The Left's crisis: Socialism and Antisemitism

As most readers may be aware, the last few weeks have seen most of the mainstream media centre on Andy Burnham’s campaign to become leader of the Labour party. His ‘manifesto’ was particularly interesting, as it focused on massive regional devolution, public control of utilities and a substantial increase in social housing. More particularly, his broad platform emphasised ‘business-friendly’ socialism while maintaining fiscal discipline.

Now this made me smile because it sounds like old-fashioned Labour, but if you dig deeper, you’ll realise it’s simply a ‘word salad’ that means nothing. For example, ‘business-friendly’ and ‘socialism are essentially contradictory, because the essence of socialism is it advocates for a democratically run society where the means of production – businesses, industries and resources are socially, or collectively managed and ultimately replace capitalism through democratic and electoral processes.

Similarly, ‘fiscal discipline’ isn’t a socialist concept, as it’s more associated with ‘fiscal conservativism’ and ‘economic liberalism’.

All very interesting, but I want to concentrate on something more disturbing; something visible on both sides of the pond, and it’s what has happened to the progressive Left? Radicalism once meant fighting against poverty and for action on worker’s rights and climate change. But over the years this has been replaced by an obsessive hatred of Israel, and “Zionism”; their rhetoric sounding indistinguishable from the fascists they once fought. Today, these ‘socialists’, use virulent antisemitic tropes that would have once stood perfectly alongside hate-ridden articles in Der Sturmer in the 1930s.Take for example the July 1934 edition warning of a Jewish program for world domination. The article—titled “Who is the Enemy?”—blamed Jews for destroying social order and claimed Jews wanted war, while the rest of the world wanted peace. Compare this to a New Left Review headline comparing Zionism to imperialism and arguing Zionists are colonialists seeking war and domination of the Middle East.

So, what’s changed? Or has it always been this way? Has practical socialism always had an antisemitic side that’s finally come out of the woodwork? To understand this, it’s essential to first understand the mind of an antizionist.

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

It’s not Jews, we keep being told, it’s Israel. If only they didn’t “overact”, there would be no antisemitism; if only American or British Jews repudiated Israel, they would be left alone, because those we call antisemites are responding to unbearable provocations. 

But let me be perfectly clear - everything about this is a lie, and it’ll destroy the West - see how the Left reacted when Israel responded to the appalling tragedy on October 7^th and how they reacted when the Gaza War followed, not forgetting how before the first shots were fired, Israel made it clear there would be no war if the 256 hostages were returned immediately.

But the lies continued unabated on social media, rotting the minds of ill-informed people, warping their critical faculties and chasing away the Jewish diaspora.

With a social media campaign heavily funded by Iran and Qatar, it was inevitable ‘socialist’ activists would embrace antizionism, particularly as many were already hostile to Israel once the declaration was announced Jerusalem was, is and always will be the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

In a feeble attempt to disguise left antisemitism, they started to spelt ‘antizionism’ without a hyphen, or capital ‘Z’ to distinguish it from the traditional pre-1948 variety. But let’s be clear, it’s simply a specific, modernised hate ideology targeting Jews and Israel and comes with an entire, warped analytical framework. In effect, it’s the new antisemitism for our times.

Notably, these same “antizionists” are indifferent to the plight of Muslims; they only care about conflicts involving Jews. None of the 23 countries with Islam as state religion or the 53 majority-Muslim countries, or Christians or other nations or “ethno-states” are targeted: just the only Jewish state, seen as the purest embodiment of Western evil.

“From the river to the sea” is no more than ethnic cleansing, at best, and genocidal extermination at worst. The antizionists tell Jews to “go home”, but deny anywhere is their home, and do their best to ensure they never have one. So, Jews are redefined, not as refugees (often from Arab lands) but, in an act of gross inversion, as “white settler colonisers”. Jews, in their eyes, are genocidal oppressors and can never be victims. One doesn’t need to prove this; asserting it is sufficient.

The “genocide of Palestinians” banalises the genocidal behaviour of Islamist countries. It redefines normal military practices as illegitimate, making self-defence impossible and rewards Hamas’s monstrous human shield strategy; it rationalises terrorism as freedom-fighting.

