Why I have rejoined the Labour party

I became disillusioned during the Blair years, but since the election I've realised despite everything Labour is still my party

o Sadie Slater
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 May 2010 11.00 BST


Since the election, almost 10,000 people have joined the Labour party. That's a 6% increase in overall membership – an incredible boost for a party whose membership had more than halved in the last decade. I'm one of those 10,000.

This isn't the first time I've been a member. I joined the party as a student in the early 1990s, when I sincerely believed that only the Labour party offered a real hope for a better, brighter, happier Britain.

I let my membership lapse sometime around the 1997 election. I didn't like Tony Blair, and I didn't like the way the Labour government's policies seemed suspiciously similar to the policies of the Tory government I'd voted against. I'd expected Labour to restore student grants, not introduce tuition fee contributions; I'd thought they would restore public services to national ownership, not continue with privatisation. The Labour government I thought I'd voted for wouldn't have followed a rightwing US president to war on flimsy pretexts, or whittled away at civil liberties until simply taking photographs of buildings became enough to mark someone as a potential terrorist. It certainly wouldn't have axed the 10% tax band while increasing the higher rate threshold, taking money away from the low-paid in order to make those who were comfortably off a little more comfortable.

I started to think seriously about whether I still trusted Labour to run the country. The answer was that I didn't. I didn't trust them to do the best for people, to work to stamp out injustice and inequality, to deliver strong public services and care for the vulnerable members of society. On the other hand, I didn't trust the Conservatives to do any of those things either. So I voted Liberal Democrat, hoping that my vote, and the votes of other people like me, would send the message that while we didn't want a return to Tory government, Labour needed to get its act together if it wanted to win us back.

When Nick Clegg started negotiating with David Cameron I couldn't believe he was serious. I understood that he had to be seen to listen to what the Tories had to offer, but surely he couldn't really be planning to support them? As the coalition took shape I felt utterly betrayed. How could the Liberal Democrats claim to be progressive when they were prepared to join forces with the Conservatives in a Cabinet dominated by white, upper-middle-class, private school- and Oxbridge-educated heterosexual men?

I have realised that despite Blair, despite Iraq, despite ID cards, despite everything, Labour is still my party. I voted Liberal Democrat in recent elections because I felt that Labour was no longer a party I could vote for, but now I wonder how much that's down to people like me walking away from the party and not trying to improve things. I never spoke up and told the party what I thought it was doing wrong; I just left it to the Blairites. I thought the Liberal Democrats offered an alternative, but it turns out that they are happy to be part of a centre-right coalition. The only possibility of a credible leftwing alternative is from a reinvigorated Labour party, and it can only become that leftwing alternative if that is what the membership wants.

So I put my money where my mouth is and 14 years after I was last a member and 13 years after I last voted Labour in a general election, I have rejoined the Labour party.


Why I have rejoined the Labour party | Sadie Slater | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Quote:

When Nick Clegg started negotiating with David Cameron I couldn't believe he was serious

I suppose that in its present state, the Labour Party would attract people who don't understand that.

Originally Posted by contracycle

So I voted Liberal Democrat, hoping that my vote, and the votes of other people like me, would send the message that [...] we didn't want a return to Tory government, Labour needed to get its act together if it wanted to win us back. When Nick Clegg started negotiating with David Cameron I couldn't believe he was serious.

A bit dim, isn't she?

Quote:

How could the Liberal Democrats claim to be progressive when they were prepared to join forces with the Conservatives in a Cabinet dominated by white, upper-middle-class, private school- and Oxbridge-educated heterosexual men?

What does that have to do with anything? Marx and Lenin were white, upper-middle class and with a rather elite education for the times. And while Lenin's sexuality is somewhat unclear, Karl made enough children to Jenny to be pretty sure he was OK with fucking her quite often...

Quote:

I never spoke up and told the party what I thought it was doing wrong.

Plenty of people did. And they didn't give a shit. And, to be honest, staying in power for 13 or 14 years and probably more if Blair hadn't push for Iraq, reads like a pretty successful party strategy to me...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

A bit dim, isn't she?

No.

Quote:

What does that have to do with anything?

The fact that's its so dominant and unrepresentative of the country.

Quote:

Plenty of people did. And they didn't give a shit. And, to be honest, staying in power for 13 or 14 years and probably more if Blair hadn't push for Iraq, reads like a pretty successful party strategy to me...

Depends rather on what your goals are.

Originally Posted by contracycle

No.

Yes. A hung parliament was pretty much guaranteed fairly early on. The biggest surprise we had was that the share of the LibDem was so small. But they were nearly guaranteed the role of kingmaker. And it was obvious that, given the rejection of Labour, their preference would be to deal with the Conservatives.

Quote:

The fact that's its so dominant and unrepresentative of the country.

