Flashback: The Gang of Four (1981)

It's early 1981, 25th January 1981 to be precise. The Labour Party has had a new leader, in the form of Michael Foot for a number of months, and he has subsequently shifted the party to the left. Foot is an anti-nuclear leader, and was party of Labour's 1945 landslide intake. Some of his PLP colleagues are restless.

The frustration reaches fever pitch. It suddenly boils over and then they break cover. Four Labour MPs, (Shirley Williams, David Owen, Roy Jenkins and Bill Rodgers), the so-called Gang of Four announce they are leaving the Labour Party, to establish the "Council for Social Democracy".

Two months later, this unusual organisation blossoms into the Social Democratic Party, or SDP. This pivotal moment in postwar British politics comes to be known as the Limehouse Declaration.

Implications of a Labour split

The Limehouse Declaration was a brave move, but not necessarily a wise one, with hindsight. Unshackled by the strains of being led by a disagreeable leader, the Gang of Four seemed to have managed to fill a perceived vacuum in British politics.

Somewhere, amid all the Tory-led calls for spending cuts galore, and the Labour-led calls to scrap Trident, they believed there was a neglected third way.

The SDP soon realised, however, that it lacked the sheer magnetism of a pre-established party, and so it was only natural for the SDP to form an alliance with the Liberal Party, from days of old.

The Liberals had once been a party of government (in the Victorian/Edwardian era), but by 1981, they were a diminished force.

Labour had absorbed much of their voter base by this point. Then along came the SDP. The two parties got cosy, but it took until 1988 for a merger to take place.

At last, the two parties could run for office under a single leader, and they became known hereafter as the Liberal Democrats.

The problem is that the SDP/Liberal alliance failed to inspire much enthusiasm, and when Labour eventually shifted to the centre under Neil Kinnock, they actually ended up splitting the leftist/centre left vote. As a result, you could argue that the Thatcher era was a product of the left/centre left not getting its act together.

But what about now?

At present, it is fair to say that there is some sort of residual restlessness within the Labour Party, following the election of new leader Jeremy Corbyn. Former Shadow Cabinet minister Rachel Reeves used an interview on today's Daily Politics to claim that Mr Corbyn was guilty of a "dereliction of duty".

Reeves also claimed that Labour was making a mistake, in shifting against Trident. In her view, "They [the party leadership] have opened up this issue of Trident. There wasn't an issue in the country".

Reeves simply doesn't believe the country is particularly anti-Trident, and that Labour is becoming too introverted; she is implying that it is choosing to talk about what it wants to talk about, which isn't the same thing  as what the electorate are worried about.

Could there be a 1981-style split? It's the 35th anniversary of the Limehouse Declaration, but all we seem to be seeing is the occasional gossip about disquiet amongst PLP members.

This comes, along with hearsay about the possibility of some move against Mr Corbyn, but only if Labour peforms poorly in the local and mayoral elections in the spring.

Some of the gossip has implied that action against Mr Corbyn might not even take place until after the EU referendum, and we don't even know when that is going to take place!

Gossip is worth bearing in mind, but at present, it's just that; gossip, and as we know, gossip is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. The moderate movers and shakers are just talking at the moment.

Nothing concrete has been done by Labour moderates to depose Corbyn, but they seem to have learnt from past mistakes; now is no time for a new SDP.

At least not yet, that is. They are sitting tight, waiting for the next big gaffe. There may be many more, before they get the straw that breaks the camel's back.

It's a question of whether they take the gamble of cashing in now, and creating a new party, or sticking with what they know, and trying to influence proceedings from inside.

Syria airstrikes to go ahead

The government got its way in the House of Commons last night. The motion, to begin air strikes against ISIL in Syria passed with a majority of 174. 67 Labour rebels went into the Aye lobby, against Mr Corbyn's wishes, and sealed the fate of many people in a faraway place.The Ayes had it, the Ayes had it.

Last night's debate in the House of Commons was truly one of the most dramatic moments in recent political history. The population at large is roughly split down the middle, about whether we should get involved in Syria.

The Prime Minster was rebuked on multiple occasions for labelling Mr Corbyn and the anti-strike group as "terrorist sympathisers". A video has already gone viral, showing 12 MPs (Mr Corbyn included) asking Mr Cameron to apologise. Mr Cameron was resolute, despite one MP even commenting that apologising would greatly "improve his standing" in the house.

