So, Labour leadership contest?

They have done in the past ....
I must be missing an inside joke, as M Foot appears to have been Labour from the get go. Did you mean that the Tories benefit from internal Labour dissent, or that Foot was at one time a Tory, which the link (thanks) did not hint at?

DR
 
I must be missing an inside joke, as M Foot appears to have been Labour from the get go. Did you mean that the Tories benefit from internal Labour dissent, or that Foot was at one time a Tory, which the link (thanks) did not hint at?

DR

He means that Foot was such a terrible choice as Labour leader that the real winners were the Tories as it pretty much made Labour unelectable for a decade and guaranteed the Tories would stay in power.
 
Yes, Foot was leader of the Labour Party. He led them to a crushing defeat by the Tories in 1983. Partly this was Thatcher riding the much-vaunted "Falklands Factor" but Labour took a sharp lurch to the left under his leadership and it wasn't a popular move with voters, so he helped the Tories along the way.

Edit: And as Jaggy says the party was left in such a state that it took forever to climb back up.
 
Last edited:
I must be missing an inside joke, as M Foot appears to have been Labour from the get go. Did you mean that the Tories benefit from internal Labour dissent, or that Foot was at one time a Tory, which the link (thanks) did not hint at?

DR

Mr Foot was certainly 100% Labour - but his leadership for many reason (many to do with personality politics and media characterisation - so not really substantial) only helped reinforce the idea that Labour was a party that could not govern the country. A very nice bloke by all accounts, very intelligent and very principled but the epitome of the academic socialist - right down to the duffel coat.
 
Yes, Foot was leader of the Labour Party. He led them to a crushing defeat by the Tories in 1983. Partly this was Thatcher riding the much-vaunted "Falklands Factor" but Labour took a sharp lurch to the left under his leadership and it wasn't a popular move with voters, so he helped the Tories along the way.

Edit: And as Jaggy says the party was left in such a state that it took forever to climb back up.
Would it be accurate to say that Michael Foot made Tony Blair necessary, for Labour (New Labour) to win back the leadership role? :confused:

DR
 
Would it be accurate to say that Michael Foot made Tony Blair necessary, for Labour (New Labour) to win back the leadership role? :confused:

DR

I think you’re confusing “leadership” with “power”. When we use eth term “leasdership” we are talking about leadership of a political party. When we talk about “power” we are talking about forming a Government. By definition the Labour party always has the Labour Leadership, what b. (Darats joke that the conservatives “won” the labour leadership election with Foot would be equivalent to someone claiming that the Republicans won the Democratic primary when Gore gained the nomination, except that Gore was “electable”)

The popular perception of the Labour party in the 1980’s (as epitomised by Foot) made (what became) the New Labour project necessary in order for the Labour Party to appeal to the public and the Media enough in order to have a chance of gaining power.
However there is a lot of debate in the party about whether Blair’s reforms were necessary, or if he took a good thing too far. Between Foot and Blair we had two other Labour leaders, Kinnock and Smith- both modernises and reformers. However Kinnock was Welsh, bald and ginger and so would never be elected PM, and Smith died of a heart attack before he could take the party to a general election.
 
And Kinnock still does not get the credit he deserves (for his reforms) - he started the reforms that cleaned out most of the Labour party's out and out kooks (and I proudly claim to be one of those he ousted).
 
And Kinnock still does not get the credit he deserves (for his reforms) - he started the reforms that cleaned out most of the Labour party's out and out kooks (and I proudly claim to be one of those he ousted).

Kinnock did far more to reform the party than Blair ever did, the Militant expulsions were before my time, but I remember their aftermath. Rewording Clause 4 was nothing in comparison.
 
you might have to clarify that last bit....

i agree that the Ken Livingstone, George Galloway type lefties are significantly to the side of Palestine, and you could make a case for an anti-israeli slant - but anti-semitism =! anti-israeli, so i'd want to see evidence of anti-semitism from the british political left.....
I'll try to answer this, but it's such a complex subject that I probably can't come up with a short summary that even I would completely agree with.

First, I certainly don't see 'the left' (whatever that is) in general as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, but there is an undeniable association, in the UK and elsewhere, of left-wing politics with anti-Israel attitudes and right-wing politics with pro-Israel ones. This hasn't always been the case; there has been a trend over the last few decades for anti-Zionism, denigration of Israel, and even outright anti-Semitism to shift from right to left along the political spectrum (I well remember some virulently anti-Semitic right-wingers in the local Labour Party when I joined, many years ago).

'Left-wing' anti-Semitism has become respectable, especially in some left-liberal circles - though it's usually described as 'solidarity with the Palestinians' etc. by its perpetrators – as shown by this infamous (prize-winning) example. Both opponents and defenders of Israel have an unfortunate habit of conflating legitimate political criticism and unacceptable racist or xenophobic abuse - but that's another topic.