 

The Democratic Party

The party was founded on January 8^th, 1828, emerging from the supporters of Andrew Jackson but didn’t show signs of Left leanings until the 1930s with the arrival of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Further left leanings were cemented in with Lyndon B. Johnson’s support for the Civil Rights Movement but, even then the party fought against adopting a socialist agenda and remained true to a liberal/ religious tradition first started in the early days of the twentieth century.

By the 1960s, progressives had fused parts of cultural liberalism with economic left-leaning traditions, as well as drawing robustly on Keynesian economics, left-wing populism, and democratic socialism, particularly through Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. While there are differences between the historical progressivism of Johnson’s era and today’s progressive movement, both share a belief that free markets lead to economic inequalities and must be aggressively regulated with broad economic and social rights legislation to protect the working class.

Antisemitism/ Anti-Zionism in the Democratic Party

The emergence of antisemitism in the Democratic party goes back to the late 1960s, largely driven by ideological shifts within the New Left. During this period, segments of the movement began to adopt an increasingly anti-Zionist platform, which at times bled into overt antisemitism. Following the 1967 war, a segment of the Left in the Democratic party shifted away from their historical support for the relatively new state of Israel and instead framed the country as a colonialist power. This rhetoric frequently crossed the line from criticism of Israeli government policy into antisemitic tropes, such as accusing Jewish supporters of dual loyalty

By the early 1970’s deep fractures were visible, forcing many to navigate a worrying wedge between anti-Zionism and antisemitism so, by the 1980s, the division lines were so heavily blurred that in 1984, Senator Jesse Jackson, while standing as a Democratic presidential candidate caused significant controversy by referring to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown."

More recently, there have been a number of cases of Holocaust inversion within the party  and, in particular, we have seen how, during the 2014 Gaza War, the party leadership often accused Israel of carrying out “genocidal attacks” on Arabs it confined in, what they termed:  “its Gaza concentration camp” (you can read more on how progressives, aided by Bernie Sanders and others fought for recognition of Palestine here - Left-Wing Antisemitism in the United States: Past and Present | INSS )

The extent of racism against Jews became fully visible during House votes on resolutions condemning antisemitism. In December 2023, over 100 Democrat representatives voted "present" or "no" on a GOP-led resolution formally equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

All this led many, including blogger John Podhoretz to argue “If I’d told you in 2015 that the focal point of antisemitic sentiment in the U.S. in 2026 would be inside the Democratic Party, you would have thought I was insane. Hell, I would have thought I was insane, and I’d spent decades warning about creeping anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment on the left.” (You can read the full article here - Why Antisemitism Is a Bigger Problem on the Left )

The Labour party

The sad truth of both the Labour party and the trade union movement is their history of hatred against Jews goes back to before the party was even founded. In 1900, the Trade Union Congress, which played an instrumental part in founding the Labour party, passed a resolution arguing the Boer War was being fought “to secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews, most of whom had no patriotism and no country”. A claim later shown to be completely preposterous.

Nonetheless, the British Labour Party was created in 1900 under its original name of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and officially adopted the name "Labour Party" in 1906. Its key founding members included Keir Hardie (elected Chairman) and Ramsay MacDonald (elected Secretary). Other early members included antisemites, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who joined the fledgling party in 1914.

Right from its birth the Labour party and trade union movement relied on antisemitic tropes associating new immigrant Jewish worker with undesirable living conditions and parasitical finance legitimising calls for controls to reduce Jewish immigration. In 1889, the TUC was arguing “it was the duty of the trades to keep the matter of Jewish migration under close consideration”.

But it was founder, Keir Hardy who was the most outspoken Labour antisemite, even as early as the Boer war when he argued Jewish financial houses were part of a secretive imperialist cabal promoting the war. Later, when referring to one of London’s wealthiest areas, he attacked “men living in Park Lane, some of whom are unable to speak the English tongue” who were enriching themselves – he was, of course referring to Jews.

The Labour Leader newspaper, of which Hardie was both editor and publisher, exhibited even more rabidly antisemitic language. “Wherever there is trouble in Europe,” he wrote, “wherever rumours of war circulate and men’s minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity, you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbances.”

Henry Hyndman, blamed "Jewish capitalists" for starting the Boer War

Ian Hermon, once argued the roots of Labour antisemitism stem from a “populist pursuit of power, bigotry, ignorance or a twisted understanding of history and socialist ideals.”

