Skip to main content

Labour needs unity not division over clause 4

Labour Party leadership candidate, Rebecca Long-Bailey, wants to reopen the debate about Clause 4 in the party's constitution.

At a time when the party should be seeking to unite, this candidate is bent on opening old wounds and potentially devoting months if not years of wrangling about its constitution.



It is, of course, a pitch to the Corbyn wing of the party.   They have never forgiven Tony Blair for pushing through reform of the old Clause 4 section 4, which enshrined public ownership as an objective.

It was and will remain a source of contention in the party ever since it was written in 1918, but mainly since the former leader in the 1950s, Hugh Gaitskell, tried to ditch it.

The clause, which has sweeping nationalisation in it, was always far removed from what a Labour government would do.   But for years the party carried the burden of its intent written in stone.

For many on the left, it is a shibboleth.  To moderates, it is was an unnecessary handicap to reaching out to voters.  For the party now to embroil itself in rewriting it would be a gift to the right-wing media, bent on portraying Labour as communist extremists.  The Tory media would have a field day.  It plays into their hands and it will be a distraction from Labour's real message of hope.  Of course, public ownership plays a role in creating a fair economy, but it isn't the objective.

Tony Blair pushed through a reform of the clause.   And this is one reason why the left has decided to use it as some kind of symbolism.  It is foolish and divisive.

It is one reason Long-Bailey would be the wrong choice as leader of the party.  Member and supporters of the party who have a vote should consider what is more important to them.  Bringing the party together, reaching out to voters and forming a Labour government that the country desperately needs, or to spend the next four years arguing and contemplating the party's position on public ownership.

Labour needs a leader who can unite the party, not one that will further divide it.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno