Hubris, carelessness and the second death.
Depending on who you believe, Alastair Campbell had a formula concerning the life of a scandal and whether those embroiled within it could survive in their jobs. Again, depending on who you believe, Campbell decided that most could carry on if by either the tenth or fourteenth day since it was first exposed the coverage had almost disappeared. We're now a week and a day into the Abrahams funding scandal, and it shows no signs whatsoever of being about to drop off the front pages.The Brown camp must have been dreading the Sundays, where the weekly hacks had far more time than their daily counterparts to uncover further intricacies of Labour's dubious funding over the past few years. Things could have been a lot worse, one would think, even though the Mail on Sunday splashed on how Mahmoud Khayami donated to the party a whole day after he been entered on the electoral register, and Abrahams, who seems to be doing his best to be mischievous, noted that there are more senior figures within the party who knew that he was the source of the money coming from at least four different fronts. The situation has also been helped slightly by the whole Gillian Gibbons affair, although the embarrassment that David Miliband himself wasn't able to garner her early release while two Lords were able to might yet bite too. If politics hadn't become so separated in Scotland and England, the scandal which has also engulfed Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, best summed up by Mr Eugenides, would also have hit far harder than it has south of the border.
The one thing that is still beyond belief is that Labour had the best part of two whole days to get its entire story about what happened completely straight, yet it failed comprehensively. The first they heard of what was going to be in the Mail on Sunday was on Saturday evening, and according to Patrick Wintour's Grauniad account it wasn't seen as too serious, but the involvement and resignation of Peter Watt still should have brought home just how damaging the fallout from the latest breach of party funding law was going to be. Yet even by Brown's press conference on Tuesday morning the full account of what occurred had not been constructed, nor has it even been now. To best disarm the ensuing storm, what should have been put into the public domain was a narrative of what had happened, how the party had got it wrong and how it was going to be put right. At the very best it can be said that Labour was leaving the details out so that Lord Whitty could establish them, while at worst the party was and is being blatantly dishonest, a view I more than lean towards.
For instance, how did a man such as Peter Hain just completely forget to register a donation (or indeed, most of his donations, as it now turns out) from none other than Jon Mendelsohn towards his deputy leadership campaign? The inference must be that it was a very convenient transgression. This itself distracts from the real question, which ought to by why and how some of the candidates thought it was necessary to raise such vast sums, in Hain's case £77,000, for what was an internal leadership campaign. Even more startling is that Harriet Harman, the eventual winner, was to hold
Brown's last resort to try to regain the initiative has been to dangle the carrot to the Tories of severing the link with the unions once and for all. Perhaps the only major surprise is that it has taken both this long to happen and that the unions have put up with Labour for so many years, through so many broken promises whilst still funding the party up to the hilt. The details of how the political levy will be made "transparent" in Brown's words are unclear: will this mean a limit of £50,000 a year or every member being required to OK the money donated by the union? If it's the former, it will mark the final, full transition of Labour from the party representing the ordinary worker to that of one totally funded by the same corporate, rich individuals as the Tories. This occurred long ago in policy, but the death of Labour in spirit in exchange for the dishonesty of its apparatchiks is fitting, if only as a reminder of the last ten years.
As both Dave and Chris have said, this wasn't supposed to happen, but this can't purely be blamed on the Blair era. Brown might not have known about the donations, but he did appoint Mendelsohn who will famously be known for being "concerned" about Abrahams' funding, but not enough to do anything about it prior to the story being exposed. He has completely failed to make good on his promise for "change" while the mendacity of Blair was never punctured. We do need as Chris argues the resurrection of mass politics, but who with? Labour has never been more of a busted flush. Do we help build the Greens or go somewhere else? Fact is, we simply don't know, and what's more, we won't. Being disaffected is much easier than starting again.
Labels: David Abrahams, death of Labour, funding scandal, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Peter Hain, political donations, Wendy Alexander
| Permalink
Do we help build the Greens or go somewhere else?
Somewhere else. The Greens under FPTP will take 20 years or so to be able to break through, if they can build up enough support and deal with their illiberal authoritarian tendancy.
The only hope we have is to break the electoral system so that we don't end up with duopoly choices. That's, ultimately, why I ended up in the Lib Dems—they're crap, but they're less crap than the other two, and unlike the Greens they could, potentially, effect real change quickly. We need real reform of the system—that's the root cause of the problem. Only the Lib Dems have a chance of seeing that through.
Once we've got a better system (the Irish would be best), then it's a whole new ball game, and I think all three parties with 'left' elements will realign. But FPTP requires concentration of effort where it can pay off. That means the Lib Dems.
Posted by
MatGB |
Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:56:00 PM
I would agree with you - but with the Lib Dem Orange Book tendency in the ascendant, especially I feel if Clegg wins the leadership, that to me offers little to no alternative to that of Labour.
Posted by
septicisle. |
Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:38:00 PM
"Orange Book Tendency"? Hah, don't believe the media myths.
Apart from Laws article on the NHS, the Orange Book was fine—I self describe, openly, as a socialist (Chris Dillow style Millite market socialist), and I'm definitely of the "Orange Book" tendency.
They are, and remain, more "left" than Labour is currently, and are less beholden to vested interest. Don't let Tory posturing and the press put you off—I'm to their left, but I feel most at home there, despite my initial reticence (can link you to my posts on the thought processes surrounding joining if'n you want).
There are right leaning Lib Dems, but they're a minority, and they're there because, like me, they've nowhere else to be—we need to fix the systemic issue first (electoral system), and party is a party of convenience until we've dealt with that.
Posted by
MatGB |
Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:45:00 PM