By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
UPDATE: James Purnell's statement is printed in full below...
James Purnell's decision to stand down as MP for Stalybridge and Hyde is a shock - and yet somehow not a surprise.
When I interviewed him last week, and saw him again on Monday, he was considered and hopeful - still full of ideas - but also philosophical, almost wistful, about his own future. He said during our conversation that he had no intention to return to the frontline of politics:
"I'm really enjoying the Demos project and the grassroots stuff I've been doing. I'm proud of what I did in Government, both as an adviser for four years and as a minister for four years. But I'm not looking to come back into a frontline role. I hope that what I'm doing through these projects can make a difference, and I think there are lots of ways you can contribute to politics which are much wider than just being at the frontline. My first office after university is fifty yards form where my office is now, so the things that I've seen in the last year have reminded me that there's a big wide world out there. I hope that perspective is something that will be helpful for the Party. So I'm happy where I am now."
Some people will not rue his departure from politics. Bob Piper, a Labour councillor in Sandwell, expresses his "joy" at Purnell's decision.
But just yesterday afternoon I had a conversation with a colleague in the media - who is political but not party political - who called Purnell "deeply impressive". It's a shame that that talent has decided to stand down from Parliament.
No doubt he will continue to contribute to the debate through his Open Left project at Demos.
James Purnell Statement:
"I have today told the executive committee of my local party that I do not wish to be the candidate for Stalybridge and Hyde at the next general election.
I have been proud to represent the people of Stalybridge and Hyde. And this has been an extremely difficult decision to make.
But I have decided that I no longer wish to be an MP. I have spent all my working life in or about Westminster. And while this has been a huge privilege, I've realised I don't want to have spent all my life in frontline politics.
I'm looking forward to completing my project at Demos. After that my hope is to contribute ideas to public service and to the Labour party.
I do want to thank all the people who voted for me in the last two elections, and especially the members of the local Labour party, for all their support. I hope they are as proud as I am of what we've done together, not least the improvements to our schools and our hospital that are now on the way."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
People had really high hope for James. James DID raise the issue of trying to renew the Party.
For this we should be grateful.
For me at the moment I am glad he did raise this because the debate on renewal, I don't approve of James Purnells motives, but ultimately those most positive thing we can all drag out of this is the need to renew and clean-up our Party.
I don't think he should be hunted down, or hated for his past stupid mistakes and he can't help being out of touch, he is a product of a sheltered life and was quickly drawn into politics with some financially dubious characters.
But as I said I James does deserve some credit but he placed himself on a very fragile platform to begin talking about values, idealism and philosophy. Had he led a cleaner political career and a more central political position I am sure this guy would be praised now by all of us. You can't preach a rebirth from the sewer.
I do genuinly wish him the best for the future, I do. I would not wish anything bad on the guy. Why would I, I have met far, far worse people? But his time is over and he threw away his own opportunities when he could not show professional restraint with money. Nobody "did" this to him, nobody "bullied" him.
He made a tough call and made the right call and I respect him for having the courage to do the right thing finally. He put the interests of the Party before himself at the end and followed his true vocation.
Good luck James.
"Would Purnell have stayed if he really believed Brown could turn it round...... Did the dismal prospect of life as an opposition MP have anything to do with it? ..... Friends say he is not materialistic but the remuneration as a back bench MP is not hugely attractive .... this is bad news for Ed Milliband ......"
So, Purnell thinks the games is a bogey and he can make a better living outside of Parliament - Ralph why do we not simply find a modern day Guy Fawkes and be done with the whole boiling.
A "community" of interest. I reckon if you can find any intermediaries or law firms with dealings out there or trading companies with interests out there you would be on.
The only way to gain their interest would be to advertise your proposal to them or "sell" the service to them and make sure it is in a form they are bound to come across. or get an article in the appropriate publication.
When they seee the figures they would be saving they would most certainly take an interest I am sure especially during these difficult times.
Judging by the very low numbers of lawyers I see around temple these days now might be the perfect time......
Knew about Milburn, disgraceful behavior so how come 'Cameron the clean' is not planning to outlaw that behavior ? Of course if an MP leaves they are entitled to make a living but of course nothing to do with any previous position.
There is no willingness in Parliament or in fact by the "next generation" to clean up Parliament and they are all keeping "shtum" on it.
We won't see any changes unless things get much worse for the country and people get angrier than they are (heaven forbid and I hope not).
