Stephen Byers is to stand down as MP for North Tyneside.
Given the discussion on our previous thread, I wanted to point out that Stephen is an MP for a traditional Labour area who is very keen on encouraging income growth via making work a more attractive proposition through tax credits and the minimum wage, as well as in attracting inward investment to his constituency and improving schools, colleges, housing and public services.
In fact, that’s the attitude taken by all the Tyneside Labour MPs and councillors I know, whether on the left or right of the party. On the other hand, the local Tory Mayor is doing things like cutting Breakfast clubs for local children.
Politics is about priorities, eh?
Anyway, I’m sure Stephen will be a leading voice in the party, whether in or out of Parliament. One thing’s not in doubt – The Labour party will need the insights and advice of people like Stephen in the years to come.
13 Comments
November 14, 2009 at 7:23 pm
With any luck right wing Blairite neo-cons like Byers will be banished and we can start rebuilding a REAL Labour party, not the quasi-Tory SDP we have now.
November 14, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Yes! The far left incarnation of the Labour Party did really, really well in the eighties, did it not?
You do bring up one interesting point, though, that in the long run, while they might have taken a pasting in ‘83 (because of first past the post), David Owen, Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins et al won, because Labour eventually followed them to win back power.
November 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm
While I don’t think many people want to see a return to the days of ‘83, I find it hard not to feel we could have been quite a bit further to the left over the last decade while still winning elections. The Tories were in utter disarray, and until Iraq we were popular enough to be bolder in changing the direction of the country and have the people trust us.
November 14, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Well, Tom, this completely ignores the fact it was the switch to the right that rehabilitated Labour in the eyes of the voter. Let’s be honest, Major was massively unpopular, and the Tories were involved in all kinds of sleaze and scandal before the election he won. Yet Labour still lost. If they voted for that lot of Tories, how much did they hate Labour??
Often it’s said that the shift to the right made Labour electable, but the Parallax Brief believes it was more the fact that it seemed to invigorate the party: make it fresh, new and vigorous for a country weary of the Tories.
Meantime, it’s quite possible that slight shifts to the left — or not shifting QUITE as far to the right, depending on how you see it — would have still meant election victories, but then you’re talking of inches and infinitely divisible shades of grey. You sound as if you want a wholesale shift back into discredited socialism or away from, in Mike’s words, “quasi-Tor SDP”.
November 14, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I don’t think it was the shift to the right that made the difference between ‘92 and ‘97. I think it was Black Wednesday. That was when the polling shifted, and it stayed shifted. I also don’t believe socialism is ‘discredited’, what with being a member of an avowedly democratic socialist party.
November 15, 2009 at 3:27 am
A year after Black Wednesday there were still polls showing the tories only 3/4 points behind.
ICM even had the tories two points ahead 3 months after Black wednesday.
These were outliers, but the era of huge labour leads was only consistent after Blair was elected.
November 15, 2009 at 5:20 am
Obviously this comes down somewhat to interpretation of the polling and counterfactuals about what might have happened in other circumstances. So there’s probably not a lot of point arguing, really.
My interpretation is based on looking for a turning point in the public mood, as revealed in the polls, and for me that appears to be Black Wednesday rather than the election of Tony Blair, or the ditching of Clause IV, which I guess would be the suggestions of those who believe the shift to the right was essential.
Below is a quick sample of the evidence I believe to support this view – it’s all very rough, based on what I could find quickly online, as the party upstairs has finally finished so I’m actually going to get some sleep now. Obviously as it’s just samples taken pretty much at random (though you’ll have to take my word for that), and from a single poll, it’s subject to the usual error margins etc.
ICM polling a couple of months before Black Wednesday gave the Tories a 9% lead; two months afterwards, Labour had a 4% lead. That’s a pretty quick shift (of course, the May/June polls were very soon after the election, which I think usually gives a short-term boost to the government as people rush to back the horse that’s already won).
In comparison, polling in 1994 didn’t show a similar change. Polling shortly before the unfortunate death of John Smith gave Labour a 15% lead. By the end of the year, after Blair had been elected and told conference that he wanted to get rid of clause IV, this was up slightly, to 18%. A year later, it was still much the same (17%).
I don’t deny that Blair saw in some amazing poll results, nor that his ability (and that of his team, of course) with the media and communications was a huge help. I just don’t think that the move to the right was that big a factor in the election win. Perhaps without it we might not have won some of the more stunning victories and decapitations, and maybe it was worth it for *that* moment with Michael Portillo and Stephen Twigg. But I think we’d have easily won a substantial majority.
As I say, though, I’m well aware that this sort of interpretation is more art than science.
November 15, 2009 at 12:04 pm
‘Steven Byers is standing down as an MP after 30 years of troughing, coincidentally leaked details show that he claimed £125,000 in second home expenses over five years for a flat wholly owned by his lover. ‘
As Guido reports ,one less pig scrounging off the taxpayer.
November 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Its interesting the extent to which Blairism is a flag of convenience only for you Hopi .I wonder how anyone who like tax credits can complain be accused of insufficient left wingery. New Labour collect taxes from the middling and redistribute them according to some inscrutable social engineering project , lose half along the way and pretend the taxes you just took do not discourage work . Its an extreme left wing policy and part of what makes or tax system more distributive than Sweden’s when you deduct transfers . It is a Brown thing
Hopi was only gloating recently about the amount the state has swollen , 8,000,000 on the payroll countless millions more dependents . Places like Glasgow and Newcastle are more socialist than Cuba taken in isolation , they show how New Labour wins elections .
In terms of electoral success for Labour I cannot see that the centre is an option . As society gets wealthier people increasingly want choice and aspire to self fulfilment and independence .These are the people Labour has to persecute to pay for their projects . That is why New Labour constituencies are small , people with get up and go get up and go. Only delaying the boundary commissioning and Celtic anti British feeling has disguised the fact that New Labour have lost the productive part of England in a system where regional voting I is de legitimising redistribution. This will continue and so unless Socialism can continue to suck more and more into dependency Labour faces log term decline
Brown knows this , he also owes the Unions and has borrowed all our money is a part bid to cling to power . If he gets in we will see an assault on the British way of life such has not been seen since the war when it was a necessary evil, the South will continue to be flooded with immigrant Labour voters and the post democratic age will truly have begun . How long before election results are only accepted if they agree with the ruling cast , for referendums the left seem perfectly happy with that .
Labout are now only 10% behind the country is sleep walking into catastrophe , we could still get five more years of Brown.
November 15, 2009 at 5:31 pm
While I think I understand Steve’s decision on one level – he’s ‘been there and done that’ in politics and probably doesn’t much fancy going there and doing it all again, I think his decision is unfortunate at another level in that it conveys the impression that the fifty-something generation entertain no hope of Labour ever returning to power in their working lifetimes. Where are the Labour elder statesmen and women going to come from in a future Parliament?
November 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm
it’s a good question. Hopefully being in parliament won’t be the be all and end all.
November 16, 2009 at 10:00 am
I would have thought that Steve might have fancied having a bash at the North Tyneside Mayorality…….. He was, after all, an effective leader of the authority, and I recall the old ‘Cleveland CC / North Tyneside alliance’ in the regional party / LA forums of the time when we were both pitted against the truly gruesome old guard. (we usually got drubbed, but that is as maybe)
November 18, 2009 at 9:01 am
“On the other hand, the local Tory Mayor is doing things like cutting Breakfast clubs for local children.”
Except she’s not though, is she Hopi? As I’m sure you know fine well.