Mr Corbyn presented the case against strikes, scrutinising the claims that 70,000 moderates are willing to assist in the fight against ISIL. He noted that "it is quite clear that there are no such forces". He continued, stating that

it is quite clear that there are no such forces.

Hilary Benn, Shadow Foreign Secretary, made a memorable speech in favour of strikes. During his speech, Mr Benn dubbed ISIL "fascists", who "hold our values in contempt...our belief in tolerance and decency...our democracy...the means by which we will make our decision tonight...in contempt".

Mr Benn ended his speech, to loud cheers from both sides of the house. As Mr Benn turned to sit down on the frontbenches, Mr Corbyn had to shuffle from side to side awkwardly, stony-faced, to make room for him. It serves as a perfect metaphor for what just happened. For a moment, it was as if Mr Benn was the leader, and Mr Corbyn was just an observer, a victim to the events about to unfold.

Parliament prepares to vote on airstrikes

As Parliament buzzes with nervous MPs, preparing to vote on airstrikes in Syria, ISIL watches and waits. Like some carcinoma, a cancerous growth or an ink blot strewn over the Middle East, ISIL is already under siege.

A broad coalition of countries, Britain included, are already bombing Iraq to smithereens, in a bid to isolate what the Prime Minister has repeatedly called a "death cult".

Why does Britain's possible involvement in Syria matter? One of the things that could be a real gamechanger, if we enter into strikes on Syria is our capabilities.

Britain possesses Brimstone missile systems. Brimstone missiles are rocket-powered, and radar-guided. It is understood Brimstone missiles are good at hitting small targets.

Proponents for UK involvement will argue that we might be able to target high-profile targets, and effectively decapitate ISIL in a matter of days.

However, things start to get messy, when you inquire into the government's plans for a post-conflict Syria. There are supposedly 70,000 moderate fighters, willing to aid us, once we start bombing Syria.

However, the government has actually admitted that extremists might have joined the ranks of these "moderates". The situation on the ground in Syria is far from black and white.

We have to remember that Syria has been at war with itself; a bloody civil war for about four years. Attempts by the government to launch strikes against President Assad failed in 2013. Now a death cult has exported terror from one continent to another.

Boko Haram and al-Shabaab pledged allegiance to ISIL, a few months ago. They're now essentially an extension of ISIL, inflicting pain and misery on a new horizon.

MPs are debating about airstrikes right at this moment. As many as 50-99 Labour MPs are likely to defy Mr Corbyn, and vote with the government, for air strikes. As we saw in 2003, the big two parties are still broad churches of opinion, with a lot of overlapping ideals.

We're going to hear people attempt to make compelling arguments today, about why we should entangle ourselves in another costly intervention, to root out a menace that was essentially created out of the chaos, caused by our last entanglement in the Middle East.

We're also going to hear people insist that bombing is not the answer; not now, not ever. The problem with adopting a resolute pacifist stance is the following. If you value your life, how long are you willing to endure someone slapping you in the face, and if you believe you shouldn't strike back to stop them, what words can you say to stop them?

What seems to have disappointed some is the fact that Hilary Benn, son of Stop the War campaigner and former MP, the late Tony Benn, is in favour of strikes.

Despite the headline-grabbing drama of Mr Corbyn seeming to lose control of his party over this issue,  most Labour MPs are actually likely to vote alongside him. The stumbling block is just the sheer numbers. The rebellious Labour MPs are all it takes for the government to get its majority in the vote.

Thousands took to the streets, to protest against strikes, last week, echoing the estimated 3 million people who came out in protest against Tony Blair's Iraq invasion vote.

Our political system is stuck in a sticky Catch 22: either we strike Syria, and risk pushing another country over the brink, or we don't strike, and have to come up with another way of combatting ISIL.

The clock is ticking.

Surely Donald Trump has gone too far this time?

Just when the gods of shock of awe seem to have given us their best attempt to make us stop and stand, staring at our TVs, they go that extra step into the land of insanity, and dish out something new and even worse.

Donald Trump, front-runner for the Republican Party's presidential ticket for 2016, has made a name for himself, as the anti-establishment, politically-incorrect megabucks man.

It all started with Mr Trump promising he would build a "great, great wall" between the US and Mexico, when he launched his campaign in June (see here).

During one of the more heated GOP television debates, Mr Trump implied that one of the moderators, Megyn Kelly, was putting him on the spot, because she had "blood coming out of her...wherever", during a subsequent TV interview.

