A very interesting situation and hopefully one the regional and national media will pick up on (whilst giving the Mill credit for the investigative work done to date).
Looking back - probably not. But hindsight’s a wonderful thing. And anyway, who controlled the Council wasn’t really in our thoughts at the time. Our business at that time was who controlled the constituency, and that was quite enough for us. And similar struggles were happening in constituencies across the city.
Would be interested to know what Wynne means by the working class towards the end of the article there. Any polling I’ve seen which suggests that Labour “lost with the working class” in 2019 has a view of class that feels massively skewed by a poor understanding of it.
Labours worst result since the 1930s you don't need a poll to show you that it lost with the working class. Look at the seats in Parliament. It broke my heart seeing my hometown and my father's hometown that need a Labour government more than ever flip Blue
Well it’s mostly my personal perspective although the battle between Local Authorities and Thatcher - particularly Labour Local Authorities is documented, and the disqualification of the Liverpool councillors is a fact. You can still find Kinnocks anti Militant speech on you tube I think. Conference was in uproar. Eric Hefner, renowned and respected left wing MP staged a walkout. I went to a fringe meeting that night and Tony Benn, with tightly controlled anger I think, did everything in his power to calm people down. He told us that these things happen periodically. He talked about a previous time in Labour history and how the party regrouped. He was trying to say we mustn’t be unnerved or have our confidence undermined. It was well done because many of us were very shaken. It was a turbulent time.
Just a minor point. The constituencies of Cheadle and Hazel Grove are not realistic targets for Labour at the next General Election. All current polling indicates they will swing to the Lib Dems.
I know that it has been corrected now, but I actually don't see that kind of thing as being minor. If there's something in a piece that you know is incorrect it makes you wonder if the things that you DON'T know about are accurate.
Even more worryingly to me, the correction wasn't something that was a correction of fact, but of an opinion that had been attributed to someone else: "Labour sees an opportunity to take the remaining two seats in the borough of Stockport currently held by the Tories: Hazel Grove and Cheadle."
DO Labour think that? The correction implies that this wasn't the case: "Correction, 8 April: This article originally stated that Hazel Grove and Cheadle are Labour target seats at the next election. In fact, they are more realistic targets for the Lib Dems. Thanks to the readers for pointing this out."
I suppose if the author had spoken to a member of the Stockport Lib Dems they'd have been corrected! But the focus of the article is Labour infighting.
I suspect it was just bad phrasing in the article: the only issue I have was the implication that Labour see them as target seats (which would have made me think of Labour as being completely out of touch with reality) rather than the author thinking of them as target seats (which, as you say, is just a simple mistake).
One of the things that I love about The Mill is that it gives younger journalists a chance to do things other than "Top 10..." and "You'll never believe what happened next" so it's just a learning opportunity which was why I called it out. In this case it's not particularly important. In other cases accidentally attributing opinions to others could matter far more.
Of course it could be that Labour DO see them as target seats!
I remember my days opposing militant in Manchester. We opposed them because they subjugated all oppression to class. They saw everything else as a distraction from the class struggle, and seemed to say that once the general strike had swept away the reactionary forces of capitalism, all forms of oppression such as gender, race, disability, sexual orientation etc (which they saw as by-products of capitalism) would disappear. Militant were successful because they were organised and energetic. So we organised and we beefed up our act - and in the end there were more of us and we cared at least as much as they did. But I wonder now, reading about the row in Stockport between left and right (Mr Wynne it was ever thus) what would have happened if we had all felt it was all getting too noisy and, nasty so we’d taken our rosettes off and gone home, might we have seen Manchester go the way of Liverpool.? Possibly. Myself, looking back, tough as it sometimes was, I’m glad we stuck it.
Important to make the "it was ever thus" point but it seems that the situation does seem to be getting more extreme.
I would be interested in understanding what you meant by "going the way of Liverpool" - a genuine question. Of course I understand that most of Liverpool is a Labour stronghold but, as a Liverpool resident I'm just interested in the nuances of this.