Despite a deeply rooted history of anti-Jewish feeling many early socialists fought vociferously to achieve the Zionist ideal of a Jewish state. But antisemitism has never been far from the surface and with the likes of Beatrice Webb describing Zionism as hypocritical nonsense, it established roots that many years later, Corbyn was able to reach out and use.

 Of course, those on the left argued their comments were not antisemitic, but legitimate opposition to Israeli government policy and actions. The evidence demonstrated a very different view:

1. Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor was suspended from the Labour party after saying Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s – The EHRC found “Ken Livingstone’s comments were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity, which, whether viewed individually or together with other relevant acts of Labour Party agents, had the effect of harassing Labour Party members”;
2.  Naz Shah, the ex-Labour MP, urged her supporters to vote in an online poll about Israeli military action and claimed "the Jews are rallying" to skew the results;
3. Again Naz Shah, in a 2014 Facebook graphic showed the outline of Israel superimposed over the United States with the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – Relocate Israel into United States" and the comment "Problem solved";
4. Chris Williamson signed and shared an online petition supporting jazz musician Gilad Atzmon, who was accused of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Later, he booked a room in Parliament for a screening of a film about Jackie Walker, a party activist suspended over alleged antisemitic comments.
5. Councillor Pat Bromley was reported to the Labour Party over allegedly antisemitic Facebook posts, suspended but then reinstated into the party.

While the exact number of upheld complaints in the Labour Party remains unknown, disciplinary reports indicate hundreds of accusations were upheld, resulting in sanctions ranging from formal warnings to expulsions.

 

Political Comment

I find it interesting the way people argue both the Democratic party and the UK Labour Party are socialist, when all evidence demonstrates they are nothing of the sort. The Democratic party may be left leaning but firstly, they have no formal ties to the trade union movement, and secondly, they maintain an adherence to market driven economic solutions over nationalisation. There are many other distinctions, but in short, they bear none of the markers associated with a socialist political party.

The UK Labour party is an interesting case and if you look at the original Clause lV of its constitution as written by Sidney Webb, it would be reasonable to argue its socialist origins:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

However, all this changed in April 1995 when the party rejected nationalisation and rewrote the clause to argue how Labour now:

“… believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”

In effect, the Labour Party walked away from its socialist roots.

Furthermore, the essence of socialism rejects all forms of racism and encourages an internationalist perspective – and with a history of antisemitism in both parties it is difficult to argue the Labour party or the Democratic party are socialist.

It seems the political right are simply using the term as an unsubstantiated term of abuse with little basis in reality. In this respect it is a very unhealthy way to deal with political differences and implies ta lack of political education suggesting the political right lack a credible understanding of political ideology.

It makes me fear for our political future.

The "Blame Game" - Why just blaming Muslims or Leftists for the rise in antisemitism is dangerous

A cursory glance at social media posts from pro-Jewish/ Israeli pages will soon reveal how contributors are understating or oversimplifying the root causes of modern day antisemitism. Many blame modern hate against Jews as being the fault of  "the Left", without ever clearly defining who they really mean. For some it refers to those on the hard left (Communists, anarchists etc), while for others it includes liberals, social democrats or those who associate their ideas with the Democratic Party.

But there is another sizable group joining the "Blame Game" and these are those who broadly support the Radical Right and point a grubby racist finger at Muslims, despite evidence showing most hate crime against Jews has led to the arrest of White British or American citizens. This is not to say that some Muslims are not antisemitic, or that a disturbing number of incidents have occurred where some Muslims have used various techniques to threaten or intimidate Jews, but, I would argue they are a minority amongst the larger Islamic population who wish to live peaceably. For those Muslims perpetrating threatening behaviour I would argue our judicial system is capable of inflicting harsh custodial sentencing and I would urge this to be put into action.

In the UK there are currently approximately 4m Muslims accounting for roughly 6.5% of the overall  population. Of these, it is believed about 200,000 could be described as 'radical', though not necessarily criminal. Unquestionably this is entirely unacceptable and no society can, or should accept rule by a minority desiring the implementation of Sharia Law. Indeed, this writer would argue if you do not like the rules of a country the solution is very simple - leave or we should help you. But all this is an entirely different argument and for another time.