I do love the idea on "credit" it really could as a concept be a platform to rebuild and reinvigorate this country.
...and all it requires is an agreement among a community of interest.
Well i am not so worried about the Tory's I do not rate them as being historically inclined to be in touch anyhow. I am after all a Labour memeber.
I think the Labour Party HAS to be "in touch". I think Labour candidates have a much larger expectation upon them and it is tough.
And before any Tory Trolls start whining about how hard their particular MP works, please remember that Labour elected reps seek to increase the role of Government generally and that means more damn work!
It is tough on us. But I think that is the way it has to be.
In terms of engaging it can and is being done in some Constituences. In East Ham Stephen Timms (I have no ideas how he manages it with all the crap he takes on) is a brilliant constituency MP and in Newham GLA they were the only part of London to increase their lead.
It does happen and it can happen if you have committed councillors and a good MP.
All is not lost this is within the boundaries of human endeavor ;) and is happening in some areas.
In my time in Barking I have recruited more members to the Party to build up our stregth a bit. I will continue to do so as I canvass over the weekend.
I am not sure about the whip system, have you ever tried managing 300 people?
Nightmare ;( when you think that no group of five people would be able to agree on the preferred filling of a sandwich never mind policy) I think there needs to be a better way of whipping, so to speak on certain areas as defined at the discretion of each party.
No MP will be totally answerable, but I do think they can do a better job if they have to adhere to a code of conduct that prevents corruption as set out potentially by the NEC. We would have so much more private funding from business if we were perceived to be more professional and objective in our dealings in the business community.
Once you have competition being crapped on by MP's securing Government contracts in exchange, then you lose any credibility in the market immediatly.
As we have seen it was the inability of all senior MP's of both parties to recognise that the economy needed to be more diverse and "added to" which is hurting this country so badly now.
Had they kept their heads above the interests of the status quo they would have been able to deal with business more objectively and not stick this country in a rut.
In other words both Labour and Conservative MP's enmeshed in specific business to enrich themselves failed to represent business, and in fact to even begin to build up our economy outside the range of the financial services.
People talk about 'pigs in the trough' when talking about MP's but as you say we are the only party who can actually deal with this and move forward, we just have to have the strength to do it.
If the party was "functioning properly" (here we go into the Party Constitution) in my view, the "right" of the Party would be able to legitimise itself IF it had clean hands when dealing business, or in fact if it had managed to actually be "pro-market" in practice.
You have to be professional when dealing with markets and you can earn a heck of a lot of respect out there in the business world if you are seen to be even-handed and not corrupt.
Sadly in both parties the levels of business professionalism is very low, and certain companies that help MP's are undoubtedly getting preferential treatment of some kind.
Both partys have failed really on business. And this is what I am talking about with regard to polticians lacking the wherewithal for business and the professionalism they claim to have as they progress through their "careers".
In the Labour Party the "right" have hedged themselves into a very awkward position and over the last years have made some very silly, almost childish mistakes and they are in fear of being eliminated as the left may blame them after the election.
Had the "right" of the Party strengthened their position, taken the moral high ground at the start and cleaned themselves up they would now be wrting that manifesto.
But they are not that smart sadly. Because the party does need a "center" (the right should take a small step back from the Daily Mail position as the public resent it in the long term and only appreciate it in the short-term) and a "left".
In building a broad base of support we will need all of the center and the left and none of the corruption from either as we have to do a lot of reforming the next time we take/regain power.
And we need clean, professional hands to do it and restore public faith in our party.
yep agree but who, anyone of the current MP's
Johnson - only one untainted by the expenses, not seen as close to Brown, strong trade union links, not made any real bad mistakes
Milburn(s) - see as the 'right' no expense scandal really but suspect lack support
Balls - tainted by the expenses, may struggle in his seat but is position himself
ANO ?
Milburn is finished as an MP, he sold out to a number of businesses, a very unwise person who is linked to a number of Government contracts. I wrote an article that included this guy.
I do not think it is about a single contender, I think it is about the groups within the Labour Party not being so able to attack each other by cleaning themselves up so as to make it easier to build a coalition again, a strong, sustainable coalition.
when you say a group are you thinking of the co-op group that includes the extreme of Ed Balls and Barry Sherman ?
No, I mean all groups associated with the Labour Party, if there is no ammunition, you cannot have a war ;)
I have no problems Ralph with a fair number of graduates in the system, the problem is the lack of what I call 'normal' people. The reason for this is that in these times you are asking so much for someone to be a MP, time, money and so much effort.
