As it says on the tagline at the top of this page, this blog is not affiliated with any political party. I like it that way as it means I feel free to criticise any party I like. However, a quick look at what I write should tell you that I can be broadly described as left or lefty liberal etc. Since Blair became leader of the Labour party, I haven't felt able to vote Labour. I never trusted Blair. I did originally think that the 'Demon Eyes' poster put up by the Tories in 1997 was unfair because all Blair was to me at the time was a slightly milder version of the Tories. Now I think that poster was spot on, in fact, if anything, it didn't really go far enough, but then who could have guessed at how bad things would turn out? Not finding a party that I felt enthusiastic enough about to vote for has been extremely frustrating this last decade. I'm not going to be able to bring myself to vote for Gordon Brown either. I've never voted Tory and have no intention of doing so and the Lib Dems, though they have some policies I support (not least ending our involvement in Iraq), don't seem to me to be strong enough to be in government and they are trying to appeal to 'left' and 'right' and pleasing no one.Why mention all this? Well, as I have spent a lot of energy criticising Blair and New Labour, I have also thought about what alternatives might exist. As far as I can see there is only one person in the Labour party offering an alternative to the more-of-the-same deceit offered by Brown and the rest of 'New' Labour, and who is untainted by the wars and sleaze of the Blair era. That alternative is, of course, John McDonnell. Over the last year I've referred to him obliquely and linked to his website from time to time both here and on Blairwatch but I haven't leapt right out and said that I fully support him because, as you've seen above, that isn't really my style. However, I've seen Gordon Brown being portrayed as the only option as leader of the Labour party and attempts to stifle any deviation from that view in true New Labour fashion by the current bunch of cabinet ministers. We are now in the ludicrous position where there will be a leadership contest with just one contestant until either John McDonnell or Michael Meacher stand against him, if they can get the required 45 votes to get on the ballot - and it is still far from certain that either of them will be able to do so.
So what we may end up having is a coronation dressed up as a leadership contest. This isn't healthy in a democracy. Whatever people may think of the other potential candidates, their ideas should be aired so everyone can scrutinise them and either agree with them or debunk them. Let's assume that John McDonnell does challenge Brown for the leadership (as I hope he does). Once he is on the ballot, it is still highly improbable that he will win (from what we are constantly being told) but the media will finally have to stop marginalising him and listen to what he says...so will Gordon Brown. In order to win Brown will have to answer the questions McDonnell poses and vice versa, and if the arguments are sound, concessions will have to be made and the eventual leader will not only have a stronger mandate but also some more well-formed policies. This strikes me as obvious.
The fact that John McDonnell hasn't been getting very much in the way of media coverage only made me want to find out more about his policies. And after reading what is on his website and watching his broadcasts on YouTube, I liked what he had to say. He seems to be making similar arguments to the ones I have been making. Not only that but he seems a damned site more straightforward than either Gordon Brown or Michael Meacher. His voting record is easy to look up and is consistent with what he says (unlike Meacher's). His policies are clearly defined whereas Brown is either keeping his cards close to his chest or doesn't have that much to offer that's vastly different from Blair. Other than some anodyne crap about 'Britishness', Brown hasn't really put his cards on the table the way McDonnell has. After a decade of Blair, I find McDonnell's kind of openness refreshing. I've never met him (although I did hear him speak at an anti-war rally) but people who have met him comment on how straightforward he is.
Anyway, I was intrigued enough to lash out £2.50 on the small book he's published (it is very small, about the size of a CD and not much thicker). It's like the old tradition of pamphleteering. The book outlines what John thinks is wrong with our current policies and proposes his ideas on how to improve things in a clear and easy-to-understand way without being patronising as New Labour often is. I'm even more convinced now that John McDonnell would be the best person to salvage what's left of the Labour party and restore its credibility, not by going backwards but by rediscovering its original values which have been swept aside by Blair and Brown's rush towards unrestrained market dominance over everything. With John as leader, I would be enticed to vote Labour again but I'm not under any illusion that he will easily win the contest. I think there is a small chance he could do it, however, if more people saw what he had to offer.
