By Elite is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "a group of people regarded as the best in a particular society or organisation". I have yet to find a term for the expression "a group of people who are wrongfully regarded as the best in a particular society or organisation"; therefore I use and will continue to use the original term "unelites".
This week, with the release of the Kelly Report, many people have commented on expenses and the situation within the Labour Party in particular. Clearly, we are witnessing horrific levels of disrespect displayed by our "elite" Members of Parliament, in the face of their own corruption and their view that they were somehow working harder than other dedicated professionals. This, then, is a reminder to everyone of the Labour Party Rules, which have been broken and abused [my emphasis]:
"Conditions of Membership
6. To be and remain eligible for membership, each individual member must:
A. accept and conform to the constitution, programme, principles and policy of the party.
Clause IV
Aims and values.
2B. A just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power.
2C. An open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people, decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed.
5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.
Clause VIII
The National Executive Committee
B. win elections and maintain the support of voters.
C. maintain a healthy party at all levels, engaged in the community upholding the highest standards in public life."
One party member stated to me when I raised this that he, too, occasionally broke the rules. However, who was citing the importance of rules during the expense crises and belittling the sprirt of the rules? For what purpose do we have rules at all? Are they just guidelines? Where do they begin and where do they end? If I was to (heaven forbid) return to my old army camp, pick up an SA80 and go somewhere where there are few witnesses and rob a bank, dispose of the evidence and get away with it, is that OK if I am legal and within the rules until, at least, I am caught?
Of course not.
The rules are there theoretically to protect our values so that we can co-exist as peacefully as possible.
I was a great fan of the New Labour project back in 1997-2002. After that, many things changed as I listened to Mr Blair taking the very opposite policy stance he took in 1997 on many issues, duplicating the Tories' policies of 1997 in some cases.
In 2005, along with the majority of "middle England" I realised that Labour had moved away from the majority views of the country as they veered into the realms of the right, though as an activist I still supported them.
With the exposure this year of the expenses scandal, we now know the full extent of the transition: aside from that scandal, there have been civil rights infringements, liberties curtailed and the love affair with inept bankers. Theirs were big money-big egos that were not matched by performance or ability and many still are answerable to none. The result is an increasing disrespect for - and from - the electorate.
The departure from the Labour Party rules and what it is to be in the Labour Party, Old or New, have been, by some, replaced with an obsession with legislation and the interpretation of legislation as a means of pushing the boundaries as an inexperienced child does when learning the rules, to see what can be got away with.
People of middle and lower incomes hear these twisted manipulations and ask me: is an MP elite enough to rise above the rest and endure their own unemployment? It seems not: they blub and threaten to sue the Labour Party when they have to give up their allowances.
And the result? More trust shattered, more hopes destroyed and opportunities that were promised for the many quashed into the oblivion of political ignorance, blindness and institutionalisation for the few.
Political assistents, think tank researchers, sycophantic suck-ups of the PM and pals with a guaranteed trip to Parliament are reminiscent of the final days of Tory rule back in 1996 when Tory candidates secured their seats by heavy donations and similar arrangements. There is consequently too little practical experience entering Parliament; the majority sweeping in from the educational establishments into the Parliamentary establishments and relying on think-tanks and PR, without the first clue of how to relate to those who they will fail to properly represent. To these institutionalised elites, the electorate have become a nuisance; they cannot afford to speak and debate with the local people for fear of being exposed.
So now we look to our future. What precedent has been set? What people will hope to "represent" us and the Labour Party in the future? With which issues will they be concerned: PR or real life?
Many Labour MPs should re-read the Labour Party rules above: they may find some of their questions regarding "what it is to be on the Left" answered. With these simple sentences, they should realise the full extent of their failure.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
"The Labour Party is over, only a few months to go to prove it, the end is nigh."
People said that about you Tories in 1997. So I would say to you dont be naive. We have a substandard leader but he will be gone soon and we can rebuild.
But to an extent I agree. There seems to be nothing between the local worthy and the full time politico in Labour selections.
On your first question, I am seeking MP's who meet the basic requirements for being a member which harms nobody and is not based upon New or Old Labour.
On your second question, no. Militancy help nobody not even themselves.
On your third question, absolutely not.
On your conclusion I hope you are wrong, but judging by the MP's who will survive the cull at the General Election based upon the safe seat situation the picture for our party is grim to say the least.
So what are you proposing now? go back to the old guard who believe in a socialist nightmare and were also unelectable? or another administation who want to out Tory the Tories with a right wing agenda that has given away our Country, allows criminals of violent crime to walk away with a warning, bug us all, thought crime, race crime, accuse all white middle class people of racism?!!
The Labour Party is over, only a few months to go to prove it, the end is nigh.
I didn't know and hadn't read (why should I? I don't support your party) the clauses of the Labour constitution you highlight. The irony is that right now the Tories are more aligned with your rules than the Labour leadership.
Good luck in turning this around in opposition. Although I don't support you, do it quick. I hate weak oppositions!
In 1997 the genuinely believed not only did they have good policies for the country and the Tories have bad policies, but more importantly that they were 'good people' and the Tories were 'bad people'. This sort of thinking has dangerous consequences. It no longer mattered what actions were undertaken to defend the government or how it actually behaved, because it's moral authority and sense of being right was invested in the character of it's leaders. They knew they were 'good people', and so doing anything and saying anything to cling on to power was justified because it meant a 'good person' stayed in government.
