John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him?


1:23 pm - March 10th 2011

by Owen Jones    


      Share on Tumblr

Today, a report commissioned by one of the most radical right-wing governments in modern British history is being published. It recommends slashing the pensions of six million public sector workers while forcing them to contribute more and retire later.

It sums up the Government’s whole approach to the economic crisis that erupted three years ago. The pillars of any civilised society – our nurses, teachers and other front-line staff – will be forced to suffer while the banks have their balance sheets topped up by the government. And the face of this latest assault? The author of the report: John Hutton, New Labour’s former Work and Pensions secretary.

John Hutton is not alone in making the rather small leap from uber-Blairite zealot to Cameron advisor. One of Blair’s old right-hand men, Alan Milburn, is another: and he’s currently bludgeoning satire to death by advising the Tories on social mobility .

When it was announced that former Labour ministers had become advisors to the Conservative-led Government, former Labour deputy leader John Prescott denounced them as “collaborators“. I wouldn’t go that far, because it is intended to bring up memories of France’s Nazi-aligned Vichy regime, and I recoil at carelessly throwing Nazi parallels around.

But both Hutton and Milburn were appointed not for their expertise, but as political figleafs – and it is pointless to suggest otherwise. They are helping to confer legitimacy on a government that failed to win it at the ballot box. The Tories won just 36% of the popular vote last May, but are now ruthlessly implementing a hard right agenda. ‘Ah,’ they can say, ‘we are a moderate government drawing on talents from right across the political spectrum.’

I’m not calling for Ed Miliband to expel either Hutton or Milburn, because I favour process over arbitrary top-down expulsions. Instead Labour’s National Executive Committee must surely launch an urgent investigation into the conduct of both – and ‘poverty tsar’ Frank Field, for that matter.

They are using their status as leading members of the Labour Party to provide political cover for Tory policies that will devastate communities across the country. If that is not “bringing the party into disrepute” – an expellable offence – then I don’t know what is.

As the Independent‘s thoughtful, nuanced Chief Political Correspondent Steve Richards has put it: “Ultra Blairites, Cameroons and Cleggite Liberals could all happily dance together in the same party.” I agree: and perhaps it is time the NEC gave them the chance to do so.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Owen Jones is author of ‘Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class’, to be published by Verso in May 2011. He blogs here and tweets here.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Labour party ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I think this idea is a bit silly, frankly.

I think the pension reforms are unpleasant, and the fact the bankers are getting off scot free positively repugnant.

But nonetheless

1) Pension reform is necessary. The pensions system was designed for a time when the average life expectancy was about a decade shorter than it is now, and most people started work before they hit 18. Now a lot of people don’t start work until they’re 22 and live well into their eighties. The numbers don’t stack up any more.

We’re all going to have to save more and work longer. That’s a fact of mathematics. I can understand why people are uncomfortable with Hutton working for the Tories, but I don’t think attempting to address one of the most difficult problems in modern politics should be an expellable offence.

2) Does the Labour NEC really want to start throwing people out for having Blairite views? What message exactly does that send?

Slag Hutton off by all means. Destroy his reputation. Go right ahead.

But beat him by coming up with a better argument. Don’t just throw him out for thinking or doing something you disapprove of.

Restricting public spending rises to below inflation – which is what the Tories are doing: public spending will continue to go up, year-on-year – is not “hard right”. For goodness’ sake, get a grip.

What he said – It’s like watching a child putting their fingers in their ears and going ‘nar, nar, nar’ I can’t hear you. The existing public sector pensions model doesn’t work when you consider the the cash available and the liabilities it is required to cover.

If there is a better solution than Hutton proposes, suggest it. If not, we go with the reforms as written. This piece does not add value to the debate.

4. Gary Pepworth

Since we are talking about expellable offences, I look forward to the author’s article calling for Ken Livingstone to be expelled for campaigning against the Labour candidate in Tower Hamlets. I won’t hold my breath.

