Dear David Miliband Thank you for listening.
P.S
Could I kindly request that you inform your brother to listen to his constituents and members, act and not talk too much and give his head a serious shake...or the likely scenario is that he will be lining up with Portillo and Oneill on the the This Week couch. This is a very real outcome after Election Day

Thnx Brian. They can buy off all the charities (the disability charities have been absolutely supine over the attack on the only income of all their members). If you were really sick would you want the charity representing you to be talking about stigma and equality on government endless committees or making sure you didn't have your only income taken away. Sick people were held up for years by not understanding how the charities rely on government money and daren't rock the boat..

But the sick and disabled have given up on the charities and now they have the internet they have access to a voice of their own. Benefits & Work is not a campaigning organisation - it gets it's good name and its following because it works night and day on the internet helping people who are utterly desperate.

And it got the 1000 signatures within the first 24 hours. Isn't that fantastic.

Frances, have signed the carewatch petition and will get involved with the campaign.
Now that Purnell is a man of the left do you think there is any chance that he will join the campaign and protest against his own bill?

You know the 'left' is in real trouble when it is so easy for the knee jerk right to score open goals - from Guido Fawkes:

'The Taxpayers’ Alliance has discovered that last year £1.6 million found its way from the taxpayer to four left-of-centre think tanks; Demos, the New Economics Foundation; the Institute for Public Policy Research and the New Local Government Network.

Think tanks often have a role in thinking the unthinkable in present policy terms. The New Economics Foundation is one of the most bananas of think tanks going. The New Economics Foundation, which was paid £601,518 in 2007-08, is responsible for the Happy Planet Index, which places Saudi Arabia and Burma above the United Kingdom and Sweden in terms of “achieving, long, happy lives without over-stretching the planet’s resources”. This type of left-wing lunacy would not bother anyone much if it wasn’t for the fact that it us who are paying for this drivel.

Demos is the new base for James Purnell (shades of Ed Balls at the Smith Institute) it is a vaguely Blairite / New Labour.

The IPPR was set up in the mid-eighies specifically to give Labour some intellectual firepower.

The New Local Government Network was set-up (though they will vociferously deny this) to organise local government operators along more New Labour lines.

This is just not right, it is bad for the think tank’s independence at the very least. How can they risk rocking the boat if the government is funding them? No right-of-centre think tank as far as Guido knows gets any significant state funding. This should be for the chop by Hammond on the first day of the new government.'

More evidence of the emerging Corporatist State - and guess who funds most of the big name Charities too? Whatever way we look at it vast amounts of your money is being used to subsidise the transformation of PUBLIC Servives into the private sector - to make those profits that will inevitably be spent on creating the next consumer boom.

All by a Labour Administration with a large working majority - and all those who will seriously contest the next election are committed (they don't even have to lie about it now) to making this process deeper. PFIs, tax credits to top up low salaries, State spending to susidise private rents set too high (no rent controls), Information Systems which don't work, subsidies to am amnufacturers to sell abroad - but not nearly enough to Green Technologies.

This is all money raised form the general population - and spent by people who stood for election...

It is true that Social democracy is making a comeback, particularly in the northern regions. It is my belief that the next leader of the Labour Party will be from the Yorkshire region...unfortunately it won't be a boy or any of Brown's inner circle.

Observer 2/8/09 Richard Reeves - "It's hard to believe, but the Tories really are progressives"

The stats:- progressive(s) 13 times, "recapitalise the poor" 1, redistributive 2, distributional 1, localism 2, "equality of capability" 1.

The stats give you some idea of the message that's being put across by the self confessed progressive Tories a.k.a. wolves in sheep's clothing. The line that worries me most and has caused me to comment in response to Jon Teunon is "This paper is also likely to unveil plans to turn assets such as parks, libraries and leisure centres - owned by the state - over to the community." Well now commenting on this here is a bit like preaching to the converted but I'll have my say.

A recent architectural walk with the Twentieth Century Society took us up the Edgeware Road, across the Hyde Park Estate and across to Lancaster Gate, two things stood out to me from this, one was the number of properites secured but otherwise apparently unoccupied and the other was a small park enclosed by fencing and a locked gate with an Arabic sign on it. Those of you who live in London or who visit frequently will know better than I do that these gardens exist, often as the green space in a public square, and locked off other than to key holders. It is this type of private ownership I fear will be the fate of some of our presently public parks should the Tory plans come to pass of turning them "over to the community". Localism carried to this extent can mean, if not controlled, annexed by the wealthy.

Now I'm not an expert on Victorian philanthropy but I believe that it was during the 19th and early 20th century that the benefits of acces to green space, public baths, and libraries was appreciated and instituted without reference to income. It is this I fear we, and by that I mean all of us, risk losing. The museums in Tory hands were charged for until 2001 where they had been free to all during the previous Labour administration. It is this kind of creeping market based provision that I fear.

Parks, libraries and leisure centres are great levellers in society. They offer clean air and open space, free education and entertainment, and subsidised exercise and leisure activities respectively to all, virtually regardless of income or geographical location.

Localism as a policy smacks to me, at its worst, of "sod you Jack we're all right", once again a desire to carry out policies in a given area that benefit a particular group without reference to the majority. The right wing think tank Localis has come up with some ideas for housing in Hammersmith and Fulham along these lines which bear some reading, look up Dave Hill's blog in the Guardian.

In summary I think the Tories are cynically using the language of the old left to appear more left wing than New Labour (which isn't hard), in order to gain votes of disenchanted voters while planning nothing of the kind. Reading between the lines isn't difficult because they let themselves down everytime they open their mouths. Look at James Purnell - the Open Left, Philip Blond - Red Tory, some say John Cruddas is leaning in the same direction, I hope not.

I have no intention of voting Tory at the next election but fear the present government still haven't got the message and aren't even listening, they are sleep walking to massive election defeat and for what? To watch the country move further to the right than Thatcher dared, it makes you want to emigrate doesn't it?

