Why I’m NOT rejoining the Labour Party

As (almost) everyone worked out, this morning’s blog post (see below) was an April Fool. I haven’t rejoined the Labour Party today, and I at present I can’t really see myself doing so. The problem, as I outline in the post, is that in far too many crucial policy areas there’s almost nothing between the policies of Labour and the Coalition. In some areas – crucial areas – it might even be worse. Labour’s digital policy – my specialist area – is particularly dire, and shows no sign of improving. Indeed, it might even be getting worse.

There are a few spots of brightness – I’m delighted about Labour’s commitment to get rid of the Bedroom Tax – but they are few and far between. At a time when coalition policy is so appallingly cruel, incompetent and damaging, for Labour to be practically the same in so many areas is more than disappointing. It’s depressing.

To those who say ‘join, and fight from within to change things’ you might well have a point – but my encounters with Labour activists on the doorstep in Cambridge have been even more depressing than the public outings in the media of Rachel Reeves and so forth. Our local candidate seems to put more energy into denigrating Tony Benn than he does in putting forward positive proposals. That may just be my perception – and sorry for being snarky, but that’s how I feel. I would love to be able to join the party – but right now, with all conscience, I can’t. Anyway, here’s the morning post…


Screen Shot 2014-03-31 at 14.30.32After much thought, I’ve decided that now is the day to rejoin the Labour Party. I have been out of the party for a long time – I left in 1999 – but have finally been persuaded to rejoin. The possible damage that a Tory government might do, particularly to our education system, our vulnerable people, our social cohesion – to the future shape of our society – are so great that I now believe it’s time to get behind Labour.


I have had reservations before, but now realise that I must bite the bullet and take that crucial step. I realise now that Rachel Reeves is right to proclaim that Labour will be tougher than the Tories on welfare. True, a few thousand vulnerable people may suffer as a result, but it is vital that Labour aren’t seen as a ‘soft touch’. The ‘striver vs scrounger’ rhetoric has resonance with so many people, we have to accept that and move on. There’s no point in fighting the battles of the past – we must make sure we don’t make the same errors as Labour made in the 80s. Support for the welfare cap was an excellent decision – as was Liam Byrne’s earlier decision to get Labour to enable the retrospective legislation over workfare. The public like workfare. Labour needs to accept that – and so do I.


I also understand and agree with Tristram Hunt that we shouldn’t fight the reforms that Michael Gove has been pushing on the education system. It doesn’t matter that the vast majority of teachers have been demoralised and depressed by his policies; we must not be seen to be held to mercy by the teaching unions. Free schools offer choice, and choice matters above all things. Tristram Hunt is right to accept pretty much everything Gove says, even if so many experts in the field have disagreed with him. Going back to a 50s style curriculum, before the ‘educationalists’ had their way, is what the people want. Labour needs to accept this – and so do I.


On immigration, too, it’s time to accept that the need to get the support of the key demographics matters more than the economic, cultural, moral and human rights arguments in favour of immigration, no matter how compelling those arguments might be. It doesn’t matter how much the evidence points to the benefits of immigration – the game has changed, as the rise of UKIP has shown, and we must change with it. Keith Vaz was quite right to visit Luton Airport to meet the flood of Romanian immigrants in January. Labour were quite right to acknowledge their errors over immigration in the past, even if those errors had a significant beneficial effect on the economy. By acknowledging these ‘errors’, Labour can position itself much better as a ‘tough on immigration’ party – something crucial for its electoral prospects.


Sadiq Khan, too, is right not to commit to reversing the reforms to the legal aid system put through by Chris Grayling. It would be a big mistake to be seen to be on the side of the ‘fat cat’ lawyers and on the criminal class, even if the evidence suggests that the changes will have a devastating effect, particularly on the criminal bar and the family courts. Yes, a few more innocent people will end up in jail and a few more families will suffer, but that’s a small price to pay for the possibility of electoral success. Votes are what matters – and in this case it’s a double whammy. Labour can show they’re economically prudent and at the same time tough on crime. It’s a win-win situation.

Digital policy

I have decided that I should also hold back my reservations on the digital world. It doesn’t matter that Helen Goodman is even more vehement than Claire Perry about porn filters – the evidence that the filters are easily bypassed, block crucial LGBT and sex-education sites and put into place an infrastructure ideal for political censorship really doesn’t matter in the face of the likely headlines in the Daily Mail of being soft on pornography if we continue to challenge them.