5. Flowerpower

Labour’s own 2010 manifesto, drafted by Ed Miliband, pledged Tough decisions on public sector pensions to cap the
taxpayers’ liability.
.

That’s what Hutton has provided.

6. Frederick James

“I recoil at carelessly throwing Nazi parallels around”

Yet you did so anyway by pretending not to. Rather transparent.

Alan Milburn, for whom you evince such contempt, is a shining example of social mobility, which declined under Labour. He has expressed the belief that he could not become a government minister if he was starting today. This is after Labour were in power for 13 years.

You have written a shockingly poor, blinkered, article.

Whilst I am not au fait with the Labour Party’s rules, I am pretty certain that neither expressing an opinion (which is not explicitly at odds with the party line, although I don’t think that is relevant) or working with members of another political party are likely to be an offence under them. I have this belief because Labour have lots of members who frequently disagree with the leadership and work, on various reports, groups or even in bands, with people who clearly belong to other political parties, be in Respect or the Greens or the Conseratives.

So I am intrigued as to what offence Owen believes has been committed here – “bringing the party into disrepute” is a wonderful totalitarian catch-all, but if Mr Hutton believes what he wrote and is making a contribution to a debate, would not expelling him for doing so make those who made the decision in danger of also bringing the party into disrepute – it is a bad idea for a socialist party to start to look Stalinist after all. And an expelled Mr Hutton is probably a lot more dangerous (and useful to the Conservatives) than one still within the party.

Frederick: He has expressed the belief that he could not become a government minister if he was starting today. This is after Labour were in power for 13 years.

Sorry, what? I assume you think somehow the Tories will be better at this?

Flowerpower: Labour’s own 2010 manifesto, drafted by Ed Miliband, pledged

Read the Labour response.

The existing public sector pensions model doesn’t work when you consider the the cash available and the liabilities it is required to cover.

Some people just don’t get it.

You might have had a point if the money that will pay for public sector pensions was real money. That is money that somebody has to work to earn. Money that can be saved up to pay for things. The kind of money that can be invested to make more money in the future.

But that is not what we plan to use to pay public sector pensions.

Keep it quiet, but the money that we are going to use…….doesn’t actually exist. It’s only imaginary money, like in fairy tales. Like the imaginary money we’re supposed to owe to other countries.

Yes, that’s right, we’ll pay them with MAGIC MONEY and if we haven’t got enough when it needs paid, we’ll just print some more.

Get it now?

10. Frederick James

Sunny @8: that is a complete non sequitur. Hardly persuasive.

I would quite like some imaginary-yet-real money.

If anyone would like to give me some, I would be more than happy to exchange it for these magic beans I have here.

Fredrick – your original comment was as persuasive as George Bush’s declaration of ‘Mission Accomplished’.

The existing public sector pensions model doesn’t work when you consider the the cash available and the liabilities it is required to cover

You’re missing the point. Why isn’t the cash available? Why are we subsidising banks to the tune of billions every year instead?

Saying ‘there’s no money’ is the obvious point to make. But how did we arrive there?

13. Ordinary Constructor

With regards to Hutton working for the government, it just highlights the fact that the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now so close to each other on the center.

14. Owen Jones

As PCS has pointed out, what is being planned is effectively a tax on public sector workers to help pay back the deficit.

And as the National Audit Office has found, public sector pensions are both affordable now and sustainable in the future.

Do those who believe we can’t afford not to slash public sector pensions believe that the cuts in Corporation Tax are affordable?

@ Sunny: “Saying ‘there’s no money’ is the obvious point to make. But how did we arrive there?”

By promising people things we don’t have the money to pay for. We still have to sort this problem out and if you have some wonderful pain free solution why are we yet to hear it?

Out of curiosity, since this seems to be a matter for the Labour party, how many of the commenters here are members of that organisation? I get that it might be of interest in politics generally, but if you aren’t a member, it’s nothing to do with you.