Of course Purnell will follow Freud in to the the Tory party. He's too ambitious to sit around in opposition for eighteen years. And he'll want all those directorships at Indus Delta.

For the full horror of what his legislation is doing read the latest post - A Professional Speaks Out - on the CW blog. He is a very dangerous man.

Put the front on again wwwdot
carerwatch.com/mhealth/

This is from 'The Times Online'

'Tory ministers to all sit together in Cabinet Office? The Demos director thinks so...

Some senior Tories have been suggesting that Demos, rather than Policy Exchange where David Cameron launched his leadership campaign, is the party's new favoured think-tank. There was certainly a step change in relations when George Osborne quietly (with just an article in the Guardian) joined the advisory panel earlier this year.

With its close links to James Purnell, who used it to launch the Open Left project, the think tank is certainly effectively positioning itself as an heir-to-Blair organisation open to both Tory and Labour. Which means that when when Richard Reeves, the director of Demos, speaks about Tory policy - as he does in this morning's Observer - it's worth taking note. For instance, he says:

"There are ideas to try and prevent the diseases departmentalitis and Whitehall tribalism which wreaked such havoc in Labour's first years. All cabinet minister may have offices in the Cabinet Office."

Or:

"There is, for example, a pressing need to hear more on the plans to extend asset ownership and, in Cameron's phrase, to "recapitalise" the poor. A green paper is planned; this needs to spell out in detail how they plan to encourage employee ownership and boost savings for those on low income.:

This paper is also likely to unveil plans to turn assets such as parks, libraries and leisure centres – owned by the state – over to the community. The rhetoric of the "post-bureaucratic age" never really took off, not least because it's a phrase almost as ugly as Brown and Balls' famous "post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory". But if it means anything, it must mean the creation of a post-bureaucratic state. If old Labour was about giving power to workers over the means of production, new Conservatism is partly about giving citizens control over the means of government.

A fascinating suggestion. But, as with its free schools policy, there appears to be a belief amongst Conservatives that there will be armies of public spirited individuals willing to give up their time to manage local assets. Lets hope these noble individuals do step forward in the event of a Tory victory.'

The above just which reinforces the general impression that post-1979 - the direction has been very much one of dismantling the democratic Welfare State to replace it with a Corporate State where Business and the State merge ever closer at the expense of the electorate.

To overcome much of the inherent flaws in such a compromise - not least that in a world where only profit can be the driver of any State run project the most difficult and costly duties of the Welfare State will be neglected - an 'army' of volunteers and Charities will be needed and encouraged to fill the inevitable gaps.

These 'civic' minded citizens will quite likely to be for a large part Churches and STATE funded Charities (with their own ethos) - so Coporatism will now have 'spiritual' blessing and theological legitimacy.

The democratic content in this new Corporatist consensus will be minimal at best - as patriachial and market concerns will join to provide what's is best for the little people. New Labour or Tory - it is a vote for those who are Corporatist and Communitarian, who want to marketise anything left that hasn't yet been forced to yield a profit for those who donate to their Parties.

There’s good article by Michael Massing, The News About The Internet, in the current New York Review of Books. It contains a list of webites which Compass readers may find useful. I leave out the h&c so the Comas server bit won't reject the link, but the article can be found here if you remember to type the h&c bit in first: www.nybooks.com/articles/22960

...and What are Labour MP's doing now?
NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT SITTING BACK AND WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO MAKE A MOVE...or photographs in local media, smiling and doing nothing.

All MP's who claim to represent their constituents whilst their main residence and time in spent in London and not their own constituency should be deselected by the party and replaced by local people who are representative of the people in which they serve.

We hear talk of safe seats. ie Mandelson in the North East,
There are no more safe seats for Labour. Every one will be a battle ground for Labour in the election. The party still does not get it. The people of this country want change, Labour Party members want change. No more handpicked, favouring families and friends club. Let the people decide. Labour Area offices need to be revitalised, casting away corrupt selection boards processes for Parlamentary, Mayoral and council selections and those who sit on them.

Labour will not win the election under Brown, Mandelson or any other i.e youngster. Change now to minimise the damage.

QUITE SIMPLY, AT THE END OF THE LABOUR CONFERENCE IF LABOUR DOESNT CHANGE THERE IS A BELIEF THAT MANY LABOUR MEMBERS AND ACTIVISTS WILL RESIGN THEIR MEMBERSHIPS IN PROTEST

WHO WILL BE YOUR FOOTSOLDIERS THEN?

WHAT THEN? All we need is a leader running the country and the economy who is no better than the bankers. I still remenber the reasons why Mandelson left office in the first place

The future of Labour is without Brown and his policy on the hoof boys. They have got to go. I have not heard one person in the workplace, in the community or elsewhere say that Labour will be re-elected, quite the opposite. People on the streets up and down the country are pig sick of Labour If it takes a Tory win to get rid of three quarters of Labour MP's who don't care of listen, so be it. The longer Brown's charlatans remain in cabinet the certain overwhelming victory to Cameron. Keeping things as they are is political suicide. They must go

Angela Pinter : Why do you say that democratic socialists can only operate within a party that is already democratic? Can't they ever work within a party to seek to make it democratic? Just as they can work within a party to try and make it socialist.

The "middle ground" wasn't a term I used to describe where New Labour stands. It was a term I used to describe where they think they stand.

In current British circumstances if democratic socialists shouldn't work within the Labour Party, what should they do instead? If they should prepare for the funeral pyre, then what will they need to do after they have danced around the ashes?

If this thread is running out this debate, it continues on "Dronfield Blather".

THe problem that Harry Barnes avoids is that 'democratic socialists' can only operate within a party which is actually democratic.
This party actually voted to dismantle its own democratic structures.
Labour is no longer a democratic party and candidates are bien gimposed by the national party on moribund CLPs.
The party of alleged 'democratic socialists' voted for over 3000 new criminal offences including an unequal treaty which allows the extradition of British citizens without any evidence.
Is this what you describe as the middle ground?