In the UK last year there were roughly 4,000 reported hate crimes perpetrated against Jewish people and there are signs this may be on the increase, BUT there is no evidence Muslims are the key perpetrators, suggesting accusations of Muslim created antisemitic violence against Jews is both fallacious and dangerous.

As for arguing the fault lies with the "Left" this is also problematic. In the UK there is sound evidence of antisemitism in the history of the Labour party, the trade union movement, as well as other socialist movements. Indeed, it was Marx he myself, one of the founders of modern socialism who said: "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money". He added, "The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew".

                                             Karl Marx

Now we do know in the last few years the Labour Party in the UK has had a significant problem with internal antisemitism. We also know the far Left have consistently pilloried Israel and pushed many lies to further the 'Palestinian' cause, arguing anti-Zionism is not antisemitism despite this they have  continually pushed a range of anti-Jewish tropes to justify their actions.

It is clear these opinion are not universal across the entire Left. In the UK there are number of sizeable Leftist groups and individuals who work hard to eliminate antisemitism (eg Stop the Hate, Runnymede Trust, Antisemitism Policy Trust), while in the US groups like Combat Against Antisemitism, Shine a Light, and the Philos Project do they part to eradicate hatred.

So while acknowledging there is evidence of Leftist Antisemitism, it would be wrong to argue this is universal, or that all left wing politicians are, by definition antisemitic.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum both the UK and US have long and deep roots in both fascism and Nazism. In the UK early signs were visible with the British Fascisti in the 1920's then, from this grew  the antisemitic British Union of Fascists under the leadership of Oswald Mosley who achieved an active membership of 50,000; statistics that obscure a far larger public support that could have taken the party to government had there not been a war and/or Defence Regulation 18b.

Similarly in the US, the violent and virulently antisemitic Ku Klux Klan attained an estimated 8m members and secured a strong influence within the US government. Admittedly, in both countries the membership of fascist groups declined but, this writer would argue their ideological roots have persisted and are fundamentally embedded in the culture and social mores of both countries.

                           .   Ku Klux Klan parade in Washington D.C., 1926.

Even postwar we can see evidence of active far-right antisemitic engagement in the political system of both nations (in the UK there is an early postwar lineage going back to Mosley's Union Movement moving through to the BNP and NF and more recent Patriotic Alternative, New British Union and Britain First; and similarly in the US we see the far right continuation of antisemitism within large sections of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, as well as countless far right groups present in every state. Add to that a more violent and dangerous type of antisemitic hate group in the terrorist organisation, Atomwaffen.Division).

Quite clearly, we see how postwar fascist or Nazi groups were forced out from the traditional political ingroup to a seemingly unwelcome outgroup - it became no longer politically acceptable to espouse race hate, but let us also never forget that previous members of these far right groups did not lose their sympathy for virulent antisemitism, they simply learned to remain silent, or find a way to sanitise it. Indeed, we have seen how a number of extremist far right politicians sanitised their past by later appearing moderate and mainstream.

The first action these 'hidden' fascists chose was to show how the US and Europe had learned from the Nazis and become civilised continents where hatred of Jews was in the past.

One effect of this pastification of antisemitism is that if people say that there is antisemitism in the air today or that they themselves are victims of antisemitism, they must either be mistaken, over-sensitive, delusionary or worst of all dishonest. Those who complain about antisemitism, or fight against antisemitism, or even wish peacefully to study antisemitism, cannot be right since it is already established that antisemitism no longer exists except on the fringes of right-wing extremism. The secret agenda some people see behind the ‘charge’ of antisemitism is that of defending Israel against its critics. We are told that the charge of antisemitism is abused in order to defend the indefensible. In this way, antisemitism appears as a ploy designed by Zionists to let Israel get away with murder. 

One dodgy presumption behind this argument is that Israel cannot be defended openly, so that its defenders have to resort to underhand tactics.  Another is that criticism of Israel is not ‘as such’ antisemitic or more strongly that no criticism of Israel can under any circumstance ever be antisemitic. A moment’s thought should disabuse us of this prejudice. It’s a bit like saying that no criticism of, say, India or Zimbabwe can ever be racist. If we criticise governments in India and Zimbabwe for being authoritarian or for abusing human rights, there might indeed be nothing racist about such criticism. But if we were to say that Indians and Africans are incapable of ruling themselves, we would be right back at ingrained notions of the superiority of the white race or of European civilisation.  