And, since that includes me, I’ll bid you farewell.

@12 – wobbly grasp of economics here if you think that this has anything to do with banks, or even the last recession. I’ll leave the more mathematically minded to explain the weakness of your argument to you.

By promising people things we don’t have the money to pay for

you’re right. So I assume you’ll also be out campaigning against Trident, for defence cuts and for getting rid of the subsidies to the banking industry right? we’re subsidising RBS bonuses for example – we don’t have money to pay for that either.

I’m glad the right and left have common ground on this

@Owen:

Err, the report you linked only covers particular types of public sector workers, and points out that payments in are lower than payments out by at least £15 billion. This is a peculiar definition of ‘affordable’.

@Sunny:

Yep, happy to campaign against Trident and against implicit taxpayer guarantees for bank deposits.

After all, we’re all in this together.

Yes, please expel him.

That would make them/you look so grown up.

If everyone who agrees with public spending cuts and reining in costs for the future good of the country should be expelled from the Labour Party, or at the very least investigated for “bringing the party into disrepute”, the Shadow Front Bench will be at the front of a very long queue.

23. Hydrargyrum

“The Tories won just 36% of the popular vote last May”

This is not the strongest argument for a supporter of the Labour party to make since after only securing 35.2% of the vote in 2005 the Labour party was able to form a govenment on their own.

24. Owen Jones

@23 – I’m sure that if, after the 2005 general election, Labour had attempted to introduce policies as radically left as this this government’s policies are radically to the right, we would be hearing far louder cries of murder.

@ Sunny

So I assume you’ll also be out campaigning against Trident, for defence cuts and for getting rid of the subsidies to the banking industry right? we’re subsidising RBS bonuses for example – we don’t have money to pay for that either.

Absolutely.

How do I sign up?

26. john p_reid

John and Fredeick spot on, Owen I don’t know yuor contribution to labour amybe it was rebuilding the party after 1983 for 14 year or maybe it was getting them eelced in 97 and twice more or letting labour still do better in 2010 than 1983
I know Hutton had a role in the above

as for getting rid of people from the party, well iknw the SDP were expelled and took 5 million voted with them, and some of them backed the tories in 92 (an election we should have won) I don’t know if Hutton was expelled he would back the tories, but maybe if he is kicked out and we think we deserve to win hte next election and don’t (like 92) them we can say ah but at least we expelled people like hutton and the SDP
Or would you sooner keep the Likes of hutton and the SDP and start to win elections again

@ Sunny: “I assume you’ll also be out campaigning against Trident, for defence cuts and for getting rid of the subsidies to the banking industry right? we’re subsidising RBS bonuses for example – we don’t have money to pay for that either.”

With some minor reservations re defence, yes very much so. I assume you’ll be joining us to campaign to cut the size of the civil service, pull out of the EU and stop wasting money on wind farms?

Expelling someone for having an opinion seems a bit harsh. It is rather remiss of the OP just to attack but offer no suggestions to deal with the problems we will face in regard to pensions. The problem will not go away and the future demographics are quite clear that we will have an expanding group of pensioners enjoying long retirements. The obvious supply side reform that does make a big difference to the ling-term costs is to raise the retirement age and increase contributions. What is the progressive solution, ask young productive workers with children to pay extra tax to finance the retirement of others?

This should not be a party political issue. No matter who was in power they would need to implement reforms to deal with our demographics over the next twenty years and beyond. The bottom line is as a country we consume too much and do not save enough. A truly radical government would follow something like Singapore and have forced saving with a percentage of each salary going into a sovereign wealth fund. Just ignoring the issue is not an option.

The scandal about pensions is not that public servants have rather better ones but that the private sector is allowed to get away with arranging such poor ones (except for the executive class, which really are gold plated and reinforced by endless consultancies etc). That Hutton is not pointing this out but is in fact reinforcing the false opinion (this country is not broke, by the way) instead of insisting on good pensions for all certainly makes him a collaborator in my eyes. That Prescott is calling him one takes the biscuit though. Prescott’s beloved New Labour wrote the book on this kind of collaboration with the neoliberals.