Dugsie,

From recent election results, public opinion polls, talking to our normal supporters and the media assault on the Governmemt (justified and otherwise); I feel that the Tories will have a substantial majority at the next election on a low turnout. The only thing that can stop this is an unlikely surge to the Lib Dems.

As things stand, I believe that Labour will do well if they can achieve a 1983-type result.

It is such circumstances which lead me to argue that this would provide an opening for labourism against New Labour. For a wicket would exist on which democratic socialists could operate. Although such socialists would need to be people who would whisper in their team mates left ears, rather than to use megaphones.

For with 200 or less seats, unless we drift there are two main options. To try to recapture Middle England via a tactic that has just collapsed, or to build upon the remaining base of working class support.

The chance of advancing the latter is from (a) right-wing labourites who sold out to New Labour but can regain their past ground, (b) the political class who are empty vessels but need the working class electoral base to further their careers and (c) the Labour Left who have a chance of moving beyond their bolt holes (such as the Socialist Campaign Group) to seek to influence the potential new centre ground. With some 17 years experience in the SCG up to 2005, I appreciate that (c) might be the more difficult task.

The future agenda of Compass would also be effected by such a development, although they would then be seen to be more attractive to members of the political class if they were seen to be moving into a new centre stream. Even Cruddas might start to act and to be less restricted in what he says.

The debate continues on "Dronfield Blather".

Thanks Harry

It seems likely to me that the Tories will have a clear working majority after the next general election, but Labour will still be the second party in a two party system, This situation will afford no opportunity for electoral reform, apart from fiddling around with AV. What will the factions of New Labour do in this situation ? It looks as though their primary concern will be to ensure that the Project continues and that there is no 'turning back'. This will involve a relaunch of the Project with a new name and a new justificatory narrative. The rival groups may not be able to agree among themselves, so there could be more than one initiative. Presumably Progress will be to the fore in this.

Compass has launched an initiative to revive social democracy, but with a lack of credibility in the leading figures in this development. Some of them have records of support for New Labour in the recent past. My view is that the Labour Left now needs to think long and hard about its own position.

Dugsie (and hopefully this will be of some relevance to Angela Pinter) -

You are correct to point to the ideological nature of Blair's politics. This did not, of course, mean that he did not tack and manoeuvre for electoral advancement, political power and favourable media headlines. Yet (although having little sense of history himself) he was in the tradition of Lloyd George's Social Liberalism and Harold MacMillan's "Middle Way", favouring a capitalism with what he hoped would be a human face. His arguments against "conservativism" were arguments against what he saw as the class nature of much 20th century politics. Both the Tories and Labour were seen by Blair as having been steeped in this. Politics for Blair was best when it occupieds the middle ground, as reflected in his new clause 4. Where a dynamic economy (essentally capitalist) would produce the wealth allowing for elements of the State to encourage forms of social redistribution.

In advancing his project in the Labour Party he pulled much of the former right-wing of Labour with him. To which since have been added a political class also ready to absorb his approach in order to advance their own careers. Numbers from both these camps favoured his terrible twin, Gordon Brown.

My case is that the circumstances leading to the coming electoral drubbing can be used to change this approach. To hold onto seats, Labour has to try and hold onto its traditional support, not ignore it as has happened mainly over the past 3 elections.

Even though Labour after the election will still have a clear majority of New Labour MPs, the values they associated themselves with in the past will be on the back foot. New Labour MPs who come out of the old right-wing labour camp can at least be attracted back to the electoral virtues of traditional labourism. Whilst the political class interested only in promotion, will be in the wildeness with no Government posts in prospect for years. They are essentailly empty vessels

Labourism can get itself back on the agenda in such circumstances. As realised since the time of Keir Hardie, labourism (including trade unionism) gives scope for democratic socialists.

This is the best chance for labourism (and thus democratic socialism) since the brief interlude of John Smith's leadership. He was no left winger, but he wasn't New Labour.

So not only should democratic socialists vote Labour (even for hopeless New Labour candidates), but they should join the Labour Party - as long as they themselves know how to tack and manoeuvre for their ideology.

I must agree with LEe.
The tiem has come for Compass to be a little more specific about it claims to stand for.

Supporting Cruddas 'versus' Purnell seems almost comical.
Teh first as time as tragedy. TEH second time as farce

I hope the hopeful get what they pray for. Given that Cruddas is a Purnell ally, I cant see how there can possibly be a vast difference between them. They dont seem to me to represent a spectrum. The kind of things Cruddas has supported in his votes in parliament couldnt possibly exist in any social democracy I would be interested in living in. In any case, in statement after statement, Cruddas has openly and without any apology said that what he wants is to go back to the orginal New Labour that Blair introduced (when he was Blair's special advisor). That is also not the kind of "social democracy" that is of any interest to me. Cruddas worked with Purnell and Lawson as a team to help Blair introduce New Labour. Here they are together again.

Lawson said Purnell cant have it both ways. Well, neither can Cruddas. Either he is the person who made all those votes as an MP, in which case I dont accept him as fit to speak on social democracy; or he now disavows all those votes, in which case he is an opportunist whom I would never trust because he could do that again.

It IS a good idea that some people who want to challenge, go to the lecture. For me, I know I would be ejected or arrested. I have a very low tolerance of humbug, and I know I would go ape. I am not a true englishman. I am a coarse colonial of Scots extraction, and so I dont fit well into refined and genteel company.

I have read nothing which would convince me to 'stay and fight' for Labours non existent future.
Labour will be annihilated in May and anybody who believes in anything ,not just left-wingers. should savour the moment. Labour has so debased democracy that it should not survive.
LEft wingers should announce from now tht New Labour are on their own. They will lost on their own as they never shard their previous 'victory'.
What is the point of pretending that 'Labour can win' if it becomes ' a little more left wing'.