The old view that the goodness of a government was invested in it's policies, decisions and actions (and therefore your opponents were good people, but just mistaken) probably had more going for it. Perhaps we ought to try and return to those days.
Wow ! This is all about trust ( in politics and the commons) , Voters are sick of spin and lies and MPS who act like nodding dogs , We need a parliment that holds the goverment to acount , We need to move away from soundbite politics , PMQS is not what it says on the tin , Its just a spin machine and that makes our parliment a joke .
ricki
All we need is a good healthy mix of people. The reason so many are leaving the Party is that it is devoid of opportunity if you find the taste of "arse" unpleasant and are unwilling to partake.
It is OK to have some student involved in politics but (I was a student once) they are not equipped to do the job without help from other quarters. No single group of people young or old or in fact from any career area should be permitted to dominate this of all parties.
The question though, is also about whether the NEC functions when dominated by politicians from one tier of government or in fact if the Labour Party Rules mean anything, because if they don't I expect Dr Ian Gibson to stand for Norwich North.
Rules and precedents...we have law graduates in Parliament who do not even understand the nature of rules, precedents and Constitutions.
Gone it seems are the days when entry to Parliment came after years of success in business, the trade unions, military or other public service.
Now it is too often a case of uni, think-tank, brief stint with a PR agency, party HQ and then a safe seat by early thirties. Are these people really equiped to make key decisions for us?
We also witness the way they try and protect their wives and children from the very workplace we all graft in. Either that or they have absolutely no regard whatsoever for public service and believe they are entitled to a free living. Mps should be paid but clearly the current crop are greedy children with no idea why they were elected.
MP's in the Labour Party have to be the cleanest as many of their core support make very little money, the whole point of out party is to be as inclusive as possible, but we are very, very far from it. Unelites indeed.
Good point Sue, in all the whining about how they get paid so little I can't think of another job where you need no qualifications, no experience and can't even be bothered turning up most of the time.
Free debate ;)
There will be no change as we approach May. If I remember my history as the Tories approached election defeat they put forward the most unpopular legislation, they introduced the student loans which of course Blair accepted once elected.
Things will most certainly get worse and their will be no interest whatsoever in what we think or feel, as has been revealed lately, Sue Kirkby highlights it very well.
Ill-conceived, abortive, ill-advised, hare-brained, poorly thought-out
Their grandiose and misbegotten plans fell flat.
Things can only get better.
The political elite have lost the trust of the electorate not only by their abuse of the expenses system, but also by their cavalier attitude to manifesto commitments and 'cast-iron' promises on the EU Treaty referendum.
Government ministers often harp on about the cost of housing being the largest cost in a person's life, rather than the real answer which is taxation. My tax bill is twice my rent and I am nowhere near being a 'higher rate' payer.
I turn down overtime because the tax take makes it not worthwhile enough to do (I have to wreck myself for a couple of hundred quid in a month)
As for our beloved MPs, they still don't get it. They have no idea of the impact their various schemes have on us lot, childcare policy being an excellent example. They happily impose all manner of taxation ridiculousness on us, who earn (on average) a third of what they do. To watch them complain about not being able to employ a cleaner (how messy are some of these people?) just makes me incandescent with rage.
The debate finished and the business of the day relating to legislation affecting the public, you and me, the man in the street, began. They couldn't get out of there fast enough. The chamber emptied, and there were possibly twenty MPs remaining. It looked like they'd had a lottery for the ones that had to stay, just so the chamber wouldn't be completely empty.
Again I say, what is the point of MPs, in the current situation?
great post. Lots of people I know wouldn't be able to balance working and raising a family without the current childcare voucher scheme, with the associated tax breaks.
As a result a lot of parents will be forced to give up work and claim benefits - so counter productive! And all the time the un-elite are fretting about how to scrape by on their 'meagre' salaries once they actually have to pay their own way like the rest of us.
Well, I for one would be happy to lose any of our un-elites to other jobs if they feel they are worth more than is on offer, in their place we might get some people with a better grip on reality and a less greedy outlook.
It was interesting to see we have one female Labour MP bemoaning the loss of the allowance for employing a cleaner, as a sexist attack on the ability of women to become MPs. At the same time we see the removal of childcare allowance from middle income women who have a total family income of £45,000. It emerges that one of the biggest user groups for the childcare allowance are nurses, some of whom are saying they may not be able to continue to work without affordable childcare.
The female Labour MP is therefore saying she can't continue in her job without a cleaning allowance, despite earning £96,000, and yet is apparently happy to see the childcare allowance removed from middle and lower income working women as a cost cutting measure. Cleaning isn't a priority, childcare however is. Many MPs, such as the Balls family, are able to afford full time nannies. Most working women can just about afford daycare nurseries, without which they cannot continue to work.
We have an elite whose self obsession blinds them to the day to day realities of ordinary people's lives. I am beginning to wonder - what is the point of an MP when they are so out of touch?
for many the past 12 years have been a depressing experience. The crushing of hope, for a govt genuinely interested in improving our society, under the combined weight of petty infighting, grubby self interest and policy-by-media-reaction.
Your post highlights the values that the labour party is meant to embody, how strange then to see so many MP's more concerned about their 2nd homes and nepotistic appointments than about the families facing ruin as a result of job losses, the collapse of private sector pension schemes and wage freezes.
How did such a puny phrase ever make the constitution of the Labour party?
We have crossed swords occasionally Ralph but I agree with the fundamental point you make. Whatever happens next May, the party has to fundamentally change in a way that refocuses it on the communities it serves and ensures that it properly understands them and is accountable to them. If we don't others will.