Machine Politics

One thing that jumps out at me from the commentary surrounding Damian McBride's book about the poisonous relationships that dominated the last Labour Government - is how so many people (most of them Labour supporters) proclaim themselves as democrats when they are really nothing of the kind.

Now some commentators claim that the dysfunctional relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is just the 'stuff' of politics - and while things did get out of hand at times the same kind of Machiavellian behaviour has been around forever - so what's the big deal?

Well the big deal to me is that people who claim to be democrats - modern democrats that is not ancient Greek ones, of course - ought to try to behave in a democratic way, with integrity and respect fro the rules of the 'game' - otherwise what is the purpose of trying to provide leadership at home or abroad.

So, amidst all the claims and counter claims about who said what to whom - the essential point is that Tony Blair was elected as leader of the Labour Party in 1994 by a thumping  majority across all three parts of Labour's barmy electoral college which the party uses to choose its leaders - in fact even a majority of trade union members voted for Blair as leader.

Blair also won three UK general elections - and while this was not by way of a direct vote of the kind used to elect Presidents in countries like America and France - Tony Blair led the Labour Party into those contests (1997, 2002 and 2007) and managed to win an overall majority of Labour MPs even in the wake of the continuing fall-out from the Iraq War.

Yet during all that time Tony Blair's critics failed to challenge him in a democratic way - by forcing a contest to decide whether Tony Blair or someone else, Gordon Brown for example, should be running the Labour Party and the Westminster UK Government.    

Instead Tony Blair's critics inside the Labour Party resorted to what they know best - the machine politics of 'them and us' which tend to operate in small groups initially - which evolve into little gangs - so that fellow 'conspirators' know who can be trusted when the time comes to act.

And for years this is the way in which the relationship at the heart of the Labour Government was defined - with the disgruntled faction working away individually and in small groups to undermine their Party Leader - just like Damian McBride, in fact, while  being paid a handsome salary out public funds.

The point is that if people lack the confidence to put their judgement on the line by openly disagreeing with their political friends or foes - as Labour's Robin Cook did, for example, by resigning over Iraq - then how likely are they to be able to operate in the top job where effective leadership is what counts. 

To my mind that is what happened to Gordon Brown - and for those in the Brown camp to argue that this is just the normal rough and tumble of politics shows you have far the Labour Party has fallen in recent years.