This is not the forward march of Labour that left wingers would like but the Strange Death of Labour England.
Prepare the funeral pyre.

Posted by frances
on 30 July 2009, 11:53:36 AM
-snipped-
"Take the seriously sick and challenge Purnell with them. If this meeting is supposed to discover clear pink water then challenge Purnell with something concrete. If Purnell recants and says 'oh, of course the seriously sick aren't supposed to be hounded and threatened - this is all a mistake' then film it on a thousand mobile phones and send it to Cooper and save the sick. If he doesn't he has no place in Labour. Job done."

I hope you're going, and are able to put this to him. Having slept on it I'm inclined to apply for a seat on the grounds that it's better to be there than not, having been convinced by the discussion that Purnell needs to be exposed for what he is in the same way that Philip Blond was at Demos in June. I'm not sure you could get a cigarette paper between them.

'Ironic that many socialists I respect urge caution about splitting Labour even now when it is so right wing - because of FPTP'

I'n not so much concerned with splitting Labour, as with splitting off New Labour from Labour. Leave as isolated individuals and that is what we will remain. There is an alternative organisation. Not large, not powerful, but it is there. It is the Labour Representation Committee and it is rooted in the Labour Party. There are other left groups too, allies, like Labour Briefing. There are publications and webb sites. The cancer that is New Labour has to be removed. If we were stong enough, we would have done so by now. Ex-Labour Party members can join in, they should not regard themselves as detached observers. Where is the organisation they have built since leaving ? Come to our aid now, otherwise, following electoral defeat, New Labour will reconstruct itself, perhaps as a new 'social democracy'.

'Ironic that many socialists I respect urge caution about splitting Labour even now when it is so right wing - because of FPTP'

It's not ironic - it's pragmatic. I agree with them. So put in the chisel very carefully left of Purnell and real hard NewLabour.

I'm a born optimist and I still think that is what Compass are trying to do with the clear pink tinged water. Separate Purnell off to illustrate what we are rejecting. But I'm not sure that is how Cruddas sees it.

The trouble is what happens in reality is that four men make four short vague speeches - then a few members of the audience get to ask one question - to which the Panel sum up - and the Jo/e Public has to then sit down with no chnce to respond.

That is not a debate - but a monlogue with a grudging interruption from the floor like the infuriating Question Time on the BBC!! (Seemingly designed to get through several questions in a superficial manner - as soon as atopic threatens to get interesting the man who got the job because of his father moves onto the next unsubstantial 'examination.'

I could give these people - who keep pushing right wing opportunists as saviours of the progressive/centre left/socialism/social democracy (it changes by the week) 'dreamscape' with £7 - to only encourage them all the more - and then listen to the very people who voted for Workfare talk unconvincingly about Labour Values.

Workfare, Imperialism, Expenses without receipts, Transparency, STV not AV Plus, stopping the Ideas of the SDP from completely killing socialism off (AV+, anti-Trade Union, US Poodle, No Grassroot 'extremism', Social Democracy minus its Marxist origins etc).

Ironic that many socialists I respect urge caution about splitting Labour even now when it is so right wing - because of FPTP so waht does that say about the Gang of Four in 1981? That was politcal suicide, sectarian and part of the reason why Thatcher survived until 1990 after dismantling so much of the Social State etc.

(I can't be sectarian as a 10 year old at the time I was more interested in the Jam's Funeral Pyre - than the death of the post war consensus and socialism going off simultaneously!)

But it apparently - the SDP ideas are returning - no wonder Polly is so excited - and even though I'm not a social democrat (a real one I mean not a fake one for careerist reasons) but I warn those who are serious about 'Social Democracy' as a set of left political values - because its name may well be tarnished before long, if people like Purnell get to define it.

How can I get all this into one question Lee - let alone get a convincing response?

Wow, Jon. Some real passion there ! Good to see you angry. Personally I enjoy it when people lose their cool. There is a hell of a lot to be angry about. I wonder what they would do with the two of us if we turned up at the lecture (I can see Neal praying !!).Maybe we can get paid to stay away ? We could bring Lewis too, dressed in a bard's robe, long beard, like an ancient druid. SG can sit in a tree, dressed in lincoln green, and do the Robin Hood stuff; and Dugsie can charge the stage, waving his party membership card. Could be a lively late summer eve in Aldwych

Well found SG - Social Democracy could possibly be funded by the biggest windfall tax in history - on any City Bonus made since 1997 - on the assumption that money made was part of the two bubbles (dot com and housing - that they and the Governmens on both side of the Atlantic have encouraged - and which the Public at large will pay for.

The Financial Crisis deepened and the Public blamed the Bankers- so of course the Bankers were not only saved but their bonuses have been restored - Job Done!

The Politicians who had colluded in this scandal were founding with their hands in the Expenses Till - and the Public blamed the Politicians - so of course the MPs doubled their expenses which avoid the inconvenience of having to have a receipt! Job Done!

But we have got to find savings somewhere else - so why not make those scrounging mentally ill and workshy toil for £1.73 Job Done!

Social Democracy? We're not even a liberal democracy anymore - and those who have helped the UK become an authoritarian Corporatist Workfare State - where the privilged pull everyones' strings - are still at the 'scene of the crime' mouthing off meaningless platitudes!

Just wait until the Tories get in and the real opposition starts...

I will stay away and not spoil anybodys fun.
The presence of Cruddas who has complete contempt for the working class of Barking does not inspire me.
Nor PUrnell and Toynbee.
I have to say it does seem pointless

Sorry. Garbled first para sent without first checking it fir errors due to pace and stress of modern life, &c, &c. Here it is as it should be:

Interesting piece on rawstory.com from which we may well draw one or two equally interesting parallels. The consequences of New Labour's criminally irresponsible economic policies have already determined the future of social democracy - and much else - for at least a generation, so when discussing the "good society", Dr Jon might also favour us by making his thoughts known on the "get by society" and the "got off scot free society".