An old problem. But, in general, i'd rather my politicians be from an educational elite than not. Good diplomas don't guarantee smarts but no diploma is a pretty bad sign for your intellectual capabilities in today's world...

Quote:

Depends rather on what your goals are.

Since we live in a democracy of sorts, getting re-elected mean that enough people like you to vote for you... i.e. New Labour was rather successful if judged by the amount of people willing to vote for it over time. Its main mistake, from that standpoint, was the Iraq war. It really antagonised a lot of people and they became unforgiving...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Yes. A hung parliament was pretty much guaranteed fairly early on. The biggest surprise we had was that the share of the LibDem was so small. But they were nearly guaranteed the role of kingmaker. And it was obvious that, given the rejection of Labour, their preference would be to deal with the Conservatives.

It was not obvious at all, and will likely cause serious disruptions withing the Lib Dems. Indeed, it might actually kill them stone dead if enough of their voters defect (back) to Labour. It's hard to say what will happen of course, but this outcome was far from given.

Quote:

An old problem. But, in general, i'd rather my politicians be from an educational elite than not. Good diplomas don't guarantee smarts but no diploma is a pretty bad sign for your intellectual capabilities in today's world...

I'd rather they were selected by lot than have that.

Quote:

Since we live in a democracy of sorts, getting re-elected mean that enough people like you to vote for you... i.e. New Labour was rather successful if judged by the amount of people willing to vote for it over time.

And thats good enough for a talent show contestant, but it's not the standard for political parties. And that, fundamentally, was the error New Labour made - remember that at the same time, Labour was haemorrhaging members.

Quote:

Its main mistake, from that standpoint, was the Iraq war. It really antagonised a lot of people and they became unforgiving...

It's mistakes are many and multiple, not least failing to give its natural supporters a reason to vote for it; for forgetting what it was in fact FOR, and existing only to be popular.

Originally Posted by contracycle

It was not obvious at all, and will likely cause serious disruptions withing the Lib Dems. Indeed, it might actually kill them stone dead if enough of their voters defect (back) to Labour. It's hard to say what will happen of course, but this outcome was far from given.

I thought Nick Clegg was pretty clear on that.

Quote:

I'd rather they were selected by lot than have that.

Coz populism worked so well in the past...

Quote:

And thats good enough for a talent show contestant [...] forgetting what it was in fact FOR, and existing only to be popular.

They cannot be both unpopular and winning elections. What does it matter to a party if it loses some segment of the electorate that was seen as 'core' if it wins more from elsewhere and thus keep winning elections?

Just as the Conservative won (this time around) by dropping some of their "core" ideas/constituents. Just being "the nasty party" wasn't enough to win. They had to put some water in their wine.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I thought Nick Clegg was pretty clear on that.

He wasn;t that clear, and it wasn;t entirely in his gift due to internal party democracy.

Quote:

Coz populism worked so well in the past...

Lots are not populism. Indeed, New Labour was highly populist.

Quote:

They cannot be both unpopular and winning elections. What does it matter to a party if it loses some segment of the electorate that was seen as 'core' if it wins more from elsewhere and thus keep winning elections?

Becuase it undermines what a party is for, and that in turn ultimately undermines its popularity. If the party has no principles except "what we think the electorate wants", then there is no reason for the electorate to stick with this particular party as opposed the others. And if it has no purpose beyond getting elected, what is the point? The whole thing ceases to be politics and becomes merely the career aspiurations of the top people. Whreupon it hollows out, loses the very activists and footsoldiers that made it a significant political force in the first place.

And sure the Conservatoves have had to moderate themselves, but it's a bit different because their internal mechanisms don;t work the same way, and even so there are rumblings that the Cameron project has essentially failed and a rebellion may be in the offing. If they win the next election outright I would certainly expect to see the nasty come back.

Originally Posted by contracycle

If the party has no principles except "what we think the electorate wants", then there is no reason for the electorate to stick with this particular party as opposed the others.

And what do you think is happening in western democracies? Quite a few parties have been doing that, not just New Labour...

Quote:

And sure the Conservatoves have had to moderate themselves, but it's a bit different because their internal mechanisms don't work the same way, and even so there are rumblings that the Cameron project has essentially failed and a rebellion may be in the offing. If they win the next election outright I would certainly expect to see the nasty come back.

If the nasty come back, they won't win another election...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

And what do you think is happening in western democracies? Quite a few parties have been doing that, not just New Labour...

Oh yes indeed. Technocratic managerialism is killing popular democracy, and revealing what a sham it is under capitalism.

Quote:

If the nasty come back, they won't win another election...

Nope, not a safe assumption at all. Because their presence will also affect the mood in the country as a whole; after all, they have the platform from which to articulate their views.