Labour politician of the year – Anna Turley

It’s not been a great year for Labour. A crushing electoral defeat, the party’s policy and organisational platform shattered and a shell-shocked frontbench lacking any collective sense of where to go next. It is to the backbenches the Uncut has looked for a Labour politician to inspire a fightback and there is one stand out candidate: Anna Turley.

Few will have had as difficult a year as Anna Turley but she has distinguished herself as being the epitome of the fighting spirit Labour now needs to show.

On the biggest political issue of the past few years, Brexit, the easy choice would have been to fold in behind the Leave vote in her constituency. But standing up for what’s right is part of her political DNA as it should be part of Labour’s and the manner in which she fought for a People’s Vote as the best way to protect her constituents’ jobs and services is a testament to her commitment to doing right by her constituents, even when steering into a fierce headwind.

It was the same fight she displayed when dealing with the aftermath of the closure of the SSI steelworks in Redcar.

And it’s the fight she showed when taking on the bully boys of Unite and Skwakbox in a court case that exemplifies the internecine bitterness and malice which now permeates the Labour party.

They libelled her and rather than accepting their mistake early, escalated the action through the courts, raising the stakes by running up huge legal costs, a well-known tactic to discourage plaintiffs from pursuing their case. Unite and Skwakbox’s actions ultimately compelled a Labour MP to take time out from the general election campaign to give evidence at the High Court.

The scathing judgement on Unite and Skwakbox is a salutary indictment of the surfeit of money and spite on their side. That Unite are reportedly footing the legal bill for Skwakbox, which apparently runs to £1.5m-£2m, is an extraordinary use of member subscriptions that will have long term internal ramifications within the union.

Fortunately, the bullies picked the wrong person in Anna Turley.

The party will need people like Anna Turley and her courage under fire, if it is have any chance of returning to power in the coming years.

Reminder of harsh political realities: Change UK and Liberal Democrats

When Luciana Berger called Labour “institutionally antisemitic” at the launch of Change UK, the charge stung, appallingly, because of the extent of truth that attaches to it. Of all the political casualties of the Corbyn years, perhaps none is as regrettable as Berger – who, when she was still a Labour MP, could only attend party conference with a police escort.

If politics in the UK were purely a game of moral justice, Berger would certainly still be an MP. Indeed, a world in which she was somehow in the cabinet would doubtless be a better one than that which we find ourselves in.      

But politics, sadly, is about harsh realities, as well as much moral justice as we can bring about in the context of such. The failure of Change UK and the lack of Liberal Democrat breakthrough at the general election, both projects that Berger contributed towards, seems to confirm that one of these realities remains the persistence of the duopoly of UK politics – even if one is “institutionally antisemitic” and the other might be deemed institutionally Islamophobic.

We need to do better. Within constraints of political reality, including, for better or worse, our duopoly. Which, for those of us in Labour, means insisting upon a new leadership determined and able to take the steps necessary to ensure that the conditions that drove Berger from our party are eradicated and never allowed to return.  

One to watch: Pete Buttigieg

Everyone who cares for liberal democracy wants Donald Trump’s term as US president to end by the presidential election in November 2020 at the latest. Five Democrats have so far qualified to participate in the next debate to determine who will face Trump (or probably Mike Pence in the unlikely event that Trump is removed by impeachment): Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar.

The case for Biden is best made by this excellent campaign video. He offers a restoration of the American values and global leadership besmirched by Trump. But the involvement of his son in the issues that have led to Trump’s impeachment mean that this topic will likely remain central to a Trump v Biden campaign – allowing Trump to present Biden to his still devoted supporters as an agent of “the deep state”. A charge which the gaffe-prone, 77-year-old may not respond to with agility.

Trump’s election perhaps also indicated a learning for change that might not best be satisfied by reverting to a leader closely associated with what came before Trump. In contrast, Sanders and Warren certainly embody change – but maybe of a form too left-wing to win the presidency. Buttigieg and Klobuchar offer more centrist platforms and claims that they can win in the kind of mid-western states that the Democrats require to recover the White House.

While Klobuchar, having demonstrated more staying power in the presidential race than might have previously been presumed, should not be dismissed, more stardust attaches to Buttigieg. He combines brains (Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey) with brawn (a medal for military service in Afghanistan). And the familiar (as mayor of South Bend, Indiana his political base exists in exactly the kind of place that Democrats need to win) and the new (an energetic 37-year-old in a gay marriage). Packaged with the kind of eloquence not seen in American politics since Barack Obama.

It was not until Obama beat Hilary Clinton in the Iowa caucus that he was given much chance of securing the 2008 nomination. If Buttigieg can repeat this feat on 3 February, we will need to take more seriously his chances of usurping the much more experienced and nationally prominent Biden, Sanders and Warren.

Just about keeping the Scottish Labour show on the road: Ian Murray

With Brexit pending, there is a growing expectation that Scotland will soon enough leave the UK, but this is to underestimate:

1. The strength of unionist feeling in Scotland – which has sustained some revival of Conservative fortunes over the past decade
2. The complexity of disentangling Scotland from the UK – a task capable of making Brexit look like a tea party and with Brexit potentially having reduced the appetite for grand constitutional rearrangements
3. The difficulties of having an independent Scotland join the EU – while some of the momentum behind independence is based upon a presumption that Scotland prefers membership of the EU to membership of the UK, it is not guaranteed that the EU will create a clear and easy pathway for Scotland to join and in doing so, create a threatening precedent for those members with separatist movements (e.g. Spain and Catalonia). Nor is it clear that the Scottish gains from pursuing whatever road the EU affords to it will outweigh its losses from disentangling from the UK

Scotland’s future, therefore, is not as clear cut as that anticipated by those who are now increasingly certain that it will transition out of the UK and into the EU. In contemplating this uncertain future, Labour should listen to our one remaining MP in Scotland, Ian Murray.

The UK is stronger with Scotland in it and Labour’s chances of forming a UK government are much improved with a revival in Scotland. Labour needs to take seriously the steps advocated by Murray to advance these arguments and put him into a position of with enough authority to adequately act upon these steps.

Tags: 2019 Uncut awards, Anna Turley, Brexit, Change UK, Ian Murray, Pete Buttigieg

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 31st, 2019 at 1:57 pm and is filed under Uncut. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.