“The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

“In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

“Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”

“Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

““The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

““The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

““You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

““The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”

“Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

“At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

“Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

“Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

“Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

“Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.

“Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

““Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.””

– Daniel Tencer

rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/spitzer-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-an-inside-job/

Sorry. Garbled first para sent without first checking it fir errors due to pace and stress of modern life, &c, &c. Here it is as it should be:

Interesting piece on rawstory.com from which we may well draw one or two equally interesting parallels. The consequences of New Labour's criminally irresponsible economic policies have already determined the future of social democracy - and much else - for at least a generation, so when discussing the "good society", Dr Jon might also favour us by making his thoughts known on the "get by society" and the "got off scot free society".

“The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

“In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

“Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”

“Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

““The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

““The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

““You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

““The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”

“Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

“At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

“Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

“Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

“Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

“Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.

“Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

““Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.””

– Daniel Tencer

rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/spitzer-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-an-inside-job/

Interesting piece on rawstory.com from which we may well draw one or two equally interesting parallels. The consequences of New Labour's criminally irresponsible economic policies have already determined the future of social democracy - and much else - for at least a generation, so may, instead when discussing the "good society", Dr Jon might favour us by making his thoughts known on the "get by society" and the "got off society".

“The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

“In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

“Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”

“Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

““The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

““The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

““You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

““The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”

“Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

“At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

“Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

“Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

“Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

“Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.

“Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

““Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.””

– Daniel Tencer

rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/spitzer-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-an-inside-job/

Brian Lynch (Carnoustie)
on 30 July 2009, 7:36:30 PM
My pleasure Paul,
The sooner Purnell and his right wing charlatans are exposed the better, and hopefully compass will now realise this also.
This is the usual suspects e.g. Blears, Smith,
Flint etc combining with Purnell to pretend that they will be the left wing in any future opposition. Hence hoping that they gain credibility and then guess what business as usual. Continuation of free market policies, cheap labour economy, public services privatised, further inequalities, the poor and sick targeted and blamed for everything. In short new labour all over again, which really means another form of conservatism.
*****************************************************************

There have been some attempts to present the panel as "representing a range of views", in other words, its an open debate in the Spirit of the "Open Left" and Compass's advocacy of "pluralism and inclusiveness". Quite apart from whether that is a useful way of spending a late summer Tuesday evening, we should be permitted to ask whether this really does represent a range of views, whether it really is inclusive and pluralist.

Where, for example, is the left-wing ? The socialists who have special views and insight into social democracy. They are absent. What we have instead are three people who are working together on the Open Left project, all New Labour to the core, all strong early admirers of Blair and closely associated with the launch of the New Labour project. Of course, now they will all deny responsibility for everything that went wrong, and will use the words "New Labour" with a sneer on their lips. We also have two MPs that have voted 97% of the time with the New Labour government and are now trying to make us forget that.

The only different view may come from Webb, whose voting record is genuinely left wing; although I have no idea whether he is any more of an authority on social democracy than the other three. Cruddas has already told us that his quest is to revive early Blairism, and he is the keynote speaker. If you like your social democracy dished up as the commencement of the New Labour project, I imagine you will have a great time. Polly was always a great Tony cheerleader, and Cruddas, Purnell, and Lawson were Tony's bright young things. Will a portrait of chairman Tony be on display ? Awkward timing for Cruddas because in early September, the Chilcot white-wash will be well under way, and all sorts of somewhat ungenerous feelings about our Tony may be floating around in the late summer gloaming

My pleasure Paul,
The sooner Purnell and his right wing charlatans are exposed the better, and hopefully compass will now realise this also.
This is the usual suspects e.g. Blears, Smith,
Flint etc combining with Purnell to pretend that they will be the left wing in any future opposition. Hence hoping that they gain credibility and then guess what business as usual. Continuation of free market policies, cheap labour economy, public services privatised, further inequalities, the poor and sick targeted and blamed for everything. In short new labour all over again, which really means another form of conservatism.

Thank you Brian Lynch (Carnoustie)
on 29 July 2009, 9:46:51 AM for saying what I think, hence my email yesterday to Gavin Hayes.

Dear Mr Hayes,

I might have gone to this having enjoyed the Compass conference June 13th however your inclusion of the right wing pretender James Purnell makes this a pointless exercise. Try reading the responses to his post on the Open Left website and see what the general concensus is there. I'm all for open debate but if Compass is of the left what on earth are you doing including pretenders like him? I'm out.

Regards
Paul Bird

Thank you Brian Lynch (Carnoustie)
on 29 July 2009, 9:46:51 AM for saying what I think, hence my email yesterday to Gavin Hayes.

Dear Mr Hayes,

I might have gone to this having enjoyed the Compass conference June 13th however your inclusion of the right wing pretender James Purnell makes this a pointless exercise. Try reading the responses to his post on the Open Left website and see what the general concensus is there. I'm all for open debate but if Compass is of the left what on earth are you doing including pretenders like him? I'm out.

Regards
Paul Bird

And Angela: As we have seen Cruddas repeat time and time again his admiration for and desire to return to the "old Tony Blair" would it be unfair to characterise the upcoming lecture as a Nostalgic Tribute to Tony Before "It All Went Wrong" ? Three of Tony's original right-hand persons will be there: Cruddas, Lawson, and Purnell.

I want photographs

In reply to some recent posts about TOny Blair and 'what he stood for'
Is it really worth speculating about what he believed in if anything?
SUrely we just do not know the true and full story about how New Labour came into being and the forces which shaped it and or financed it.
And how it was able to hijack the party and make it into something else so that it no longer is recogniseable as Labour

What is perhaps equally or more interesting is how a party - this great party of ours' (sic)- allowed it to happen. It was so desperate for 'power' that it sold its birthright for a mess of pottage.
That is why there is literally nothing left to fight for . ANd that is why no 'strategy' willmake any difference. It all ended in 1994 but it took a little longer to realise the fact.
For anything to arise Labour must not only lose the election it must be defeated and destroyed. That I am afraid is the only way to rid ourselves of the Blairite plague
which is infecting Compass itself.

