Oliver Kamm sums up my feelings when he suggests:
"I regret to say it's the workings of Tony Blair, who welcomed Livingstone back into membership of the Labour Party for the transparently opportunistic reason that he wanted a Labour victory in London in 2004 to soften the headlines about Labour losses in municipal elections elsewhere. It was a bad and unprincipled decision, and it's appropriate that it should cause the party indignity now."
Re-admitting Ken was one of Blair's biggest mistakes as Leader of the Labour Party. Even the pain of accepting a second term with an independent Livingstone at the helm would have had an upside; his forthcoming defenestration could not be portrayed as a humiliation for Gordon Brown.*
Ken and Rhodri Morgan are often yoked together as examples of Blair's early control freakery. Yet apart from this, and being two of a select group of politicians known mainly by their first names (which in Rhodri's case can be ascribed to what Patrick Hannan once called "the great Welsh surname famine") their paths to power were very different. In expelling himself and running against Frank Dobson, Ken underscored his disdain for the party - something alone that should have prevented his re-admittance. Rhodri, despite being the victim of a more egregious stitch-up almost certainly never considered any other path than remaining in Labour. His gloriously defiant concession to Alun Michael ("A runner-up? Maybe. A loser? Never!") served appropriate notice of this resolution.
True, Rhodri's choice was clearer. He knew that Alun's leadership credibility was already fatally undermined and that he, unlike Ken, had no chance of office without the Labour Party. Nevertheless, Rhodri did what Ken couldn't and placed party before ego. When Michael was forced out the following year there were, as one Cabinet Secretary (as then was) remarked only three potential successors: Rhodri, Rhodri or Rhodri.
That bespoke the unity Rhodri would deliver for Welsh Labour, in contrast to Ken, whose continuing divisiveness has been papered over since 2004 by a London Labour Party determined to make the best of a bad lot. Both were boosted by their battles with Blair but only Rhodri attempted (without, admittedly, success in my opinion) to fashion a coherent programme of ideological distinctiveness to Blairism. Ken, by contrast, fought debilitating proxy wars against Gordon Brown over the underground and gave succour to the world's leftist dictators, as well as some without even such ideological credentials.
Both men will likely be gone from frontline politics by next autumn. I know which the Labour Party should lament.
Update: A reader asks why I find Ken divisive. I offer this.
* More counterfactually intriguing is the prospect of a Labour candidate defeating Boris.
"I regret to say it's the workings of Tony Blair, who welcomed Livingstone back into membership of the Labour Party for the transparently opportunistic reason that he wanted a Labour victory in London in 2004 to soften the headlines about Labour losses in municipal elections elsewhere. It was a bad and unprincipled decision, and it's appropriate that it should cause the party indignity now."
Re-admitting Ken was one of Blair's biggest mistakes as Leader of the Labour Party. Even the pain of accepting a second term with an independent Livingstone at the helm would have had an upside; his forthcoming defenestration could not be portrayed as a humiliation for Gordon Brown.*
Ken and Rhodri Morgan are often yoked together as examples of Blair's early control freakery. Yet apart from this, and being two of a select group of politicians known mainly by their first names (which in Rhodri's case can be ascribed to what Patrick Hannan once called "the great Welsh surname famine") their paths to power were very different. In expelling himself and running against Frank Dobson, Ken underscored his disdain for the party - something alone that should have prevented his re-admittance. Rhodri, despite being the victim of a more egregious stitch-up almost certainly never considered any other path than remaining in Labour. His gloriously defiant concession to Alun Michael ("A runner-up? Maybe. A loser? Never!") served appropriate notice of this resolution.
True, Rhodri's choice was clearer. He knew that Alun's leadership credibility was already fatally undermined and that he, unlike Ken, had no chance of office without the Labour Party. Nevertheless, Rhodri did what Ken couldn't and placed party before ego. When Michael was forced out the following year there were, as one Cabinet Secretary (as then was) remarked only three potential successors: Rhodri, Rhodri or Rhodri.
That bespoke the unity Rhodri would deliver for Welsh Labour, in contrast to Ken, whose continuing divisiveness has been papered over since 2004 by a London Labour Party determined to make the best of a bad lot. Both were boosted by their battles with Blair but only Rhodri attempted (without, admittedly, success in my opinion) to fashion a coherent programme of ideological distinctiveness to Blairism. Ken, by contrast, fought debilitating proxy wars against Gordon Brown over the underground and gave succour to the world's leftist dictators, as well as some without even such ideological credentials.
Both men will likely be gone from frontline politics by next autumn. I know which the Labour Party should lament.
Update: A reader asks why I find Ken divisive. I offer this.
* More counterfactually intriguing is the prospect of a Labour candidate defeating Boris.
5 comments:
Why do you consider Ken Livingstone to be divisive? And do you want Boris Johnson to defeat him in May?
Do you think he's divisive?
You don't really believe Blair was a control freak, do you? Not in the same league as Brown.
Not commenting much on this post, are you? Bit close to home, eh?
Dear Anon
I've responded to your earlier point (I assume it was you).
I'm not sure what you want me to to say to the point about Blair and his control freakery. I think he should not have blocked Rhodri. I think he should not have let Ken Livingstone back into the Labour Party.
I'd assumed this was all fairly apparent in what I'd said. Apparently not.
Post a Comment