As part of CNLPs desire to inject more politics into our meetings, John Gittings’ iniated an interesting discussion on the ‘non-election’ and its implication for both the party and the country at large. Comments welcome.
We have to admit that the non-election affair has dealt a body-blow to members’ morale and leadership reputation. If there is any doubt, just imagine how difficult — even impossible — it would be to explain/justify what has happened on the doorstep of your typical Chippy voter!
Two issues arise in my view from this debacle, which offer us a challenge but perhaps an opportunity.
1. Taking at face-value Gordon’s explanation that he needed more time to present his “vision”, let’s try to find out what that vision is. Gordon’s conference speech does cover some substantial topics, but he only used the vision word twice: (1) on “Britain leading the global economy”, and (2) on the need for “an NHS that is both pioneering new cares and personal to you.” There’s been nothing of substance since. Actually the most visionary document put out since he became PM was back in July — the Green Paper on Governance which has a lot which we should follow up on parliamentary powers, House of Lords reform etc.
2. We as members seem to have very little communication to and from the party; even the usual flow of emails seems to have dried up since the conference- just when we need to hear more. We should debate our own view of the “vision” and ask questions about it. We need more dialogue, more ideas. It might be a good idea to activate the Constituency page on the Party website, and start our own rolling blog there — in addition to making good use of Chippy’s own site.
I fully agree about the damage that the non-election has done to the party’s credibility. Gordon had shown as Chancellor that he was dodgy – dodgy with double-counting and too fond of complicated schemes like tax-credits – and responsible for the widening and deepening gap between the haves and the have-nots. In the summer he appeared to have turned over a new leaf, and perhaps those of us who hoped for a different leader were wrong. But then we had the same old Gordon – double-counting in Iraq, being politically opportunistic and devoid, as Tony Blair was, of any vision. He uses the word vision because it is what we are looking for after 10 years of stabilizing the economy and undermining the traditional family. Cameron has come up with specific policies which will appeal to the floating voter; we want from Gordon policies which inspire traditional supporters of the Labour Party (or rather, people to whom the Labour Party’s traditional values have appealed). Personally I want to hear an end to interference with our schools coupled with boosting the morale of the teachers; ditto with the NHS. We all need to be reassured that there is a long-term policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. We must have a policy on violence among our youth, on overfull prisons, on the treatment of people seeking asylum (and compassion for those coming from e.g., Zimbabwe), on the need to persuade people to use public transport (railways are impossibly expensive), on the protection of rural communities by subsidizing village post-offices and on the obscene incomes of too many chief executives, directors, etc.