one seeks a return to the party's true values under its present leader

The battle lines are now drawn and the fight for the soul of the Labour Party has begun in earnest. In some ways this is a blessed relief. David Miliband's pre-holiday intervention in the Guardian lanced a disfiguring conspiratorial boil that had been festering for far too long. The candidate of the "anyone but Miliband" campaign has yet to emerge, but already there is talk of a union-backed "bloke ticket" of the former deputy leadership candidates Jon Cruddas and Alan Johnson.

For ten years Labour had been a fragile but effective coalition. Now it is once more a set of factions, united only by the belief that Gordon Brown's leadership is heading for the buffers. Only a shift to the Blairite right or the social-democratic left, or a profound reshaping of the government's message in the centre, will rescue the party from oblivion. Gordon Brown's failure to communicate Labour's message is now identified as a potentially terminal problem from the cabinet down. Some ministers generously suggest that the government bears a collective responsibility for failing to get the message across, while others are more direct in their criticism of the Prime Minister. But the real question is whether insurrection will provide the remedy.

There is a possibility that David Miliband has moved too early. By tilting at the Prime Minister so aggressively, he has unbalanced himself, unsettling the Parliamentary Labour Party by such an open act of disloyalty and alienating himself from the unions and the grass roots. At the same time it has opened up the space for the centre-left Compass group of MPs to stake its claim to represent a different vision of the future of the Labour Party: more collectivist, more hostile to the private sector and unashamedly egalitarian. At present, Compass is the faction shouting the loudest in the Labour ranks. Its campaign for a windfall tax on the energy and oil companies is an obvious move to take ownership of the conscience of the Labour Party.

Both groups claim to have the ideas. The "modernisers" coalescing around Miliband have the backing of the Blairites in the Progress group within the Labour Party. Its ideologues are Richard Reeves, the new director of Demos, and Phil Collins, a former Downing Street adviser and speechwriter for Tony Blair. Their "Liberalise or Die" argument suggests that Labour needs to move away from its centralising, statist roots in order to survive in the 21st century. In contrast, the Compass group, led by Neal Lawson, a former lobbyist and adviser to Brown, has argued for a "conversation about tax". Writing in the Independent on Sunday on 3 August, Cruddas reformulated a familiar Labour mantra: "tax cuts for the many, and a fairer share from the super-rich".

There is, as ever within the Labour Party, a third way. This was outlined by John Denham in a Sunday Times article at the weekend urging an end to leadership speculation. In a call for a return to the true values of new Labour, an eminently moderate Denham wrote: "The future needs as much personal ambition and success as the past but most of us will succeed only if we also take care of the common good."

The logic of Denham's position is that Labour cannot present the public with a second unelected leader, so it must redefine its values under a Brown premiership. There is also talk of the need for a Chris Patten figure to act as cheerleader for the party, as the Tory chairman did in the run-up to the 1992 election to cover for John Major's inadequacies. More likely will be the emergence of a praetorian guard of seasoned TV and radio performers to protect Brown from the growing hostility of the media.

A comeback for Prescott?

One figure who may yet make a play for the Patten role is the former deputy party leader John Prescott, who has re-entered the fray as an unlikely blogger on the LabourHome website. His "campaign for a fourth term not a fourth leader" challenges MPs to put an end to the speculation and return to constituency campaigning (his maths isn't dodgy, by the way; he's including John Smith in his calculations). Unfortunately, in his second blog he likened the PM to the captain of the Titanic, but Prescott's re-emergence could yet prove significant.

A textual analysis of the Miliband, Cruddas and Denham articles shows that the three men have much in common. Indeed, there are those on the "liberalising" wing of the party who are very worried about Miliband's social-democratic, centralising tendencies. One conspirator said this past week: "The only concern about David is that he would turn out to be just like Gordon."

Miliband has been done no favours by the "über-Blairite" Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn, who have made it plain he is their candidate of choice. If he looks like he is their creature, his leadership bid is finished. The much-trailed reshuffle will be the most dangerous moment for all concerned. If Brown does not act against Miliband he will be seen as weak, but what if the young pretender does not agree to be shuffled? There is already talk among the insurgents of using a reshuffle to kick off a full-scale revolt.

It would almost certainly be fatal for Brown if several ministers refused new posts and returned to the back benches. The Prime Minister might be faced with the prospect of being able to reshuffle only his closest allies (as their loyalty is assured). His safest route may well be not to reshuffle at all.