It has meant only a certain type of person really wants to go for it. your right representation is everything, an MP in most areas only represents the minority that voted for him/her. How do we get them closer, just not sure, does it have to be done.
for definite.
I agree to an extent, as long as there is an ability by the parties to have their own checks and balances. I suspect the Minister get loads of help drafting legislation, I suspect the Civil Service keep a very close eye on them as would the PM's Office.
I think the politicians are the "apathetic" not the people.
The far too flexible Constitutional Settlement being banged from either side of the political tennis court like a cheap ball is a big worry too.
People ARE interested in politics, if you talk to them about real politics and not party politics.
I think the biggest problem is that there are millions of very talented people in the UK, graduates and otherwise who have specialised skills, internet access, media information. These talented people see Government make mistakes on the ground which they would consider remarkably stupid.
The Government itself, and Parliament act as though they are leading a country thrirty plus years ago when people had a greater and blinder faith in the system.
The "political elite" are not "elite. Those days are gone as professionals exist in so many walks of life now.
People are a lot smarter nowadays and I think Politicians struggle with this. That is why people are losing faith so quickly.
The best thing elected reps can do is to engage people whereever and whenever they can. Academics exist all over the place and they do not all just come from Cambridge and Oxford who I blame for treating their students as something special. Yes, they may well be smart, but they are not the best necessarily, it is cruel to allow them to think they are.
This is the main problem the public perceive politicans to be out of touch geeks and weirdos with no practical as well as intellectual understanding, and to not lose face MP's encourage their exclusveness because they are afraid of being exposed as mortal.
MP's should then focus on representing and acting upon the constituents and less on trying to be "special".
He said, "Definitely not. They [Politicians] are not interested in people like me."
Obviously a failure of the political intelligentsia, whether they be grauduates in PPE from Oxford or SPS from Cambridge, to 'connect' with the voters, some of whom are extremely fed up?
I also get to see the areas where non-democratic party's take advantage of the corruption and democratic failings of the mainstream partys.
So I guess my motive is to smarten up the democracy as far as possible to lock out weird parties by removing their arguments and criticisms of our democracy.
I have no problems with cross party support for some ideas, things like long term eldery care, then the Tories walked away
theses thing have to be above petty party politics and demos has a role but surely he should be more influential within the party which indicates how much the role of the MP has been sidelined and this is party independent.
Normally I would agree with you, but the funding of such an institution, it's Constitutional place as a generator of ideas without accountability is very, very dangerous to democracy.
We certainly have to look at "think-tanks" and decide whether or not they should have a role, as representation continues to decline along with members of political parties and voters.
We DO need an intellectual base, but I would prefer them to have a "seperation" from the MP's themselves. I also believe that such bodies can be used as a political launch pad that can give certain people with certain agendas (possibly in representing their finanacial backers) an advantage to become a political candidate.
thing is Purnell partly left because he probably felt his ideas were not being taken up by the party
you and I for the majority would agree but when you leave for a think tank as you say funded as it is then it shows the lack of influence.
The leadership has to be answerable to the MP's and members until that these think tanks will be powerful
goes for all parties I suspect
I would include all, no matter how saintly or otherwise.
Constitutional law is becoming a dominant part of my life. it's becoming like a "matrix" to my life as I campaign and see the "gaps".
I have a sense and determination in politics I have never experienced before. Weird stuff.
I studied Constitutional Law with the OU when I was stationed at HQSTC Strike Command and providing stats data to the Government.
I was not particularly enamoured of it at the time, but the scary thing is that it clearly did sink in.
We have witnessed (under one rule for them and one rule for us) the assault upon the Rule of Law over expenses and attempts by MP's to be taken to Court.
We have witnessed a collapse in legitimacy as MP's have been flung into seats across the country, having in some cases frightening levels of ignorance on the areas they have been sent to.
We have has fundamental Constitutional values shattered with the Terror Laws and the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information abused by the very authors creating them. We have all also witnessed the conflicts between our Human rights and criminal law and the way this has been used as a platform by the Right to attack the HR Act.
I could go on.....but the biggest worry for me is in a collapse of repesentational and therefore legitimate Parliament and Councils who have lost touch with the people across the board.