We must therefore come to the dangerous conclusion these 'hidden modern-day fascists', both left and right, have a vested interest in denying any existence of  antisemitism, for to do so would assume some kind of personal responsibility. When the data showed a rise in violence against Jews they were forced (as we saw being done by Leftist Jew-haters) to obscure their hate agenda by redefining antisemitism and their first port of call to achieve this is always Israel. They do it by arguing anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Put quite simply, the circle is then complete and both Left and Right are united in their hate.

What makes this disturbing in my mind is how elements within "our side" (ie Jews and our supporters) water down, or use sophistry or obfuscation to identify the genuine causes of antisemitism to suit their own political ends - and so,  the "right" blame the "left", or the "left" blame the *right", while, racists can blame it all on Muslims, thus preventing anything being done, so nothing changes, scapegoats keep being found and, as has happened for two thousand Jews continue to live in fear waiting with heads bowed for the next pogrom.

Political comment

If anything has become clear in the last two thousand years it is that an understanding of the 'oldest hate' will not come from a single explanation. Social scientists have worked for many years to do that and without success beyond a final realisation - there are many possible reasons.

When dealing with such a critical issue as the hatred of the Jewish people, there can be nothing more dangerous, more cruel and more heartless than to encourage reductionism. It excuses some of the offenders and people who perpetrate this reductionism protects those who are guilty, ignored or remain unidentified. 

It was Aristotle who said: “Not being of the same tribe is a cause of strife until they “breathe in sync” for just as a state does not develop from an accidental mob, so too it does not come together at an accidental time.”

Transparently antisemitism is one of the biggest 'strifes' society  has ever seen compounded by reductionists refusing to see the big picture and taking a deeply flawed 'blame a single bad guy' approach. In doing so they excuse hatred and harm those who fight to end antisemitism - and to those reductionists both left and right, I can only say one thing - for obscuring, justifying and minimising the hatred of the Jewish people, a plague on all your houses.

Are the left so 'loony'? - A response to Guido Fawkes

In an attempt to be controversial, but more likely done to retain his readership, Guido Fawkes has condemned the suggestion by Bob Crow that trade unionists and activists should engage in direct action to oppose this government (see http://order-order.com/ - “The Loony Left is back”).

In a rather feeble attempt at humour, he accuses Crow of calling for a general strike – an interesting idea, but what Bob was arguing for was something far more necessary – the engagement of all workers within the political system. Now surely, if Fawkes is the democrat he purports to be, he will not object to the politicisation of the masses?

Admittedly one of Crows’ suggestions did include the notion of general strikes, but realistically that cannot happen until the majority of working people have combined under the banners of the trade union movement. So Fawkes can at least relax over his blueberry muffin, the revolution isn’t going to start outside Woolworth’s at 3pm this afternoon!

Membership of trade unions was at its highest in the 1970s when it reached over half the workforce, but post-Thatcher this has declined to approximately 25%.
A number of reasons explain this level of apathy/ disenchantment:

• There has been a general decline in manufacturing industry in the UK. Most union organisers would agree that trade union activity is often easier in factories where there are large numbers of people on one site compared to retailing. In any one store there may be relatively few staff – a factor that has made arranging meetings of employees more difficult.
• Over the last thirty years there has been an increased trend by managers to deal with employees on an individual basis and move away from collective bargaining.
• Since Thatcher there has been an increased participation of women in the economy due, in part, to the growth of the service sector as well as the growth of part time and temporary employment opportunities; these are not traditionally strongly unionised sectors and unions have found it hard to recruit within them.
• Courtesy of Thatcher, legislation in the 1980s reduced union power.

So, if the working class are to ‘man the barricades’ as Fawkes fears, the first job will to be educate and inform them about the key issues. Some will be immediately obvious – rising unemployment, higher levels of poverty and increased homelessness. But what many will not recognise is the link between these scourges on our society and the actions of the Tories and their Liberal lapdogs.

Crow was right when he spoke to the RMT union congress and said, “We cannot sit back and wait while a generation is consigned to the scrap heap and made to pay the price for the mess left behind by the zombie capitalists who dragged the country over the cliff”. He may not like the term ‘zombie’ but what are they, if not a rabid, blood-sucking curse on modern society.