But battle has been joined, and everywhere you look the martial metaphors are flying. Some are talking the language of modern warfare. This is an "asymmetric conflict", with one side top-heavy and the other side bottom-heavy.

Miliband has powerful ministerial friends including some at cabinet level. His base in the parliamentary party is weak, however, and polls suggest that his move against Brown has damaged his popularity with party members and Labour voters. The Cruddas faction recognises it has its own weaknesses, but it is ready for the war. One senior Compass figure admitted: "They have a few potential leaders but don't have the troops on the ground. We may not have the leaders yet, but we certainly have the troops."

Cabinet moderates such as John Denham may talk the language of peace, but it may already be too late.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

12 comments from readers

Keith McBurney
14 August 2008 at 12:59

Martin,

Grateful if you could post the "handle" to the Denham article you referred to as being in the Sunday Times at the weekend. I found nothing from the online record of 10 Aug; did you mean the 3 Aug article?

Keith McBurney

Martin Bright
14 August 2008 at 14:49

Yes, this is the one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_co...

Keith McBurney
14 August 2008 at 16:07

Thanks for the confirmation Martin.

The sooner all the UK-wide parties put people first - in recognition of our individual and several sovereignties - the better will be the transformation of this edifice of Empire in UK past its use by date, through a win-win orderly transition process of de-colonisation and decentralisation rather than ersatz devolution here at home, into a re-unifying altogether looser accommodation of our aspirations in a confederal "Union of the Isles" for our nations of families and friends and family of friendly nations - including all the Irish - in which we are no longer together, yet set apart to be ruled by power retained, but apart yet still together in our mutual interdependent interests. Liberty, equality and just so?

Are they humble enough to know they do not know what's best for us by asking, or will their hubris continue to prevent them from doing so before it is too late for them to join us?

Sovereignty & Confederacy: the antidote to Unions' Blues.

Aye Ours,

Keith, frae Fife and Yorkshire, for Independence & Union

BegbiesEvilTwin
15 August 2008 at 01:42

I realise you're characterising Progress and Compass in the way they would probably like to portray themselves. From what I have observed I would say Progress is no more of a modernising project than Compass. Both emerged from and were strongly influenced by the Kinnock/Smith/Thatcher era and learned different lessons from the experience. In a strange way perhaps Compass is slightly more modernising but while still being within the Labour movement any of it's changes will be less likely to stand out.

Progress took a neoliberal route and seem ill at ease with the rest of the Labour party. As New Labour currently seems a dwindling entity, at a push I could see one or two of the senior Progress types crossing the floor whenever the Conservatives get a Parliamentary majority.

(For the record I'm not a member of any party and not associated with either Progress or Compass)

scampy
15 August 2008 at 06:52

MILIBANDUSOUTOFHISDEPTHUS as leader?

Forget it the Nu Lab greedy stooges have blown it for ever.

james
15 August 2008 at 19:58

Where is the fight for PR, and a fairer electoral system. That is the only way Labour will survive. It has less than 2 years to ask the people before wipeout under FPTP.

swatantra nandanwar
16 August 2008 at 15:51

I agree that PR needs to be sereiously considered but as a more repesentative system. FPTP has turned the electprs off. Nobody is listening to them .We must be prepared to put up with many more 'Parties' in Parliament not just the usual suspects. Now is the window of opprtunity to introduce PR. If the Tories ever get back in, PR will not see the light of day for another 20 yrs.

james
18 August 2008 at 22:40

Uber-New Labour needs to be put in the back benches and let them change sides, that's where they belong. Not in the Labour Party. Go your not wanted!!! PR is the only answer to our demise. I hope GB see that before his end otherwise we wont see power for the next 20 years

john problem
21 August 2008 at 09:34

If Brown cannot swing things on his return from the beach, then another plan will be put into operation. This is considered by a number of the faithful big bananas as a good option. It is to put forward as a contender for the job of PM one of the women in the Cabinet. The reasoning is that it will make a dramatic change, that it will be more difficult for Cameron to attack a woman, and that she will have a kinder reception from the media, as all three were journalists.