30. Planeshift

“Expelling someone for having an opinion seems a bit harsh.”

But the blairites had no problem doing it with militant in the 80s (which was fair enough), and some old lefties and anti war people in the 90s and 2000s (not fair enough).

The key for any party is essentially you can have members disagreeing – even publically – with party policy. That is essential and healthy. But you can’t have members who actively assist your main rivals. If you worked for Coke you wouldn’t be allowed to provide consultancy for Pepsi.

The main reason I won’t join any political party is that I want the freedom to help any party on an issue I agree with, not wait for permission to do so. But that means I have to accept I shouldn’t have a say on internal matters. If Hutton feels he can’t support the labour party, and wishes to be a consultant to the government he should resign as a member.

@Owen:

‘radically to the right’

hahahahahaha

You heard it here first folks, the distance between cutting the deficit in four years and halving it in the same timescale is the distance between the soft left and the radical left.

That last left should be right, obviously.

33. Sevillista

@falco

Really don’t understand why “cutting the size of the civil service” is so important.

@falco 

I take it that you do know that the:

1. The civil service is at close to record low levels (reached under Brown’s stewardship) at the moment. 479,000 civil servants (v 1999 record low of 478,000) and on a downward trend since 2005 http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/Graph1902_tcm6-34582.jpg

2. Average pay in the civil service is less than the average salary in the private sector, despite many low-paying jobs (security, cleaning, facilities management) having been contracted out to the private sector. Median pay of full-time civil servants is £23,680 v £24,695 in the private sector and almost two thirds of civil servants earn less than £25K http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/mythbusters/index.aspx#

3. The civil service has seen slower pay increases than the private sector average over the entire period the Labour government were in power and the Tories before that. In fact, the only sector to see higher pay increases than the private sector average since 1997 have been doctors, nurses and other health professionals. 

pagar: Absolutely.

How do I sign up?

Great! you sign up by joining the Labour party and campaigning against this govt. Nice to have you on board comrade!

The total liability for public sector pensions in this country is £1.2 Trillion which equates to £47,000 per household in Britain and means that the government pays about £32 Billion each year into the system.

With people living longer this would undoubtedly rise – no one is suggesting (including John Hutton) that all public sector pensions are gold plated – in fact, if you read the report, it acknowledges that average public sector pension is about £7,800 per year which according to Hutton is rather less.

The public sector pensions should have been fixed long time ago but was not done primarily due to political reasons by both the Blair and Brown government and the main reason was Brown.

Sunny makes a good point about bankers and I agree but putting the bonus tax as Labour has suggested won’t do much – and arguing that Mervyn King was suggesting that is ludicrous. The Banking problem is partly due to the regulatory structures Labour put into place and apparently based on the recommendations of one Ed Balls.

The pensions are not directly linked to that and trying to do so does not make sense. And Labour did not actually slam the report – and it is also rather ingenuous to sugges tthat banks got a tax cut. But that’s partisan politics.

On kicking hutton out – yeah that would just help convince independent voters and those who used to vote labour that this labour leadership like Gordon Brown is too concerned about their own positions and their party and not the country.

This article demonstrates nothing but the worst of Labour tribalism as well as lack of understanding of public finance and the country is broke despite what commentators here might say. So please – What is our interest payment again each year?

Tories and Lib Dems would love for the Labour party to kick out John Hutton, Alun Milburn and for good measures lets kick out Jim Murphy, John Healey,. Alan Johnson as well. If you weren’t a card carrying brownite then you do not deserve to be in the party – that would do great things for the party.

This article is delusional and idiotic.

“As the Independent‘s thoughtful, nuanced Chief Political Correspondent Steve Richards has put it: ”

Yeah the guy who changes his tune based on whoever is leading the Labour party.

