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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,