For me the sppeches conceal a coherent and foreful set of assumptions (drenched in simplisitc religous 'morality') behind all the verbal and rhetorical tricks you so rightly dislike.
***************************************************************

We are very close. He employed people to create the coherence. But in that sense he was not much different to Thatcher. She had instincts; her policy makers clothed them into a coherent ideology. Even the snake oil salesman believes in something.

I have located a set of early Blair speeches and writings, the ones that fill Cruddas with such a passion and to which he wants Britain to return. When the paper of his speech is available, I plan to do a detailed comparison and critique. I wouldnt be at all surprised if it turned out that Compass is the tour company for Cruddas's nostalgia voyage. I have no doubt the applause will be deafening, and may even clear the pigeons for half an hour.

Lewis, whatever happened to the pigeons ?

'Everytime I listen to one of his speeches or read them, I can analyse for you the lack of real content, the use of words as seductive devices, the way in which he lies and deceives. You also know that there are many commentators aside from little me, who have done exactly that.'

Fair enough Lee I agree - but that is only because I think he (and all 'centre left' ideologues) don't think the 'people' can take the raw truth or the really difficult diiemmas 'leaders' face.

For me the sppeches conceal a coherent and foreful set of assumptions (drenched in simplisitc religous 'morality') behind all the verbal and rhetorical tricks you so rightly dislike.

I agree largely with SG.

Imagine that there is to be a battle ahead for the soul of Labour. Who are the combatants and what are their battle strengths and vulnerabilities ? The real left in Labour has a clear agenda, strong supporters, and the capacity to link with valuable allies: the unions and constituents. How deep that goes with voters is unclear to me. We have not had a Labour true-left candidate fight a by-election. What is clear is that the Labour left appears to have very few weapons it can employ within the party. Its chief one has been vote rebellions, and they will lose that soon. Their ability to make inroads among the softer-left of the parliamentary party seems limited...maybe a dozen of so
*******************************************************************
Then we have the center. Like all centers, it's yellow lines and dead armadillos. It is formless, spinless, largely voting fodder. It will get caught up in the battle, but as foot soldiers fighting a war it doesnt understand.
*************************************************************
Then we have the Blairite core and their faithful poodles. This is immensely strong, well organised, ruthless, determined, and willing to resort to whatever it takes to maintain power within the party. Its weakness is its lack of money, and the ambivalent relations with the unions. It is also losing its city friends to the Tories. But within the party it is the formidable force
************************************************************
Then we have a group of prophets and missionaries, one of which is Compass, that preaches the good news, tries to heal the rifts, and hopes to make the Blairites honest. It is a natural home for those who hanker after the Labour that has gone, and is trying to write some scriptures to move people back to the fundamental truths. Its strengths are that its boundaries are so large almost anyone is welcome; it has word-smiths, the Guardian, and a broader respectability than any of the other New Labour entities. Its weakness is that it is resolutely anti true-left, almost incapable of escaping from abstract theory, and quite easy to manipulate. It is currently being used by Blairite shape-changers, portraying themselves as reborn visionaries, and in the battle for the soul of Labour, Compass will end up being used by the Blairites against the true-left.

No, Jon, I dont accept that argument. I am perfectly able to spot a passionate ideologue who works through his strong attachments to principle and his inherited legacy. My model for that would be Tony Benn, someone I dont worship although I honour, who I see as thoroughy authentic, purposeful, vested in his mission, and incredibly selfless and committed for others rather than himself.

There are many reasons why I see Blair as a fake. Its not because I despise his policies. Its because the trickery is self evident to me. Everytime I listen to one of his speeches or read them, I can analyse for you the lack of real content, the use of words as seductive devices, the way in which he lies and deceives. You also know that there are many commentators aside from little me, who have done exactly that. Even his ardent supporter Alastair Campbell revealed that Blair prays only when the TV cameras are on.

There was passion, of course, but it was passion for himself. Blair is the Mick Jagger of British politics.

"OF course there is also the possibbility that Blairites would repeat the threat of a SDP-type secession and even carry it out."

The probabilty of this being the case is 1.0 and it's the reason (apart from its debts, lack of democracy, inept, semi-deranged, unelected leadership, policies which assume an alternate reality to the one the rest of us live in, &c, &c) I felt I had no choice but join the LibDems if I wanted to make a contribution to the political process. Labour is damaged goods, used beyond recovery, and if it ever starts to breath again, New Labour would simply make sure it gets smothered el quicko.

The only possibility of a future is that CLPs take advantage of the expenses furore by de-selecting New Labour MPs and substituting them with candidates a tad more in contact with reality and rejecting any candidate who the NEC attempt to parachute in. This leaves the problem of PPCs who are not already MPs but who are obviously tainted. Wherever possible dump them and, if not, either run an alternative Labour candidate against them or endorse the most acceptable (or least unacceptable) candidate of any of the competing parties, preferably with a view to achieving a hung parliament.

One thing to bear in mind is that New Labour and Scottish Labour are more likely to sustain a minority Tory government than are the LibDems, the SNP, Plaid and the Greens - which is why there needs to be a little pre-election house cleaning. Interestingly, it's much easier strategy to put in place now that the Blairites have left the Labour party skint and most of the troops on the ground oppose New Labour, the present government and its policies, and resent the abuse of the Commons expenses system by their MPs.

Lee

'I really dont think we are that far apart on Blair.'

I did my last post without seeing yours - which does come nearer to the position of Dugsie and I - and we weren't saying it was 'homegrown' (all the 'main' religions are foreign imports from the Middle East - and are contradictory to the Germanic Family/Tribal morality that is still very much part of English Politics (Wergild = compensation - and Family Care V Welfare etc) and certainly not particlularly 'deep' (nor was Clinton or even Friedman if we look closer) but Blair was and maybe is convinced that he was right (either off the cuff like you'er suggesting - or more planned - it doesn't matter as much as you might imply?).