The bloke who suggested like Mehdi Hasan that Ed Miliband was in fact against the Iraq war but failed to give a name or get anyone in record – yeah whatever.

John Hutton was a very effective Minister and is a loyal Labour party member – and his contribution to the labour party is much bigger than the idiot who wrote this article

37. Owen Jones

@35 Amused that my article has been denounced as “idiotic and delusional” by the author of this piece: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/16070

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts in response to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/10/lord-hutton-public-sector-pensions-report

38. Owen Jones

“Public sector pensions are far more efficient than private pensions. The net cost of paying public sector pensions in 2009/10 was a little under £4 billion. The cost of providing tax relief to the one per cent of those earning more than £150,000 is more than twice as much. The total cost of providing tax relief to all higher rate taxpayers, on their private pensions, is more than five times as much.”

http://www.leftfutures.org/2011/03/pension-reforms-inefficient-unfair-a-disincentive-to-save-deflationary-and-wrong/

” Why isn’t the cash available? Why are we subsidising banks to the tune of billions every year instead?

Saying ‘there’s no money’ is the obvious point to make. But how did we arrive there?”

Re the banks, totally agree. But what did Labour do ? Bailed them out with taxpayer cash, whereas Iceland let them fail (and I hope soon Ireland will share the pain with bondholders rather than the taxpayer getting the full hit). The Tories are no better and no worse than Labour as far as the banks are concerned.

But as to how we arrived here – we continually increased government liabilities during the good years, without thinking how it would be paid for. Government pensions are a Ponzi scheme, with todays contributors paying the pensions of the retired. A private pension fund run like that would see its trustees arrested and jailed. Alas, the final salary scheme is disappearing in the private sector – certainly not helped by Gordon’s pension tax raid, but things would have got pretty tight anyway. Hutton is facing up to the same facts.

Now this all looks pretty bleak for Dave Average be he public or private sector. Wages are static, inflation rising, pension cut – and at the same time FT100 directors are seeing their pay accelerate away again, as they’ve done pretty much since 1979. But the last Labour government did absolutely nothing about this – and they worsened the bargaining power of labour far more than any Thatcher legislation ever did – by flooding the labour market with millions of immigrants from poorer countries.

Karl Marx, 1847 :

“The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it”

Pagar @ 9

This magic mioney pot we have? The armed forces pensions are paid out of that too, No?

If this magic money doesn’t exist, then who wil pay for ex squaddies to retire mid forties and live another forty years? Otherwise fit young men, living off and completely dependent on the State, that is right in your wheelhouse and against everything you stand for. Would you sign up for squadies to be forced to work till they are 67 and pay into the pension pot?

For the last 50 years there was a simple rule. Work for the public sector and accept lower pay, and less perks. No company cars, no commissions, no product at a cheap price, no free tickets to major sporting events, or freebie trips to other country’s in the name of market research, no large bonuses. However the one pay off was a pension.

The private sector ,having had a bonanza time of freebies, and cash handouts for many years now resents the one benefit people had for working for the public sector. And like the whining cry babies that they are they demand action.

The real problem is that the rich have been paying less and less tax. Idiotic politicians have given them more and more ways of stashing away huge sums in Tessa’s and Issas and tax free pensions, and all the other tax avoidance schemes that have been given the green light.

One day people will work out that there is a class war coming between the haves and the have nots. This is the new age of the idle rich, and they want it all. They want to pay no tax, and own everything and everyone. You are just slaves to be worked until you die. No surprise that a New Labour drone shovels more shit on the back of the poor.

42. john p_reid

palneshift who were the old lefties Laobur expelled in the 90’s 2000’s, Livingstone, George Galloway excluded, Liz davies ,lee jasper ,;left on their own accord,

Did someone mention trident?

Labour is a pro-trident party. At least it was at the last election. Are there plans to change tack?