I've been working on the practical application of law: insolvency law, company law; financial services law, for getting on for thirty years, including quite a few cross border applications when I was a director of a global energy exchange, and subsequently.
In the context of developing legal frameworks relevant to the direct global instantaneous connections of the Internet, I have come to think that the principal 'one way' Western approaches of statute law, and common law 'equity' are inadequate, and that the future lies in the 'two way' reciprocal partnership-based protocols which are understood in (say) Japan and the Middle East. ie what the French (whose Napoleonic law borrows much from Islam, it is said) think of as 'contrats de societe' as opposed to our 'contrats de mandat'.
Law is Code, as they say, and I like the analogy of the protocols I have been working on as a form of "legal XML" which links disparate jurisdictions and enterprises, rather than disparate hardware and software.
These interactive protocols inform the work I have been doing - seed funded by the Norwegian government - in relation to partnership enterprise models and financial tools based upon these.
If you are interested, have a look here.
Peer to Peer Finance
Social Investment
...and - at a Philosophy conference in Norway on the theme of Money....
Money 3.0
I am not sure you would succeed with the Japanese who are very much into doing things their own way, you would have to concede a lot to them to win their accord.
But the idea in principle is very sound to me. I read your Peer to Peer finance when I was in South Korea.
My point is that they are pretty much there already.
My experience is that what we do in sixty pages of prescriptive language, they do in six. As they say, there are as many Sumo wrestlers in the USA as there are attorneys in Japan.
Trust is assumed, and 'face' means disputes are dealt with very differently, as you will know.
My bet is that - properly explained - they would love the idea of an 'open' corporate framework for collaboration which I advocate. Western property rights and corporate mores have always been a pretty alien overlay in Japan.
And by the way, they have had the UK-style LLP in place for a while, but have yet to grok its potential, I think....
"grok its potential" ;)
Trust is most definitely assumed with the Japanese and you have to be very careful when you deal with them over anything, though more so in controlling your reactions to their decisions. They are an awesome people.
Again you certainly have a major point, would the west go along with it though they can be a bit funny over changing traditions too. I reckon it might be worth your popping on over there to do some homework and then trying to win over some senior business people over here to the money they could be saving......
"Hate" is a strong word. I do not think we should use it here.
He wasn't Labour. He didn't immerse himself in the party - his interest in left wing politics came from an intellectual fancy developed by reading political philosophy - he was certainly not a socialist.
Labour members expect some connection to Labour values from its politicians. Blair does, Brown does, most Labour right wingers do. Purnell most certainly does not. He is a blow-in who has swiftly blown-out.
I don't think personality or poshness play any part in it for the vast majority of Labour supporters.
I said earlier on this post James was RIGHT to raise the debate. The methodology in doing so and the reasoning was deeply flawed.
I can't knock a guy for trying, but his motives have always been the biggest problem. You've got to be seen as responsible if you are trying to renew something as people will always ask "what is he/she up to?"
This is a time when people are very suspicious with politicians, and rightly so.
There was definitiely a right wing undercurrent to James' ideas which can be adopted by Labour or Tory alike from a think-tank that has Labour and Tory memebers.
The whole thing is dubious.
I am sure James is lovely man! I am sure he is a great entertainer and lots of fun to be with. But it is what poitiicans DO and ADVOCATE that matters. This is not personal, it's political.
This is a political site.
We are having a debate.
What's that line "Beyond the Fringe?"? - "at this stage in the war we need some pointless gesture"
But I have to confess (probably to Alex's extreme annoyance) I was reminded today of a remark made against Herbert Morrison (Lord M's grandad) by Nye Bevan. Somebody said that "Herbert is his own worst enemy". "Not while I'm alive he's not!" roared Nye. That is rather my attitude to the honourable gentleman for Stallybridge and Hythe.
P.S. If the producers of Quote Unquote want me on the panel I am available for very modest fees :)
Agreed. Apologies if this bothered you Alex.
I never said I never liked him. I have not met him I have met many people in politics whose intersts are highly dubious but got on with them very well at dinners etc.
Her comment "Purnell's thinking about why those of us on the left should re-embrace an ideology – one with the empowerment of the most disadvantaged at its heart"
Yes it was, and that was where it stopped. His manifest ideas were in contradiction to the principles he mentioned. His lack of experience and very narrow assumptions were based upon his limited understanding of the realities.