He thought:

'We live in the Gobal Age - the 'undeserving poor' can't fend for themselves and are drag on everyone else, so a return to 'Poor Law' Values (which never went way - read the Mail) and a much increased market will shake things up to get New Great Britain 'fighting fit.' Only the very weakest will be spared from the new discipline - it is for theor own good.

This may be misguided or authoritarian - but it isn't empty opportunism - he would have caused much less harm if it had been!

Frances: Purnell would always have said that there was never any intention to harm a single innocent person, and that if ever an innocent person is harmed, that will have been a mistake. He will point to the appeals and review procedures intended to protect the innocent. You will never get him on the grounds that this is driven by malice against the innocent.

Its the same argument as the collateral damage argument. The goal is to get the baddies. Life isnt convenient. The baddies dont separate themselves, stand on the left wearing badges, so you can shoot them. They live in the midst of the innocent and good. So to get them you shoot innocent people. Its regrettable, not intended, and always a mistake, and there is a clear policy that everything possible must be done to protect the innocent. And we will have independent reviews wherever the innocent are killed and come down hard on anyone found doing that deliberately.

He will say that there is no magical way to separate the malingerers and cheats from the genuine claimants without going in there, like a US military surgical strike, and looking at all claimants in the most thorough way possible, which is why its best to privatise that process, because it will work with targets and bottom lines.

So the arguments against what Purnell set up and is being carried on by Cooper et al, has to be redefined. The impact when it goes wrong is horrific, and we all know that the collateral damage argument is phony, but one wont get anywhere suggesting it is simply driven by malice...by the way, I am not claiming that this is your position; I realise its a lot more refined than that. It is also important to point out that most of the techniques and methods have been imported from the USA.

Dugsie

I think that Lee and Frances - being practical idealists who are so competent at campaigning for genuninly left positions (and being convinced atheists) sometimes underestimate, both the ideological and the fantatical beliefs of those such as Blair.

It is almost as if both Lee and Frances (who you and I would very much support as being rational and principled socilaists - who know how to deal with the real world) just can't quite believe that anyone who has had the priviliged education of Blair could actually believe in - what appears to most real democratic socialists - a concerted effort to marketise the UK as both good for the UK - and as being more'progressive' than the Tories.

What I think they fail to understand (maybe because its ideology is so aline to theirs) is the propensity for 'benign' authoritarians to rip up previous 'rules' or 'consensuses' - just because they, the all wise and knowing - know what is best for everyone else. For me it is no coincidence that Blair is now a Catholic convert (who are often among the most convinced and extreme) - the Patriach is spiritually and morally superior by definition - so it was easier for him to ignore the millions of British people whp railed aginst th eillegal occupation of Iraq etc.

People who think that Blair's Foreign Policy was his one (mistaken) sign of idealism - like Polly Toynbee miss the point about those with ideologies so alien to theirs - that they're left unseen. (Obviously the fact that you and I often can sense these ideoloical assumptions is not a very pleasant feeling for us! - and long may Lee and Frances stay safe from such 'thoughts' - beause they do so much good as things are).

On Blair, I think what Frances and I have said is very close. I dont at all disagree with Dugsie that there was a definite ideological content to what Blair supported; its only a matter of how it came about.

Even although Blair centered a great deal of power on himself, that doesnt mean that there werent ideologues around him. Of course. He came to power with the intention of changing Labour fundamentally. All I am sasying is that it was not a well-worked out ideological blue-print, but rather a matter of picking up what he saw around him that strongly appealed to his biases, and what he thought he could sell. His goal was to make Labour popular and modern, which meant inundating government with management consultants. They are the ones who decided how government would run like a business, dispassionately chasing targets. Blair was attracted by that idea, but couldnt conceivably have come upo with it in the first place.

Neither could he have come up with the ideas that so impressed him across the Atlantic. When he met Clinton, he simply connected dots. The neo-liberal agenda emerged from Milton Friedman's Chilean experiment, and was seized upon by Reagan and Thatcher. All Blair realised was that America had moved even further forward than Thatcher but that it was the same ideology. With Thatcher gone, it was natural for Blair to continue her programme using what he learnt from Clinton and then simply following Bush. Anyone who believes that Blair's agenda was entirely British and home grown could not be more wrong. The privatisation of services, the workfare philosophy, the surveillance obsession, the terrorism legislation and erosion of habeas corpus, the academies, the use of minumum wage to contain salaries, the growth of an unregulated city, the erosion of the unions, all of these were consistent with Thatcher but modelled on Clinton/Bush, and mainly the latter. Even progress on women's rights was modelled on the US. As was Blair's obsession with a written constitution, a supreme court, primaries, and a shift to a presidential style executive.

Where there was a difference was the continuation under Blair of some Labour goals that were of no concern to either Thatcher nor Bush, and were the liberal face of inherited tradition: efforts to reduce child poverty, efforts towards pensioners, improvements in education. But as we know these fell far short.

If Blair had what Dugsie sees as an ideology, the packaging of something that may look like a coherent policy blueprint was accomplished by the narrative writers who worked around him including Cruddas and Lawson, Burnham, Miliband etc. Blair's role was to make words, to use language as a magical device to sell, outwit, parry, seduce, deceive: that is what Cruddas so admires because Blair was undoubtedly extraordinarily successful with the vast majority of people. That dies when Blair left office. Brown tried but was utterly hopeless, especially at lying; and no one around him had Blair's skills either, except in a pale fashion, Cruddas. This is Cruddas' chance now to restore the Blair magic that so fascinated him and to which he made important contributions. If you compare the way Cruddas can use words, with the thoroughly dorky performance of Brown's PR people, Harman, Blears etc, its a sea change. Purnell hopes to do something similar, although his style is to attempt to intellectualise and make mysterious.

I really dont think we are that far apart on Blair.

