A Free Left Blog

I was feeling a lot more positive about Ed Miliband’s proposed Labour Party reforms before yesterday’s speech than afterwards. Intervening to change Labour’s relationship with the major trades unions is a bold (and necessary) move, but the devil will be in the detail of ensuing discussions between the party and the unions. That is where Miliband will really need to show his mettle. It is too early to tell where this will lead, but I am not seeing a genuine attempt to reform the way the Labour Party works. In public, Ed is using conciliatory language towards the major unions, rather than telling them the truth, which is that they are declining institutions, attached to a likewise declining Labour Party. This is understandable and perhaps necessary politically, but it puts him on the back foot. The unions depend on Labour to do what they want when in power – the more the better (there is plenty of good common ground in looking out for ordinary working people, but th...

Privileges and patronage are wired into the party's institutions. Falkirk is merely the latest example. This article was first published in a slightly different form on the New Statesman Staggers blog on 4th July 2013. Labour’s troubles in Falkirk are just one symptom of a bureaucratic culture that doesn’t merely tolerate the practice of fixing by insiders and groups but institutionalises it. In Falkirk, Unite stands accused of signing up its members to Labour without them even knowing about it, in order to get its favoured candidate, Karie Murphy, selected as the prospective MP. There have also been claims that the union plotted to get the seat declared as an all-women's shortlist in order to exclude a male rival. As I have found since I joined Labour in 2010, these sorts of practices are not exceptional. They are standard, and not exclusive to the unions by any means. Of the New Labour years, former party general secretary Peter Watt  has said : "Th...

Does it make sense to think about poverty as weakness? For a lefty like me, for whom reading about the staggering poverty and exploitation of the Victorian era did a lot to form and shape my politics, the suggestion can seem like an insult or a slap in the face. But, then again, we live in a different world now: with a welfare state, universal health, education and other services (though of course some of these like legal aid are being slashed back by the present government). Talking about poverty as weakness injects a personal element into the issue that sensitive souls and the poverty industry might recoil against, but I think it can also help us to conceive of   poverty in a better way and address it more effectively. The idea of poverty as weakness is derived from a controversial source. Over the past week or so I have been reading a fair amount of the iconoclastic German philosopher-poet Friedrich Nietzsche’s writings, initially for the weekly philosophy g...

This article was first published by Labour Uncut on 6th June 2013 Electoral Reform Services will have received my ballot paper by now. I had thought of writing rude messages on it, or tearing it into small pieces and dropping them into the envelope as a mark of my disdain, but on the balance I plumped for a classic piece of English fudge/moderation: a big X scrawled across the page and a little message offering my unsolicited opinion on the Labour Party’s approach to democracy. This is the first time I have ever treated a ballot paper in such a way. I used to approach them with a form of reverence, taking voting as a privilege and a pleasure. Then I joined the Labour Party. These latest selections for European Parliament candidates are just the latest example of an approach to democracy within Labour that Erich Honecker would have recognised and admired (and which I like to call ‘ Institutionalised Fixing '). Let’s put aside the ceaseless cascade of emails...

Should we try to create a rational society? It may seem obvious that the answer to this question is ‘Yes’, since being rational is almost by definition a good thing. If being rational is good, then it is logical that we should want a rational society because that would mean a good society; therefore it would be a good thing for us to try to make that society come about. However, when we start to unpick the different words in the question we quickly run into difficulty. Let’s start with ‘society’. Society is composed of a great number of different elements without which it wouldn’t be society; or rather it wouldn’t be this society. The idea that all of those different elements should form a rational whole and that we are capable of bringing it about is a major claim. But saying that we should try to create this rational whole from present society (the elements of which are constantly changing, for example by immigration and emigration), is an even greater claim...

When someone tells you: “I am right, and you are wrong,” what are they talking about? Do they mean that they are speaking truth while you are saying things that are not true? Or are they claiming they are doing the right thing while you are doing something wrong? On one hand we have right and wrong as truth and untruth, for example: ‘Barack Obama is President of the United States’, or ‘The Labour Party forms the Government of the United Kingdom’. On the other hand we have right and wrong as judgement. Whether moralistic or practical, this makes claims over what is good and bad; for example: ‘Immigration benefits Britain’ or ‘Gay marriage is wrong’. Sometimes these two meanings overlap, but for the most part they are two completely different conceptions. However we tend to use them interchangeably, mixing them up and confusing them in the process. Gay marriage and immigration are interesting topics on many levels, not least for the way that strongly-held views...