For example his position on Welfare, the "one job or your out" is not empowerment, it is blackmail. As it depends on the details, such as the kind of job, the kind of person etc etc involved. Empowerment would have been to give the job hunter the skills and confidence to apply for job that would better their situation.
James and Jessica miss this.
They have no interest in helping anyone other than themselves by selling Tory policies with Labour Packaging.
Sick and cynical and to anyone with more than one brain cell, deeply insulting when you realise what people like this would do to the vulnerable people of this country.
Which of course invites people to respond as harshly as they do, because I believe that neither Jessica nor James Purnell have the first idea about how others feel when they are mistreated or in fact give a crap as long as they get their £££££££ and then wonder why people are angry at them.
Just reading through her article again.
Jessica does raise some valid points though. Where she "falls down" is in somehow associating Purnell as some kind of gentle rabbit politico.
James was more than ready to resign his office and create pressure to get his own way, again we are talking about what "politicians do" and this was clearly the action of a man who placed himself before other considerations. Especially when the polices he was advocating were undoubtedly conservative ones.
Jessica neglects to mention this of course and avoids any details of the kinds/examples of changes the Party needs.
She then goes on to blame career politicians (she is one) and bullies. I do not think her debating style leaves her in any comment on anyone as bully as she has clumsily labelled people before now as she failed to understand the "kind of person" she was debating with.
Also, many bullies are leaving politics too now as they also were found to have serious financial "interest" dilemmas that contradicted their purpose in representing us.
Jessica uses the term "we on the left". She is not "left".
There is nothing modern about conservatism. It is only trendy for those who enjoy the money from the private companies they have sold themselves too. The further the "right" of the party have gone the further they have moved from any real substantive radical platform or position to create change that is in the interests of people of this country.
Jessica is holding the banner for the privately funded "think-tank" that paid her wages while representation in this country bleeds away and the public become increasingly angry that democracy is failing.
The Labour Party does have to be modernised. It needs to be more democratic, more representative, more applicable to the lives of the majority of people, not some sad disjointed and divided apology for the a failed Left playing at being Tory because its "modernisers" want to play at being Gentleeman and Ladies.
The whole party infrastructure (like much of the UK ironically) needs to be rebuilt. To actually bring about discussion and debate, for the many....not the few.
AS so often, Ralph, I have to say how much I agree with you. I had sore misgivings from the day Blair became leader, but my worst fears were confirmed by the dreadful pompous, self-serving speech by Mandelson at Conference in 1997. Perhaps over-confident from the landslide of three months earlier, Mandelson in the most condescending manner imaginable (I have heard more down to earth Shire Tories!) in rejecting a TU motion to ease the way for manual workers to become PPCs he said that "The party certainly doesn't need horny-handed sons of toil", as MPs. And the NL rabble sat there looking engrossed as he spoke. If a Tory grandee had said that we would rightly have been outraged and so, to be fair, would more moderate Tories. It was revolting, prejudiced and narrow-minded. Conference went on to reject the TU motion, no doubt carried away by Mandelson's rhetoric. That was the final sign to me, that "New Labour" really had nothing to do with the Labour party. Only those who have had practical experience in the real world doing real jobs (I know in your case, and in mine, though in my case in less dangerous situations) can really empathise with the people Labour are there to help. It is as absurd for Purnell to pretend to be able to do so as it is from a Tory party stuffed with Old Etonians.
If the new intake of Labour MPs consisted of lots of Ralph's and women with similar outlook there would be hope for the party, but I fear we will have an influx of the Oxford/BBC crowd again, who know nothing about real life in practical terms,but just what they have read at University.
As for who's failed, or lost the debate etc, the jury's still out-and we are all still sitting on the fence.
"In particular, Purnell's thinking about why those of us on the left should re-embrace an ideology – one with the empowerment of the most disadvantaged at its heart ....."
I can't really believe that is MR P's greatest priority. I would believe it of you, and many others but JP? NEVER!
Let's be civil.
It is irrellevant, he is gone.
The moderation is awful.
Has somebody insulted James?
Political motive is very important. Are you saying we must not speak out when Labour Mp's and other have vested interests?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/19/james-purnell-resignation-labour
Good tip on the Guardian article.
It would be interesting to know if the number of people sad to see him go reaches more than one.
Still the creep has robbed us of a Portillo moment.
"Renewing the Left" by making it "Right" no doubt. By ensuring a "set" of uneites can carry on making money out of democracy with weak, shallow inconsistent ideas that lack depth and application to the real world.