Establishment Republicans are pulling their hair out, and screaming "No no no no no!" at the thought that one of their candidates (Jeb Bush, for instance) has been snubbed by Republican voters, in favour of an oddball like Mr Trump.

Mr Trump's comments have, to put it mildly, been discriminatory and nonsensical, but he is quite simply the open wound in the Republican race, that just keeps on gushing forth. It's a fair question to ask  now, whether Mr Trump's callous rhetoric is finally starting to drive even his most rabidly insane supporters off the brand.

Trump's final straw, that breaks the GOP elephant's back?

At a rally last week, Mr Trump brought up the sensitive subject of 9/11, and has really angered people, with his latest comments.

To provide a quick bit of context: during the turmoil of 9/11, survivors and emergency teams were ferried across the Hudson River, to a spot called Jersey City.

Mr Trump told the rally participants that he'd seen footage, showing thousands of people, cheering at the sight of the Twin Towers burning. The group of people Mr Trump was referring to were supposedly Arab residents of Jersey City, although he has also used the term Muslim interchangeably, as if the two words are synonymous.

Despite these sensational claims, no such footage is known to exist. Despite the lack of tangible evidence, Mr Trump doesn't seem fazed. He's most likely lied to the American electorate. But rather than retracting the comments, like Ben Carson did, during the week, Mr Trump seems to relish it. It's all about attention.

This comes, as the Mayor of Jersey City made the following comments on Twitter:

As a final comment on the story as it stands, I would say this. The primaries for American parties, seeking to take the presidency are starting to become drawn-out affairs. They have now become a spectator sport, with millions tuning in, to watch the dozens of contestant-like wannabe contenders try their luck.

The brightest sparks at the start of the contest don't typically win the final battle to assume the candidacy, quite simply because they burn out too soon. The media swarm around them too early in the day, and they're just not ready for the pressures of rolling 24hr news cycles. Scandalous stories emerge, and the field eventually thins out, until the main contenders are left standing.

Donald Trump has made his campaign a series of dramatic moments, one after another. He craves attention, even if it means insulting women, Muslims, Mexicans or any other social group you could care to mention. He's throwing small firecrackers in our faces, to confuse us and keep us wanting more.

You're just left wondering; if this controversial man actually makes it onto the Republican ticket, what on Earth is he going to be like, when the actual Presidential election campaign starts in earnest?

Jeremy Corbyn: I'm going nowhere

After a grueling week for his party, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has insisted he's going nowhere, whatever the outcome of the upcoming Parliamentary vote on Syrian airstrikes.

Appearing on this morning's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Corbyn repeated the fact that he had a "very clear mandate", and that people had refused to accept that the Labour Party was now in a "different place".

Responding to demands from a Labour MP that he should resign, or risk dividing the party over airstrikes in Syria, Mr Corbyn brushed over the turmoil of the past few weeks. He told Mr Marr that Labour had actually managed to claim victories over the government, concerning tax credits and spending plans for the police service.

Next week is expected to be a very tense time for Labour; the Oldham West and Royton by-election is expected to take place on Thursday 3rd December. The seat has been quite a safe seat for Labour, especially since 2011. UKIP and the Tories were virtually neck and neck, as the opposition to Labour in the seat, back in May.

There's a tangible threat from UKIP now; Nigel Farage is trying to appeal to Tory voters, and his party candidate hopes to actually usurp the seat. An article by the Daily Mail last week claimed that critics of Mr Corbyn will try to launch a coup against him, if Labour loses the by-election.

Mr Corbyn seems to have taken one old saying too literally; keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Even if the by-election goes in Labour's favour, the vote on Syria could still risk destabilising Mr Corbyn. All it takes is a mass-resignation of Shadow Cabinet members, and a motion of no confidence to bring him down.

In his appearance on the Andrew Marr Show today, Mr Corbyn insisted that he was "enjoying every moment". Somehow I doubt it. Mr Corbyn's leadership is more of a desert island, surrounded by a sea of boiling acid. All it takes is one stumble and he'll be dissolved in an instant. It's hardly an enjoyable predicament.

Ken Livingstone: British troops "discredited", China should intervene in Syria

Red Ken strikes again. Last week, Mr Livingstone got into hot water, over comments, suggesting that an MP should go and get "psychiatric help". Then just a few days ago, he told the audience on this week's edition of Question Time that the 7/7 attacks were Mr Blair's fault. Now the man appointed to assist Maria Eagle in reviewing Labour's defence review has drawn criticism, over fresh comments.