Perhaps Fawkes would prefer it if members of the left gather around in polite little circles, gently applauding the more moderate aspects of new policy emerging from the coalition. Maybe then he would not be so offended when David Miliband stands up and demands a 50% tax rate for the higher paid. Fawkes had better start facing facts – the ‘Loony’ left as he calls them not only are back, they never went away ... and now that the New Labour project is history we will continue to grow.

If this is the best Fawkes can do, he might find himself better suited amongst the Liberal Democrats.

The way forward for Labour

The candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party continue to vie for nominations and one can only hope John McDonnell manages to secure the 33 necessary votes to place him on the ballot paper. Unfortunately, there is a real danger Diane Abbott’s entry into the race might split the left vote and leave them both sidelined.

The tragic part of this is both candidates are supremely loyal socialists who, if elected, would radicalise the Labour Party in a way not seen since the days of Keir Hardie, Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, Stafford Cripps or Aneurin Bevan. In fact, there is a strong argument that either Diane or John would take the party on a left-wing path that Labour has never truly accepted. After all, when it comes to the election of a leader, the party has a history full of missed opportunities – take for example Hugh Gaitskell against Harold Wilson (who was then a left-winger), Jim Callaghan against Tony Benn, or even Neil Kinnock against Eric Heffer. Even Michael Foot, with all his allegiances to CND and the Tribune Group proved to be a disappointment to many on the left.

Of course, the reality is that, once again, the party will probably adopt a safer route and select an ‘Ed’ or a ‘David’, rather than take the risk of being true to its conscience. Consequently, as committed as he may be, John McDonnell is unlikely to gain sufficient votes to get through to a second round, much less gain the reins of leadership. But this shouldn’t be enough to stop people voting and fighting for John or joining his campaign. A solid left vote for an LRC endorsed candidate would send a resounding message to any new leader that there is an urgent need to push aside the ideas of the New Labour project.

Many of the problems Labour now face stem from a false belief that Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell could be the salvation to all the party’s ills. This right-wing triumvirate convinced members that abolishing Clause IV, changing the rules surrounding conference procedure and restructuring the party would bring electoral success. It was a mythology that kept them at the heart of government for many years, whilst dedicated party members resigned in droves.

The Labour party won the 1997 election for a number of reasons – in part because the electorate were sick and tired of the Tories, in part because the party offered some very real radical programmes, but also, Tony Blair presented as a charismatic, affable politician in whom the electorate could believe; making him a key vote winner. Unfortunately, by 2001 voters were starting to see through the ‘spin’ and Labour started to lose votes. This spiral was gaining momentum by 2005, but because Labour had established a substantial majority in 1997, it allowed the party some leeway. By then the Labour majority in the house of Commons had reduced from 179 to 66. and when Gordon Brown took over as leader in 2007 it was, in many respects, ‘all change’.

By 2007, the UK had lived through 10 years of Blairism, along with the Iraq war and conflict in Afghanistan. The electorate were starting to see through the media hype of the Third Way, Communitarianism and the New Labour project, and like a plumber trying to block the leaks with his finger, Brown struggled to stay in power. All the polls were sending a clear message that voters were unhappy with the Labour government and they wanted change.

At the same time, Clegg and Cameron were being put onto centre stage as clean faced, bushy tailed young men with new ideas that could cure the ills of the country. Of course, everyone knew we had been through a recession and that we would all have to draw our belts in, but unfortunately, in the 2010 election, the party was unable to expose the underlying right-wing nature of modern Toryism and Liberalism.

So now we have to fight back the right to be considered reputable and worthy of the right to govern this country. We have to show the country and the people in it we can still bring equality and fairness to everyone. And we have to remind electors that once Labour brought to this country an exciting programme of nationalisation, alongside a planned economy and a welfare state where no-one was allowed to fall by the wayside. Labour needs to show that it is a party that brought a national health service where anyone could have free medical care at the point of need, regardless of their background, their upbringing, or their wealth.

If Labour can do that, Conservatives, Liberals and all their wealthy hangers-on will quake with fear and a roller coaster of left-wing ideas will engulf this country, destroying the Con-Dems and pushing them back into the pit of iniquity from which they came.

Tacitus