'The only course left is to disown and drive out the opportunists and parasites in the party and force them to make a choice.'

Absolutely. Which is why I say make a stand on the WR Bill on ESA. ESA only applies to sick people. Single mothers and the long term unemployed would be left for a fight another day.

Even if you want to hound pseudo sick malingerers - that still leaves around 60% of sick people with very serious chronic conditions who were supposed to go in the 'support' group of ESA and be treated with respect. If you can't muster a fight to defend seriously ill people I think as a Labour movement you are finished.

Take the seriously sick and challenge Purnell with them. If this meeting is supposed to discover clear pink water then challenge Purnell with something concrete. If Purnell recants and says 'oh, of course the seriously sick aren't supposed to be hounded and threatened - this is all a mistake' then film it on a thousand mobile phones and send it to Cooper and save the sick. If he doesn't he has no place in Labour. Job done.

In response to Harry Barnes
This strategy if strategy it is would only work if a very high proportion of left-wing MPs were elected and most Blairites were defeated. OF course there is also the possibbility that Blairites would repeat the threat of a SDP-type secession and even carry it out. Also critical will be the response of trade unions. But this would not carry with it any democratic legitimacy because most trade unionists do not vote Labour and stopped doing so in the late 50s.
Barnes refers to democratic socialists. But many of the 'democratic socialists' voted to dismantle the already imperfect and limited democratic structures. And they are not and never have been 'socialist'. Labour is not even 'social democratic' » It is in fact so right wing that it cannot even be categorised as Christian democratic.
The comparison with 1931 is inaccurate because then the party as a whole believed in something coherent which it could unite around. That is no longer the case. \The only course left is to disown and drive out the opportunists and parasites in the party and force them to make a choice.
That would mean being out of power for a long time but what difference did 'being in power' make?

The reality is that a party which believes in nothing has no real reason for existence
It is all too late
Labour is already finished and the general election will just proclaim the fact.
Prepare the funeral pyre.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I am right about Blair and that the rest of you, with the honorable exception of Jon, are wrong. I like the little piece below from Wiki, without agreeing with all of it.


Policies
The Labour Party is historically a socialist political party. In 2001, Tony Blair said, "We are a left of centre party, pursuing economic prosperity and social justice as partners and not as opposites"Blair has rarely applied such labels to himself, but he promised before the 1997 election that New Labour would govern "from the radical centre", and according to one lifelong Labour Party member, has always described himself as a social democrat. However, Labour Party backbenchers and other left wing critics typically place Blair to the right of centre. A YouGov opinion poll in 2005 also found that a small majority of British voters, including many New Labour supporters, place Blair on the right of the political spectrum. The Financial Times on the other hand has argued that Blair is not conservative, but instead a populist.Curiously though, and perhaps contradictorily, in the new Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution written by Blair personally, the party is defined a "Democratic Socialist" party.

Critics and admirers tend to agree that Blair's electoral success was based on his ability to occupy the centre ground and appeal to voters across the political spectrum, to the extent that he has been fundamentally at odds with traditional Labour Party values. Some left wing critics have argued that Blair has overseen the final stage of a long term shift of the Labour Party to the right, and that very little now remains of a Labour Left. There is also evidence that Blair's long term dominance of the centre has forced his Conservative opponents to shift a long distance to the left, in order to challenge his hegemony there.

Blair has raised taxes (but did not increase income tax for high-earners); introduced a minimum wage and some new employment rights (while keeping Margaret Thatcher's trade union legislation); introduced significant constitutional reforms; promoted new rights for gay people in the Civil Partnership Act 2004; and signed treaties integrating Britain more closely with the EU. He introduced substantial market-based reforms in the education and health sectors; introduced student tuition fees; sought to reduce certain categories of welfare payments, and introduced tough anti-terrorism and identity card legislation.

I think you are all wrong about Blair. He wasn't interested in politics. He was an actor, a would be rock idol, a lawyer. He fell in to the Labour Party by mistake because his wife was trying to be an MP and he thought - I can do that.

He picked up other people's ideas and surfed them. He had brilliant skills at presenting. He didn't believe in anything.

Lee: You can't explain the commitment to free market economics, the privatisation agenda and his Atlanticism in these terms. This was the basis of the original alliance between Blair and Brown. It was and is ideological. New Labour, New Britain.

I must say I agree in essence with Adrian's take on Blair, and many of the studies on Blair say the same thing. He followed Thatcher's agenda not as a coherent and well understood policy, but simply because he deeply admired the spirit behind it. Throughout his premiership, he was largely content free, a zelig character who would imitate and piggy-back on whatever excited him. Being a deeply effete and insecure man, he was thrilled by Bush macho and determined to be the same and "kick ass". He also luxuriated being in the company of flamboyant and wealthy reactionaries, hence his infatuation with Bush, Berlusconi, and Aznar. He employed words largely for their sound, and there was very little actual sense in what he said; but because of his flair (which I regard as the opposite), he could create the impression that perhaps what he said could mean something.

He gathered enough power and obsequiousness around him that he could order policies to be written around his whims...most of them were things he picked up from Clinton or Bush, often very poorly understood and certainly not at a policy level. His intellect is extraordinarily shallow despite his fluency with words.

What is extraordinary is that the showman Blair, pumping out language with no meaning and understanding, is exactly what Cruddas most admires. For Cruddas language is not a means to an end, it is the end in itself. Once he has expressed something, that is the end of the task. He was extraordinarily close to Blair, so it is no surprise that he admires that use of language, which I believe is largely employed as a means of seduction, and that his own understanding of policy is as shallow as Blair's. His ideas strike me as remarkably superficial and raw.

Compass, of course, also loves language. The narrative IS the output. So its also quite natural that Compass sees Cruddas fulfilling its goals. The speech, the applause, the warm after-effect: that is the entire cycle. I have seen no evidence in the people Compass regards as its stars, any capacity to follow through. It begins and ends with language.