A class of people with no real class........
Is shameless greed a philosophy? I suppose it can be.
Roger Scruton?
Possibly. People who enter politics for the sake of getting rich quick are just benefit cheats. I guess that is why they are so quick to make rules about benefit cheats, because they are dealing with people they truly understand and share so much in common with.
A very good point, Ralph, and I seem to recall that three of the biggest mouths in this regard were Purnell, Tony McNulty and Chris Grayling, and all three of them should by now have been booted out of their parties or deselected by their local parties
So, let's not mourn the departure of this individual who, lest we forget, stabbed thousands of activists and party members in the back with his disgraceful conduct during the local & European elections last year, who managed to get away with fleecing the public purse during the expenses row, and whose draconian welfare reforms did their very best to destroy what was left of the legacy of the Attlee government.
I think you have put this beautifully, Ryan. I think his behaviour last June (and coincidently again today the day before a Brown "keynote" speech, proves that the man was - at best - a dilletante', just in it for what he could get out of it. The gravy train was about to hit the buffers so he pulled the communication cord.
If there were any justice in the world, a "work focussed" interview at some seedy JobCentrePlus office, followed by a job stacking shelves in Tesco's after fourn or five weeks on JSA (and no free groceries!).
But in reality, I can see him becoming a "media commentator" all pomp and make-up on TV, perhaps working as something in the City or even a future prospective Conservative M.P. In any event I am sure Pater will make sure he doesn't go short.
Yep. And what about the time he spent at the DWP forcing through some 'reforms'?
Doh! Of course it was other people who did the things he wants to be remembered for.
Frankly, I would imagine James jumped before the electorate pushed him. I can't imagine the 'supportive' comments on LL after his interview made good reading.
Anybody going to be brash enough to say it was 'LL whot did it'? (I'd be amazed if that was the case, but it's as accurate as the Sun's attempts at self promotion at supporting the only breathing quadruped in two horse races.)
Hi
Just a suggestion, lets say perhap "regulate to reduce the injustices of the public sector and market" rather than just "control the market".
What do you think?
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with markets.
It's markets that operate for rentier profit that are the problem.
Nothing wrong with being suspicious in politics fella lol!
Thanks
This is to me not about the poltical positioning of the Party. It is about the conduct of those elected to represent the party and the people.
James as everyone knows brought life in the sense he did try at the very end to promote Demos and raise the level of the debate. He had his own reasons for doing so.
My rejection of James was never really personal, just a deep suspicion of his ulterior motives based upon the values he displayed when in the Cabinet.
Those values that manifested are what define the man ultimately, no matter how politite he is, or what wise words leave his mouth.
As I have said before I could tell people in the most presentable and attractive fashion how much I dearly love peace and say I am pacifist, but if I load a rifle and blow someone's brains out (sorry for the harsh example) it clearly is not the case.
Good manners you'll find from most MP's, it is the actions they take when in power that define them and no great debate on the ideals of the party can detract from this because the real James Purnell is always going to be there with his very real political agenda.
The Interview by Alex was excellent and said a lot about this fella. James felt that any tinkering of the Welfare Reform Bill was "left" in principle. Which is an odd thing to say. You can scale back legislation over time time and you can build upon it and in doing so either realise a right wing or left wing agenda. The direction James was going in was clear.
This is not a great day and do I not feel good, I feel very sad about it all. As I said a man of Purnaells philosophical history could have been a great asset to the party but James was more concerned with cutting taxation, he was never a great defender of people in the middle or the poorer families in this country and never hesitated to enrich himself whenever he could.
He was in the end, a man defined and ended by his actions.
It is possible to be critical without laying into people personally, especially if they are not here defending themslves.
It's the easiest thing in the world to blog anonymously and be harsh from the sidelines.....
I would hate this to descend into a bullying forum at times."
Well, if it makes it any more palatable I write under my own real name.
Like you, I don't like bullying, but don't you think people suffering from terminal illnesses, or undergoing painful chemotherapy or radiotherapy who have been turned down for ESA and put on JSA, because of the Freud prposals totally accepted by Purnell, have more right to feel bullied than a man who has a very thick skin and is in no way embarrassed that before he drove his vile measures through Parliament actually saw the instigator of them Freud, join the Conservative Party. In other words Purnell a "LABOUR" minister, actually implemented the Tories policy for them before they came to office. Under this amateurs reforms, people in desperate circumcstances are living in poverty until appelas are heard (assuming they live that long).