Under Derek Hatton (Deputy Leader) Militant gained control of Liverpool Council (1980s). It didn’t go well. The Militant Liverpool Council refused to set a legal budget, but Thatcher was determined to limit the power of local authorities by radically limiting their spending. I was at Labour Party conference 1985 (the year the miners strike broke was a significant time for the left and not in a good way) when Neil Kinnock made his anti- Militant speech and said that what you get when you make impossible promises is “a Labour council! a Labour council! hiring taxis to scuttle around handing out out redundancy notices to its own workers”….Derek was 2 seats directly in front of me, mostly on his feet heckling. His militant minders were trying to tell him what had to be done next but he was beside himself.
After the 1985 conference, notwithstanding the support of other Labour leaders led by David Blunkett (Sheffield), who tried to provide to try to find a way forward through 4 options in the Stonefrost Report that they produced, but it was rejected. They basically sympathised with the political principles that underpinned Liverpool’s actions, even though they weren’t prepared to bring the kind of consequences of setting an illegal budget that Neil Kinnock was talking about, down on their own cities and of course themselves. The Audit Commission eventually disqualified the Liverpool councillors.
For a while many of us had supported Liverpool and through our constituency parties we tried to persuade Manchester Council to join in the Liverpool action, but it was clear our elected members were having none of it, and looking back I concede they were right There were other, cleverer ways to defend the city that didn’t involve hardship to staff or residents.
But there was a time when Militant had control of some Manchester constituency parties, and that control was growing, and I was speculating what would have happened if the opposition to Militant had not held firm then, and I believe that a Militant controlled Manchester City Council would have certainly followed Liverpool into not setting a legal budget, and we would have suffered the consequences.
Was there ever really any risk of a Militant-controlled council in Manchester though? I wasn't around then (born in the 80s), but maybe some ideological diversity in Manchester Labour would have been no bad thing, given the pretty well documented autocratic way the council has been run for the last 30 years.
A very interesting situation and hopefully one the regional and national media will pick up on (whilst giving the Mill credit for the investigative work done to date).
Looking back - probably not. But hindsight’s a wonderful thing. And anyway, who controlled the Council wasn’t really in our thoughts at the time. Our business at that time was who controlled the constituency, and that was quite enough for us. And similar struggles were happening in constituencies across the city.
Would be interested to know what Wynne means by the working class towards the end of the article there. Any polling I’ve seen which suggests that Labour “lost with the working class” in 2019 has a view of class that feels massively skewed by a poor understanding of it.
Labours worst result since the 1930s you don't need a poll to show you that it lost with the working class. Look at the seats in Parliament. It broke my heart seeing my hometown and my father's hometown that need a Labour government more than ever flip Blue
Well it’s mostly my personal perspective although the battle between Local Authorities and Thatcher - particularly Labour Local Authorities is documented, and the disqualification of the Liverpool councillors is a fact. You can still find Kinnocks anti Militant speech on you tube I think. Conference was in uproar. Eric Hefner, renowned and respected left wing MP staged a walkout. I went to a fringe meeting that night and Tony Benn, with tightly controlled anger I think, did everything in his power to calm people down. He told us that these things happen periodically. He talked about a previous time in Labour history and how the party regrouped. He was trying to say we mustn’t be unnerved or have our confidence undermined. It was well done because many of us were very shaken. It was a turbulent time.
Just a minor point. The constituencies of Cheadle and Hazel Grove are not realistic targets for Labour at the next General Election. All current polling indicates they will swing to the Lib Dems.
I know that it has been corrected now, but I actually don't see that kind of thing as being minor. If there's something in a piece that you know is incorrect it makes you wonder if the things that you DON'T know about are accurate.
Even more worryingly to me, the correction wasn't something that was a correction of fact, but of an opinion that had been attributed to someone else: "Labour sees an opportunity to take the remaining two seats in the borough of Stockport currently held by the Tories: Hazel Grove and Cheadle."