44. Owen Jones

Yet another piece – this time by Channel 4’s Faisal Islam – that demolishes the Hutton/Government approach:

http://blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/public-sector-pension-reform-a-recipe-for-strife/13859

Owen – we can argue about the pensions and thanks for highlighting that article I wrote a few years back – actually I stand by that assessment and if you look at Pakistan now and read that article you would surely understand why.

I never said I agree with everything the report has suggested – in fact, I think there should not be all size fits all solution, because there is a huge difference between say someone who retires at £40K before taxes and someone who is collecting around £200K.

Okay my wording was probably a bit strong – and may be somewhat uncalled for – but I think this report should be the starting point for a debate – for example, what about MPs and Ministerial pensions – what about senior doctors or dentists – can we equate them to the social worker working in a council in the North East. No we cannot.

The solutions provided in the report are not a panacea to resolving the pension crisis which would be fair to everyone.

In fact, for those who are paid less than £40K I think it is an insult to ask them to increase their contribution and at the same time move their pensions to a career average – ideally, we should be looking at maintaining the current scheme for them – or for anyone who retires below the rank of Major in the Armed forces or who

but someone who is being already paid say £70K and whose final salary is going to be in the region of say £200K based on inflation etc etc – why is it unfair to ask them to pay increased contribution as well as take a career average.

I was upset about all this call of being a traitor and such – we should have had this debate when Labour was in power and should have had the guts to put union reps, cross party MPs as well as other stakeholders in coming up with some solutions.

But if you take John Hutton’s report as a starting point then work towards developing a solution I don’t think its such a bad report.

At the end of the day, we have a combined pension liability of £1.2 Trillion – no one has argued about that and the public purse pays £32 Billion each year and that bill is going to get higher as people are living longer.

Labour and the left should not be against reforming the existing public pensions or public sector – Academy programme or Trust schools actually made a real difference in inner cities and it is Labour’s strongest legacy and the cross party public accounts committee has said so much and so have other independent observers.

Labour should be leading the debate – walking out of the pitch is no way to lead and saying no to everything does not resolve anything.

And I am not going to denigrate John Hutton for starting a reasonable debate or for Milburn working to improve social mobility. Hey if it works its good for the country and Labour should embrace what works and make it fairer and what’s best for the country. At the same time reject solutions that are simply unfair or go for a one size fits all approach – those days are over.

Polly Toynbee:

“Hutton’s dispassionate report met with widespread respect and few on the union side gave it a thumbs-down. Here is a good platform for the long-term consensus needed for a lasting pensions policy. The problem is undeniable: men retiring now will draw pensions for 41% of their lives, compared with 28% in 1955. This is good news – but expensive. Working longer and paying more is inevitable, one way or another. But Hutton calls for “a fair deal” – and there’s the rub. Changes such as moving from final salary to career average can be done fairly, but only if some savings are redirected to the lower paid.”

Throwing Hutton out is childish.

Instead you should actually read his report. If you had, you will know that two-thirds of public sector workers will be better off under his proposals. The two-thirds are the low paid. The one-third who are worse off are the extremely well paid public sector workers who are, according to Hutton, SUBSIDISED by the low paid ones.

What’s not to like?

Okay higher contributions and later retirement for the public sector, but 22 million private sector workers pay far higher contributions if they have a pension at all (and most don’t have employer contribution schemes) and they have to retire at 65 or older.

I have always thought socialism was about fairness and equality. Are you now saying that 6 million public sector workers are much more equal? Are you saying that the two-thirds of low paid public sector workers have to SUBSIDISE the high paid ones – and some are very highly paid?

You lot are not only childish but you completely ignore your fundamental values. I despair of socialism.

“I despair of socialism.”

We are not all that interested thanks.

