In 1986 as a Labour MEP, Barbara Castle reflected on her fundamental problems with the EEC:
'The Treaty of Rome, on which all Community decisions are founded, is based on two contradictory beliefs...' /1
'on the other hand, the creation of a large free market and the removal of all barriers to competition will automatically solve the problems of industry and raise the standards of life of industrial workers...'
'and, on the other hand, that agriculture can only flourish within a highly subsidised and protectionist system...'
'This confusion of principles, which was dictated by political motives, has produced the worst of both worlds: rising unemployment in industry and the waste of resources in agriculture...'
'The Treaty, therefore, places enormous obstacles in the way of any Government which seeks to plan the use of resources to deal with the problems of the new technological age and which is determined to bring down unemployment and end waste.'
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ben Pimlott described Judith Hart as ‘probably the most left-wing member of the Cabinet’ in the 1960s.
As Social Security Minister (DWP), she took a hard line against benefit cheats in the name of socialism.
Her attitude reflects an instinct that is rarer on the left today🧵
Hart declared it ‘monstrous’ that ‘work-shy’ middle-class youth who saw themselves as ‘God's gift to poetry or guitar-playing’ refused low-prestige jobs.
‘It is to this sort of person that we have to say: Sorry, but you have to wash dishes in a café’.
Hart introduced assessments for benefit-claiming men under 45.
‘If it appears that a man is not genuinely seeking work, he will be told he must do so.
He will be told to take any suitable work which is available, rather than wait for a job which by its nature is hard to find’.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Nye Bevan was a strong supporter of Israel. After a visit in 1954, he wrote about Zionism in characteristically poetic terms:
'For the Jew, the immediacy of his remote past is an intimate reality. He is living among places whose names are enshrined in his racial literature...'
'They make sweet music to his ears... They whisper in his blood and evoke memories of a time that was, before he was compelled to seek shelter in reluctant lands.'
'When therefore the Arab says the Jew should find a home anywhere except in Palestine he asks something the Jew cannot concede without mutiliating his racial personality beyond endurance.'
In the 1960s, the former Deputy Labour Leader reflected on his long opposition to proportional representation.
'The purpose of a parliament and a government is to govern. If a government is to stand a chance of success...it has to be coherent', he opined.
The first time Morrison ever spoke in Parliament after his maiden speech in 1923 was to denounce Liberals' schemes to introduce PR to elect MPs.
Morrison recalled, 'Support for this election system has grown in the Liberal Party as they have diminished in numbers'.
'It must be admitted', Morrison explained, 'that proportional representation is a system most calculated to secure a mathematical representation of the various shades of public opinion.
In particular its advocates claim that it does secure fair representation for minorities...'
As we write in the book, a majority in the Commons should be utterly decisive.
A government that commands such a majority, therefore, should be able to deliver its agenda w/o legal restraints (while facing ongoing political ones).
David has written a v good review, but I do think it tilts at windmills sometimes.
Speaking for myself, at least, I do not support two of the main 'Bonapartist' devices he criticises (referendums and direct member election of party leaders). Nor do we advocate them in intro
And while generous in many places, it is less so in others. The review strains too hard sometimes to make out that this volume is a cabal of right-wing, pro-Brexit writers. There are some, but many of the contributors voted Remain and 3 served in Labour governments as ministers.
In 1956, Soviet leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Nikolai Bulganin visited London. All smiles, they met with the Conservative Prime Minister Anthony Eden.
It was deemed a charm offensive, but on one evening with the Labour Party, Khrushchev's charm was very much switched off. 🧵
As part of their visit, the Soviet leaders were invited to dinner with the Labour frontbench in a private dining room in the House of Commons.
With the help of wine and stubborn characters in the room, the encounter was nothing short of disastrous.
It began, as many of these diplomatic misadventures so often did, with George Brown.
Brown was seated next to Khrushchev's son Sergei. Turning to the 22-year-old, Brown challenged, 'You don't always agree with your father on everything, do you?'