The fervour for surveillance of the likes of Hazel Blears and David Blunkett – and even Yvette Cooper – no longer bothers me as much as it did. It’s time to give up on privacy and accept that we should trust the security services. They’ve proven themselves worthy of that trust again and again over the last year or so. We don’t need the sort of hand-wringing over security that they’re having in the US – we can trust our security services and our police to be responsible at all times.

Not falling into traps

I’m also delighted to see that Ed Miliband hasn’t been falling into obvious traps. It might have been possible to conclude from the success of the energy bill freeze policy suggestion, which provoked changes in practice by the energy companies as well as changing the whole political agenda, that bold, popular policies that help ordinary people and challenge vested interests would be a good idea to follow. In particular, policies like the re-nationalisation of the rail companies, the energy companies – and the reversal of the Royal Mail sell-off – which by all accounts would be very popular, help ordinary people and protect them from manipulation by big business, might seem superficially attractive. Labour is much better off avoiding such obvious traps.

Saving what matters

All in all, then, I’m convinced that I need to rejoin Labour so that we can protect all those things that matter to me, like protecting vulnerable people, building a tolerant and supportive society, a positive and forward-looking education system, a justice system that serves the people and a society that protects civil liberties. If we let the Tories win, all these will be at risk. That means that a few sacrifices, a few compromises, need to be made – particularly in those areas where Labour has looked soft in the past, such as over-protecting vulnerable people, kowtowing to teachers over education, and caring too much justice and civil liberties.

For this, and so many other reasons, I’ve decided today is an excellent day to join the Conservative Party.

Screen Shot 2014-03-31 at 13.41.06

15 thoughts on “Why I’m NOT rejoining the Labour Party

  1. I was fuming halfway through the article and about to tell you to join the Tory party. Good wind up.

  2. First time I have been so taken in by an April fool since the Guardian had a front page launch for the Guardian Gourmet Card which involved a bingo game around the number of a calories in the three courses of a meal..

  3. Great blog – in Scotland the political landscape is different but I would still like to see a more radical Labour Party (which might be more popular if it puts people before electoral success! )

  4. I would love to see a discussion on whether people leaving a political party in droves for another ’cause’ could have more influence in policy direction of the ‘lost’ party than fighting from within.
    Using Tories as an example, the mass exedos or the ‘threat’ of UKIP of seems to have a greater bearing on policy direction than previous.

  5. The vote for Labour is a vote for the Conservative party, there is no distinction as they all work for the same corporations. The system runs on a Hegelian Dialectic, left vs right, labour vs con, socialism vs capitalism. Thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis.

    Why is Labour the same as the Cons? Not mentioned is the main think tank that the Labour Party Shadow Cabinet follows.

    This think Tank is called REFORM – it was set up by two Tory MPs –
    REFORM is funded by “Parners in Reform” – G4S, Serco, Sodexo, Accenture, City of London -BMI (private medical), Novo Nordisk (private medical) – and a host of Overseas companies and surprisingly they are awarded contracts.

    Labour’s John Cruddas, the Chair of Labour’s policy review, held his “Preparing For The Next Election” private dinner, an event which was by invitation only – not organised in conjunction with the union leaders, but with Reform.

    Labour’s Stephen Timms, shadow minister for employment along with Tory MP Mark Hoban speaking at the major Reform policy conference: “A team effort: the role of employers in closing the protection gap” – “kindly supported by Unum”. Unum, an American based private insurance company specialising in disability, life and financial protection benefits. In this way, the event was advertised as Tory and Labour MPs acting in a team effort with an American Insurance company, regarding “reform of the welfare state”.

    In April, Andy Burnham held a private dinner at Reform, again by invitation only, to discuss “Whole person care: time to integrate health and care”. This was “supported and funded by Novo Nordisk” who “have a particular interest and expertise in the merging models of integrated care as solutions for long term conditions”.

    This is just a small selection from the Reform think tank events page, where the Labour Shadow cabinet are advertising their policy events, funded by private corporations and organised by Reform; there is no mention of union involvement.

    We are being sold down the river and with implicit support from both Red and Blues. The system is the problem, not the illusion of choice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s