Sally – You’ve just made my point for me. You must be one of the chattering class socialists. You’re not interested in the low paid working people anymore. That’s the whole problem with socialism these days – no appreciation of what really matters, working people. All you seem to want is a well paid socialist public sector elite with pensions far exceeding what most in the public sector get paid for working.

The neoliberal brigade as wonderfully articulated as the Ultra Blairites, Cameroons and Cleggite Liberals are essentially of the same political persuasion. These people are pure poison for both the LibDems and Labour. While losing their parties their core and working class voters with their disastrous policies, they relentlessly lobby for the left wing parites to follow a neoliberal line (as the only way to get elected in this post modern age).

However to much of the Labour party leadership remain enthralled by them to make such a publicly blunt act as to expel them -if anything it could trigger real and fatal divisions in the Labour party, when unity is currently paramount. Hopefully through low key and intelligent leadership, Ed Milliband can reposition the Labour away from these people and come the next general election they will have decamped to the Torries where they belong.

The LibDems however can not afford a wait and see strategy. They have been fatally wounded by the Orange book lot. I don’t see much hope for the Social Democratic left wing grass roots getting their party back intact. It would be best after the Av Vote (regardless of its outcome) for them to cross the floor. With someone like Charles Kennedy leading. Then leave the handful of hateful cleggites to join their Torry friends formally. But so far they have remained very quiet and totally gutless while the party dissolves around them.

@49 If you’ve read enough of Sally’s post you would know she is not a chattering class socialist. You would know that her problem is of a different nature.

@ordinary constructor. In part you are right (no pun intended). There is no great difference between the three parties. However, there are those of us on the left who are trying to bring about change and make Labour a far more socialist, driving organisation dedicated to protecting the rights of ordinary working people. We can and will win, but we need more support – come on in and join us – the water is lovely!!!

53. An Duine Gruamach

@ Sunny, post 34
“pagar: Absolutely.

How do I sign up?

Great! you sign up by joining the Labour party and campaigning against this govt. Nice to have you on board comrade!”

How will signing up to Labour help get rid of Trident and banker bonuses? Did the last thirteen years completely pass you by?

@ Tacitus, post 52

“However, there are those of us on the left who are trying to bring about change and make Labour a far more socialist, driving organisation dedicated to protecting the rights of ordinary working people.”

Did folk not try that in the 80s? How did that work out?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  2. Chris Bertram

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  3. Chris Bertram

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  4. Owen Jones

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  5. Calum Sherwood

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  6. Ma

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  7. Tim Saunders

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  8. Kelvin John Edge

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  9. sunny hundal

    Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN asks @owenjones84

  10. Chris Paul

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  11. UNISON Bury

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  12. Thom Smith

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  13. Andy Bean

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  14. Jill Hayward

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  15. CathElliott

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  16. Aaron Stebbings

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  17. Darren Lewis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  18. Patrick Andrews

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  19. tomara

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  20. Kelvin John Edge

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  21. Nick H.

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  22. ANDREW JENNINGS

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why does Labour allow John Hutton to be a member while he attacks pensions on behalf of govt? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN ask …

  23. Annie B

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN < oh yes!

  24. Ziggy Stardust

    RT @LiberationLover: RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN < oh yes!

  25. Nigel Gardner

    RT @libcon: John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? http://bit.ly/gp4jEN

  26. Pat Raven

    John Hutton: time for Labour to expel him? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rFhgRN4 via @libcon

  27. Why expelling John Hutton would be wrong…. |

    […] debate about whether he should be expelled from the Labour Party or not. Owen Jones makes the case here and Political Betting cover the story here. Sadly, this typifies the left’s unfortunate habit […]

  28. Hutton’s gotta go (and take Frank Field with you) « Harpymarx

    […] now many on Left are arguing that the NEC should investigate him. Bit late, but hey, I suppose better late than never. The Left should have done something back in […]

  29. Swivel-eyes | Chump of GPA

    […] was unfair, because he was making precisely the point, in his original post, that people on the left should not use terms such as “collaborator” of people […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.