Purnell has written at great length on this forum - he has spoken down to us and many of us have addressed questions to him, he never ONCE had the courtesy to come back on here and respond. I call that the mark of a coward. And most cowards are bullies, so I can';t see frankly, with all due respect, why you can possibly construe what has been written about this man in good faith is "bullying". If it IS, then I am guilty of it, more than most. But I have written nothging I wouldn't be prepared to say to Purnell's face if I ever had the dubious pleasure of meeting him.
Hazico there is little to no bullying here, just arguments and facts that you do not like. Goes to show the adage is true, when you have lost the debate, talk about the debate. How very New Labour. Gordon is today telling the press that the Tories are using scare tactics on the deficit, well the fact remains that Economists, the press and many others paint a picture. Gordon has FAILED ON A BIBLICAL SCALE.
Best wishes
Bloody marvellous: we have a discussion about the differences between economists and we get this statement - or perhaps these Economists with an upper case E are a special breed.
It is possible to be critical without laying into people personally, especially if they are not here defending themslves.
It's the easiest thing in the world to blog anonymously and be harsh from the sidelines; maybe not so easy to be out there doing the real stuff.
I detest Tory policies, but think it is wrong to assassinate a person's character we know nothing of.
I would hate this to descend into a bullying forum at times.
Oh do wake up. The main stench is coming from No 10. You are all doomed I tell ye....doomed
Oh do wake up. The main stench is coming from No 10"
No, Westminster. Remember for every Labour trougher there was a Tory one. There was also a Conservative "phantom mortgage" man, who because he is a close chum of Cameron's has, so far, eluded the attentions of the police.
The worst you can say of Brown is that, after the theatricality of the Blair years and the "I-wanna-be-an-all-round-entertainer" antics of his acolytes Brown's team can seem rather dull. In fact, poor old Gordon during his speeches reminds me of Rossini's strictures on the music of Wagner:
"Wagner has some great moments - but some dull quarter of an hours"
or maybe a stupid excuse to allow Dromey to stand ?
No I think Simon was far too selfish to have a Captain Oates moment. He, too, had been caught out in the expenses scandal, and perhaps, like Pur-nell he feared the wrath of his constituents. I wish the KitKat Queen would take the hint in Salford!
Peter Hain, a much more experienced minister, chose to ignore Freud, which, when you realise that Freud is now a Tory (and probably was then) was the more sensible thing to do.Pur-nell has bought untold misery and anxiety to some of the most vulnerable people in society and let that be his epitaph: I bet he is still having a silent chuckle over his trick.
If you think the UK will ever elect a left wing Labour government then you are delusional.
So move back to the left and enjoy opposition for a long time.
The fact is we have had virtually right wing policies since 1979 and we are back where we started - because "New Labour" was a cheap copy of the Tory party.
As for Pur-nell, as your Mrs Thatcher once said, and their Mr Blair once said: Rejoice At That News!. It's the best day of the year so far.
A bloody expensive one if one a
The blairites leave and very soon those on the labour left looking for higher taxes and more re-distribution will start holding sway. At that point either you get elected (unlikely) and international business and entrepreneurs do a runner from the UK, or you lose a few elections (likely) like the 1980s until you come to your senses again.
Mutuality and co-op are all very well but they won't affect most businesses and certainly no multi-nationals.
For the first time in ages, I feel like the Labour Party might be moving in the right direction.
People like Pur-nell - and his mate Tony (I live with mum and dad) McNulty had a great deal to say about benefit claimants "playing the system", when they were doing EXACTLY the same thing themselves. But of course, it was "within the rules" and they "did nothing wrong". No apart from morally and hypocrisy.
He is probably leaving because the life he wanted on expenses will no longer there and I suspect he could not support a move to a more co-op policy that seems to be happening.
John, I was a member of the Labour party back then, and had been for years, but when Blair assumed the leadership he was selling a product "New Labour" almost sounds like a soap powder. I never liked the man - didn't like the cut of his jib: the pleading, hectoring voice. The nonsense like "My government will be purer than pure", sounding for all the world like a voice-over for a perfume advert. Well within months, you should have been disabused of that idea by various scandals of various sorts (do the names Ecclestone, Ron Davies Geoffrey Robinson and his Lordship Mandelson ring any bells?), later there were names like Jo Moore, Stephen Byers,, Blunkett. God the list is endless.