The ex-London Mayor told LBC Radio that "We cannot put British troops on the ground because they are too discredited after Iraq and Afghanistan".

Mr Livingstone continued, suggesting that the Chinese should offer their troops to intervene in Syria, claiming "They have millions of troops".

These comments drew stark criticism from the Prime Minister. Mr Cameron, who is currently in Malta, came to the defence the British Armed Forces, saying "I have the highest possible regard for the British Armed Forces...the person who frankly seems to be letting himself down is Ken Livingstone with the remarks that he makes".

These comments come only days after Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was met with laughter in the House of Commons for a China-related gaffe. When he started his reply to the Autumn Spending Review, Mr McDonnell plucked a copy of Mao's Little Red Book, and proceeded to read passages from it.

With Labour's top brass seemingly going through Mao-Mania this week, journalists chose to pluck an old clip from the BBC archives. Labour's Shadow International Development minister Diane Abbott MP has been a regular contributor to the BBC late night political show, This Week, hosted by Andrew Neil, for many years.

In February 2008, Abbott was seen on camera, claiming "I suppose some people will judge that, on balance, Mao did more harm than good". Co-contributor Michael Portillo immediately burst into a fit of laughter, at the remarks, and Andrew Neil referred to Chairman Mao's bloody legacy.

Chairman Mao was a long-lived Communist revolutionary, who ruled over the People's Republic of China, until his death in 1976. The Little Red Book was a collection of important Mao quotes, and was often used by Chinese authorities, as a means of "re-education", to keep the population obedient.

He's not the cuddliest of historical figures that ever lived; as many as 30m-45m Chinese people are believed to have perished during Mao's Great Leap Forward, in the 1960s. The campaign was an attempt by Mao to reform the economic and social fabric of Chinese society.

The traditional agrarian lifestyle that had been present for most of China's long history was violently uprooted by a Mao-orientated socialist model of industrialism and collectivism. Experts generally believe Mao'a Great Leap Forward was to blame for the Great Chinese Famine of the 1960s, resulting in tens of millions of deaths, due to starvation and other causes.

Grant Shapps resigns over activism bullying scandal

Grant Shapps has quit the Cabinet, as Secretary of State for International Development, after having been accused of failing to act, after claims of bullying emerged in a Conservative Party youth campaign group.

In the 2015 election campaign, a Conservative-orientated group called RoadTrip went across the country, transporting youth activists from seat to seat, going from door to door. It was led by youth organiser Mark Clarke. Mr Clarke had been a rising star in the Conservative Party at one point, but it has since emerged that he had actually been struck off a list of Conservative constituency candidates in 2010, following complaints about his behaviour.

It is alleged that Mr Clarke was given the role of Director for RoadTrip, with Mr Shapps' approval, despite being aware of the past complaints. The furore surrounding RoadTrip and Mr Shapps has come to light, following the apparent suicide of a youth activist, in September.

Elliot Johnson, aged 21, allegedly made a recording of a heated confrontation, before his death. The recording is reported to be 90mins in length, and the Daily Mail described it as a "kangaroo court". In the Mail's artcile, it is reported that Mr Clarke allegedly took issue with Johnson over a gaffe on Twitter, allegedly declaring he would seek to ruin Mr Johnson's career, because of it.

Johnson is also alleged to have written a letter to current Tory party chairman Lord Feldman, complaining about Mr Clarke, following another alleged heated exchange at a pub.

On a recent edition of Newsnight, (see here) Ray Johnson, Elliot's father, appeared, and said that "It became a...quagmire...almost like a dry rot, affecting the Conservative party...with many people being affected adversely and other people who were doing the bullying and intimidating...It became very to us that they were being protected and, if not tolerated, encouraged by what Mark Clarke and other were doing in the Conservative Party, to the activists".

Upon hearing the news of Mr Shapps' resignation, Mr Johnson told the BBC that he was "glad", but described initial attempts at a single internal party investigation into the matter as a "cover-up".

Earlier this month, it was reported that Mark Clarke had been expelled from the Conservative Party for life, pending an expected inquiry on the matter. Mr Clarke is also reported to be seeking to sue for defamation, following the inquest, in response to the allegations concerned.