I'd say the two main reasons for the current 'left wing = anti-Israel' phenomenon are:

1) A rather over-simplified analysis: In general, the left sympathises with the 'underdog' (it seems there always has to be one). For reasons that are partly justified and partly not, Israel was once seen as the underdog but is now seen as the oppressor. Israel is a surrogate for the USA and 'the West' for those who like to see every national issue as a colonial struggle. To some on the left, this extends to Jews in general.

2) The left in the UK has become very much smaller, and the influence of the loony sector is proportionately greater. Many people of goodwill have become tainted with loony left ideas, such as an obsession with the misdeeds of Israel, simply for want of any sensible left to associate with. I would say that it has somewhat affected the Campaign group of MPs (but not McDonnell to any great extent). To a large extent SWP/Respect have become the organised left (at least temporarily), and they have significant influence far beyond their actual membership. Partly for opportunistic reasons, they pander to Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism, and Islamic fundamentalism. (Again, I am not saying that all Arabs or all Muslims are anti-Semitic or fundamentalist).

As for what it means to be 'anti-Israel', and whether this constitutes anti-Semitism, my short answer is that I'm suspicious of anyone who makes a point of being against Israel rather than opposing Israeli governments, politicians, parties, policies, the occupation of Palestinian territories, the Lebanon invasion etc. What exactly does it mean to be against a country as such? - I think there often is some (possibly unconscious) anti-Semitism there.


Didn't you hear, we voted to stay a Monarchy. Tony Blair has been front page news for a few day over here. I am interested to see what comes next. If the Tories win, what will they do about Iraq?
a_u_p, on most issues the answer to what the Tories would do is 'exactly the same as Nu-Labour'. Iraq would be an example - get out when it won't be obvious that they're doing a U-turn (which could take a long time). But there might not be a General Election for another 3 years.


And Kinnock still does not get the credit he deserves (for his reforms) - he started the reforms that cleaned out most of the Labour party's out and out kooks (and I proudly claim to be one of those he ousted).
Darat, I'd be interested to know which loony group you belonged to. I was an independent lefty (still am). I've forgotten exactly when I left the party (some time in the 90s) but it was voluntary - nobody tried to expel me (which is actually a bit insulting).
 
...snip...

Darat, I'd be interested to know which loony group you belonged to. I was an independent lefty (still am). I've forgotten exactly when I left the party (some time in the 90s) but it was voluntary - nobody tried to expel me (which is actually a bit insulting).

Revo Youth. (I must find the letter I got from the Labour Party - it was poorly photocopied form letter.)
 
I think you’re confusing “leadership” with “power”. When we use eth term “leasdership” we are talking about leadership of a political party. When we talk about “power” we are talking about forming a Government.

==And much more tasty goodness==
Many thanks, and yes, I used the wrong term there, power is what I meant.

DR
 
Well, my son and many others will be disappointed that there isn't going to be a left-wing challenge to Brown. Actually, I admit I'm a bit pissed off too, even though I haven't involved myself in politics for many years. It would have been interesting.

What is there to say about a political party, supposed voice of the labour movement, virtually all of whose representatives would (apparently willingly) participate in the disgusting Stalinist ceremony of publicly adoring the 'leader'? And what a 'leader'!


Revo Youth. (I must find the letter I got from the Labour Party - it was poorly photocopied form letter.)
I didn't recall the name, but a quick Google tells me that you were the youth wing of the International Marxist Group. Certainly they were a bit on the barmy side - Israel the root of most of the world's evils, supporting Argentina in the Falklands war (colonial struggle, you see), numerous Right-To-{Breathe etc.} front organisations – but the way to defeat ridiculous and even dangerous ideas is through open discussion. The policy of using expulsions to kill ideas by brute force has in the long run been harmful to the Labour Party and democracy. I don't understand why you're in favour of that kind of censorship.
 
(Just as a note when I was a member it wasn't that - as with many of those groups there was a lot of as Brodski puts it - "Peoples Front of Judea, or the Judean Peoples Front".)


The expulsions were not censorship, it was actually returning the Labour Party back to being the traditional Labour Party; people like me should not have been able to be members of both political parties especially when it became evident that many of us where in fact using the Labour Party to promote our non-Labour Party policy agendas.

There is a huge difference in being a member of a party and disagreeing with some or many policies (and trying to change those policies) and being a member of another political group that is using the Labour Party apparatus to promote policies that the Labour party did not support or were even opposed to and trying to circumvent the deomcratic processes within the Labour party.
 
Well, my son and many others will be disappointed that there isn't going to be a left-wing challenge to Brown. Actually, I admit I'm a bit pissed off too, even though I haven't involved myself in politics for many years. It would have been interesting.

Why not a right wing or other centralist challenger?

What is there to say about a political party, supposed voice of the labour movement, virtually all of whose representatives would (apparently willingly) participate in the disgusting Stalinist ceremony of publicly adoring the 'leader'? And what a 'leader'!

It's called democracy...
 

Back
Top Bottom