At the moment, which of the three it is to be is the best guarded secret in the party. All will be revealed shortly before conference.

knave
30 August 2008 at 09:33

“Uber-New Labour needs to be put in the back benches and let them change sides, that's where they belong. Not in the Labour Party. Go your not wanted!!! PR is the only answer to our demise. I hope GB see that before his end otherwise we wont see power for the next 20 years”

I agree James but I would go further. I would have timed elections every 4 years and I would make it compulsory that no candidate could do more than two terms. I would have these democratic changes at party, locals and national level.

Also Martin your feet are in the Richard Reeves / Tory monk Frank Fields camp, which in reality is no different from the Cameron Right, which is basically neo Thatcherism, which was 20 th century Gladstonian liberalism. The prospect group already has gone home and it is called the Cameron conservative party. Hence Osborne’s appearance at the DEMOS conference

Martin name one difference between yourself and Reeves with Gove and Browne. Forget this nonsense of triangulation. These are economic liberal policies, in the Thatcher mould. You don’t need to be Pythagoras to work that one out

What is needed in this country, England not the UK.

1. Get rid of the Labour and Lib dems parties and unite under a new social democratic leftist party run on European lines.

2. The Reeves group, including Martin, will feel then justified to “come out” and will they will move to the Tory party.

3. The trots can form their own party

Martin Bright
01 September 2008 at 17:36

One solution would be electoral refrom. The parties would then have to adapt to the changed political rules. The Labour Party would almost certainly split, with a new Compass-aligned party emerging, but also the possibility of a Real Labour Party, a Socialist Party and, who knows, even a Blairite Party. Many within the Lib Dems, Labour and the Conservatives would join a new Liberal Party united around free-market economics and Reeves-style liberalism. The Tory Party would also split, with a new anti-Europe party emerging.

I don't think Richard Reeves will be joining the Conservative Party any time soon. But I do think it's a juicy irony of history that a think tank set up by refugees from the Communist Party is now headed by a former advisor to Frank Field who proudly describes himself as a radical liberal.

knave
03 September 2008 at 22:17

“One solution would be electoral refrom. The parties would then have to adapt to the changed political rules.”

I agree

“The Labour Party would almost certainly split, with a new Compass-aligned party emerging (do you mean a social democratic party), but also the possibility of a Real Labour Party, a Socialist Party ( I bet you and Cohen would them hate them two parties) and, who knows, even a Blairite Party.”

I agree

“Many within the Lib Dems, Labour ( name any Labour voter who would turn to a free market Thatcher type Gladstonian party because they already have that choice with the Tory party) and the Conservatives would join a new Liberal Party united around free-market economics and Reeves-style liberalism.”

A Whig party based on the teachings of Smith and Gladstone. I thought that was Mrs Thatcher story party. Norman Tebbitt is the perfect example of a Gladstonian Victorian lower middle class liberal.

Just a few questions

1. How will the views of anti immigration conservatives liberals like Tebbitt, Browne and Cohen (who I despise) fit into the Clegg / Cable liberal (who I like) type of liberalism. Also you mention Europe. Many of the Thatcherite tory liberals are very anti EU, that is not true of the Liberal liberals.

2. I suspect that this is the party you yearn for. Selling opium to the Chinese , not giving food for famines because it breaks Laissez faire rules, no laws to protect workers because it affects the market. So why don’t you admit that your views are pure free market Thatcherite liberalism. No honesty Martin

“The Tory Party would also split, with a new anti-Europe party emerging.”

Who cares , only you because it is the party you have voted for the last 20 years.

“I don't think Richard Reeves will be joining the Conservative Party any time soon.”

I think he is a fully paid up Camerooney like yourself, Cohen and your acolytes

.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Martin Bright

Martin Bright began his journalistic career writing in very simple English for a magazine aimed at French school children. This experience has informed his style ever since. He worked for the BBC World Service, and The Guardian before joining the Observer as Education Correspondent. He went on to become Home Affairs Editor before becoming the New Statesman's political editor in 2005.

Recent Posts

The end of principle

  • By Martin Bright
  • 01 December 2008

Darling holds his nerve

  • By Martin Bright
  • 27 November 2008

Speculation about speculation

  • By Martin Bright
  • 25 November 2008

Darling's Big Mini-Budget

  • By Martin Bright
  • 24 November 2008

The travelling man

  • By Martin Bright
  • 20 November 2008

Who's after George?

  • By Martin Bright and James Macintyre
  • 20 November 2008

Sunday comment round-up -- 16 November 2008

  • By Martin Bright
  • 16 November 2008