SOME people were taken in and bought into the product, mesanwhile true Labour supporters were leaving the party in droves.
I won't even mention Iraq, and I'll only briefly remind you of the personal greed and overweening self importance of Mr and Mrs Blair (Mrs Blair recently gave an interview excusing her excesses by claiming that as she came from a poor home she had a fear of being poor again). Not very likely. New Labour was a sort of vanity publishing project of a few very self interested right wing "Labour" politicians. They took in a lot of Labour supporters, and Tories found that it was the next best thing to a Tory government. Just a slightly lighter shade of blue.
Purnell is the epitome of thatv shower.
Won't disagree with any of that. But Blair was needed. The Tories were in the same position Labour are now - tired, corrupt and unfit to govern. As I say I go for the least worst option. I did buy into Blair. I thought we could have a fiscally prudent slightly left of centre government that actually HELPED the poorest in society and had a interest in developing the arts and culture.
In 2001 Labour had been under Tory spending proposals and I thought that things would okay. Then it all started going downhill.
We now have Brown. I think the UK deserves better. I doubt Cameron is much better but he speaks my language much more than Balls or Brown.
I realise that people like you must have felt pretty alienated this last decade - I just don't see why people stick with badges, esp in politics. I see Labour of 1982 and they have nothing in common with the Labour party of today. Nothing. People fool themselves. Labour stands for nothing but power and self interest. The Tories are the same but we have to pick one.
I'd like to see a shift to the left, given that so many of Labour's policies are now right of centre
Really Shibley?. Would you be kind enough to explain why?
Was it the way he resigned from the cabinet on the day of the local elections last June, tipping off the Murdoch press two hours before the polls closed, or perhaps the way he tricked Brown into supporting Freud and the dismantling of the welfare state, at the whim of an amateur "reformer", as he boasted to Nick Robinson on BBC Radio last month. Or the way he showed no embarrassment when weeks later Freud joined the Tories, so in effect Pur-nell put through Tory policies to save the Tories the trouble?. Or Perhaps it was the way he claimed the maximum for his grocery bills and (non) cleaning and house-flipping at ourt expense?
Don't be a tease, Shibley - do tell.
As for the decline of fall of Purnell: I am sure a nation mourns. I'm not sure which nation, though! :)
The lurch to the left seems inevitable.
Oh come of it, Johgn, what with the likes of Miliband and Mandelson still around?
In my view, Pur-nell should never have joined the Labour party. I think he would have made a much better David Cameron than David Cameron. He is not, and never has been, truly a man of the left, however often he says it: who was he trying to convince? us - or himself?
He was never what I would consider a socialist but the blairites are jumping ship rapidly. I wonder what prompted James to choose today? Day before the Brown relaunch (v 123.6) or perhaps he has seen the internal polling?
As for Mandelson and Miliband - I would wait and see what happens at the election. It could go any number of ways
That can only be to the good for the party. It will take the stench out of the air a bit at Westminster. But seriously, I wonder if Jim has taken a walk round Tesco/Somerfield/Sainsburys et al recently?
Prices are definately on the rise, and very soon, he will have to pay for his own groceries just like all of us in the real world!
Can I trust Brown or xxxxing Ed Balls? Er no.
Just look at the pound today as Brown spouts his usual rubbish about growth.
I would DEARLY love the poison of Hazel Blears to go though. By rights she should be in jail.
'what she did isn't illegal and happens all the time'
I assume you mean, happens all the time if you're confused about where you live, and have too many properties to be sure.
In which case, yeah, probably does happen all the time if you're in that position. I think however, there is a limited number of people, say 640 odd, who were in a position to get the public purse to subsidise them in the process.
However, it is noticeable that a fair few of that limited number didn't stoop to her level.
Creepy phrase, that - redolent of privilege
Alex you must have some friends who are very easily impressed! :)
Thank you Alex.
No there ia absolutely no joy in this whole sorry business. As I said some people will be leaving us now. You cannot have the kind of "interests" he has and consider yourself able to reform the Party.
Had he focused his time and energy with ordinary people a man like James could have made a huge difference for the Labour Party. But that is it is it not?
The days are spent looking at what they "could" have done, not the aweful things they "chose" to do.
This whole sorry tale of the political class has harmed our party very badly and I thank James for making the very tough, but very right decision to stand down.
Politics is not a career or a science project. It is representing people, acting and speaking on their behalf.