DO Labour think that? The correction implies that this wasn't the case: "Correction, 8 April: This article originally stated that Hazel Grove and Cheadle are Labour target seats at the next election. In fact, they are more realistic targets for the Lib Dems. Thanks to the readers for pointing this out."
Well I'm happy the article has been corrected transparently.
I suppose if the author had spoken to a member of the Stockport Lib Dems they'd have been corrected! But the focus of the article is Labour infighting.
I suspect it was just bad phrasing in the article: the only issue I have was the implication that Labour see them as target seats (which would have made me think of Labour as being completely out of touch with reality) rather than the author thinking of them as target seats (which, as you say, is just a simple mistake).
One of the things that I love about The Mill is that it gives younger journalists a chance to do things other than "Top 10..." and "You'll never believe what happened next" so it's just a learning opportunity which was why I called it out. In this case it's not particularly important. In other cases accidentally attributing opinions to others could matter far more.
Of course it could be that Labour DO see them as target seats!
I remember my days opposing militant in Manchester. We opposed them because they subjugated all oppression to class. They saw everything else as a distraction from the class struggle, and seemed to say that once the general strike had swept away the reactionary forces of capitalism, all forms of oppression such as gender, race, disability, sexual orientation etc (which they saw as by-products of capitalism) would disappear. Militant were successful because they were organised and energetic. So we organised and we beefed up our act - and in the end there were more of us and we cared at least as much as they did. But I wonder now, reading about the row in Stockport between left and right (Mr Wynne it was ever thus) what would have happened if we had all felt it was all getting too noisy and, nasty so we’d taken our rosettes off and gone home, might we have seen Manchester go the way of Liverpool.? Possibly. Myself, looking back, tough as it sometimes was, I’m glad we stuck it.
Important to make the "it was ever thus" point but it seems that the situation does seem to be getting more extreme.
I would be interested in understanding what you meant by "going the way of Liverpool" - a genuine question. Of course I understand that most of Liverpool is a Labour stronghold but, as a Liverpool resident I'm just interested in the nuances of this.
Doing a Liverpool
Under Derek Hatton (Deputy Leader) Militant gained control of Liverpool Council (1980s). It didn’t go well. The Militant Liverpool Council refused to set a legal budget, but Thatcher was determined to limit the power of local authorities by radically limiting their spending. I was at Labour Party conference 1985 (the year the miners strike broke was a significant time for the left and not in a good way) when Neil Kinnock made his anti- Militant speech and said that what you get when you make impossible promises is “a Labour council! a Labour council! hiring taxis to scuttle around handing out out redundancy notices to its own workers”….Derek was 2 seats directly in front of me, mostly on his feet heckling. His militant minders were trying to tell him what had to be done next but he was beside himself.
After the 1985 conference, notwithstanding the support of other Labour leaders led by David Blunkett (Sheffield), who tried to provide to try to find a way forward through 4 options in the Stonefrost Report that they produced, but it was rejected. They basically sympathised with the political principles that underpinned Liverpool’s actions, even though they weren’t prepared to bring the kind of consequences of setting an illegal budget that Neil Kinnock was talking about, down on their own cities and of course themselves. The Audit Commission eventually disqualified the Liverpool councillors.
For a while many of us had supported Liverpool and through our constituency parties we tried to persuade Manchester Council to join in the Liverpool action, but it was clear our elected members were having none of it, and looking back I concede they were right There were other, cleverer ways to defend the city that didn’t involve hardship to staff or residents.
But there was a time when Militant had control of some Manchester constituency parties, and that control was growing, and I was speculating what would have happened if the opposition to Militant had not held firm then, and I believe that a Militant controlled Manchester City Council would have certainly followed Liverpool into not setting a legal budget, and we would have suffered the consequences.
That’s what I meant.
Colleen
Was there ever really any risk of a Militant-controlled council in Manchester though? I wasn't around then (born in the 80s), but maybe some ideological diversity in Manchester Labour would have been no bad thing, given the pretty well documented autocratic way the council has been run for the last 30 years.
Thanks Colleen, really interesting to hear about the background to Liverpool and Manchester situations