So, because I agree with much of what he says and because he has been so marginalised by Labour and the media and also because an outbreak of democracy is so badly needed in the Labour party, I'm declaring my support for John McDonnell in the coming leadership 'contest'. Not that I'll get to vote, of course, but when the next general election does come, it would be nice to be offered a genuine choice for once.
10 Comments:
I dunno - I'd take a bit longer before supporting him if I were you. Anyone who's ever been a cheerleader for the IRA is a worthless shite in my book.
Of course, that does mean that there is precisely no decent option for Labour leader, but that's been the case for decades...
Interesting. However, why is there no linked source for the second quote? Furthermore, why is only part of it quoted? The link has the following quote:
"The deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland,” he told the tabloid. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.
The section in bold is not quoted. Is this simply a typo, or Sun style journalism? Whatever, I would be intersted to see the actual source of this quote.
Hmm, didn't know about the IRA stuff. Cheers for the link. Not the cleverest of things to say and very likely to come back and bite him should he get on the ballot.
Damn! The thought of Gordon Brown just waltzing into Number 10 without a contest (or even with one) is pretty awful too as he's also been supporting bombs and bullets albeit further afield.
@korova:
the part in bold is quoted. look again.
the second quote has no linked source because the source is the same as the first quote, as you yourself found out by looking at the link
overall, i quote davide. i dont like brown, nor the idea of not having a contest. but mcdonnell won't have my backing
ciao,
yucca
Yeah sorry I missed that nullo. Although that section in bold isn't actually still in quotes. The quotes are closed before 'he told the tabloid'. Might be best to remove those words or re-open the quotes before 'Because....'. Anyway, minor quibble. I would still like to see the original source material for The Sun's quote though.
As for the leadership, neither would get my vote.
Found it. The original source is here
thanks for the link korova
i've added it to the post
Everyone above - Please don't fall for the old "selective quote" game as was played out four years ago by the sun. To hear a comprehensive defence and explantion of his posistion I refer you to the following article by John, again four years ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,969028,00.html or do a search on the site. You should all no better than to take the Sun at face value ;)
Thanks for that Michael. You're right, we shouldn't take The Sun at face value and the clarification in The Guardian you posted is much more comprehensive, particularly:
Let me be clear, I abhor the killing of innocent human beings. My argument was that republicans had the right to honour those who had brought about this process of negotiation which had led to peace. Having achieved this central objective now it was time to move on. The future for achieving the nationalists' goals is through the political process and in particular through the Northern Ireland assembly elections.
And also:
Irish republicans have to face the fact that the use of violence has resulted in unforgivable atrocities. No cause is worth the loss of a child's life. No amount of political theory will justify what has been perpetrated on the victims of the bombing campaigns. An acknowledgment is also needed that loyalist paramilitaries were motivated by the same dedication to their cause as IRA volunteers and that many British troops demonstrated similar bravery in what was in reality a long and brutal war. Above all else, republicans need to accept that the time for violence has gone. Only the political process offers the real prospect of a united Ireland at peace with itself.
I think those statements show that McDonnell isn't a cheerleader for the IRA even if he has got strong republican leanings. I still think he'll get a lot of flak for some of the things he said if he gets on the leadership ballot. Smear campaigns are all too common and it is still a contentious issue. Those wanting to drag it out should remember that the loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force has only now renounced violence and put its weapons beyond reach (without any confirmation so far), and there have been plenty of stories of the British government supporting loyalist paramilitaries.
Thankfully it seems all sides want to move on from that dark era.
Michael - thanks for that link. I was a bit dubious about the story, which is why I requested the direct source link. I had a feeling that there would be more to it than meets the eye (I know this looks like hindsight, but trust me on this!!), but I hadn't seen any rebuttal until now. I also wrote an email to Mr McDonnell to seek clarification. Perhaps that is no longer needed.
Post a Comment