Here's the full text.
Very secret
Executive Committee, Third Communist International.
To the Central Committee, British Communist Party.
Presidium, September 15, 1924. Moscow.
Dear Comrades,
The time is approaching for the Parliament of England to consider the Treaty concluded between the Governments of Great Britain and the S.S.S.R. for the purpose of ratification. The fierce campaign raised by the British bourgeoisie around the question shows that the majority of the same, together with reactionary circles, are against the Treaty for the purpose of breaking off an agreement consolidating the ties between the proletariats of the two countries leading to the restoration of normal relations between England and the S.S.S.R.
The proletariat of Great Britain, which pronounced its weighty word when danger threatened of a break-off of the past negotiations, and compelled the Government of MacDonald to conclude the treaty, must show the greatest possible energy in the further struggle for ratification and against the endeavours of British capitalists to compel Parliament to annul it.
It is indispensable to stir up the masses of the British proletariat to bring into movement the army of unemployed proletarians whose position can be improved only after a loan has been granted to the S.S.S.R. for the restoration of her economics and when business collaboration between the British and Russian proletariats has been put in order. It is imperative that the group in the Labour Party sympathising with the Treaty should bring increased pressure to bear upon the Government and Parliamentary circles in favour of the ratification of the Treaty.
Keep close observation over the leaders of the Labour Party, because these may easily be found in the leading strings of the bourgeoisie. The foreign policy of the Labour Party as it is, already represents an inferior copy of the policy of the Curzon Government. Organize a campaign of disclosure of the foreign policy of MacDonald.
The I.K.K.I. (Executive Committee, Third [Communist] International) will willingly place at your disposal the wide material in its possession regarding the activities of British Imperialism in the Middle and Far East. In the meanwhile, however, strain every nerve in the struggle for the ratification of the Treaty, in favour of a continuation of negotiations regarding the regulation of relations between the S.S.S.R. and England. A settlement of relations between the two countries will assist in the revolutionising of the international and British proletariat not less than a successful rising in any of the working districts of England, as the establishment of close contact between the British and Russian proletariat, the exchange of delegations and workers, etc., will make it possible for us to extend and develop the propaganda of ideas of Leninism in England and the Colonies. Armed warfare must be preceded by a struggle against the inclinations to compromise which are embedded among the majority of British workmen, against the ideas of evolution and peaceful extermination of capitalism. Only then will it be possible to count upon complete success of an armed insurrection. In Ireland and the Colonies the case is different; there there is a national question, and this represents too great a factor for success for us to waste time on a prolonged preparation of the working class.
But even in England, as other countries, where the workers are politically developed, events themselves may more rapidly revolutionise the working masses than propaganda. For instance, a strike movement, repressions by the Government etc.
From your last report it is evident that agitation-propaganda work in the army is weak, in the navy a very little better. Your explanation that the quality of the members attracted justifies the quantity is right in principle, nevertheless it would be desirable to have cells in all the units of the troops, particularly among those quartered in the large centres of the country, and also among factories working on munitions and at military store depots. We request that the most particular attention be paid to these latter.
In the event of danger of war, with the aid of the latter and in contact with the transport workers, it is possible to paralyse all the military preparations of the bourgeoisie, and make a start in turning an imperialist war into a class war. Now more than ever we should be on our guard. Attempts at intervention in China show that world imperialism is still full of vigour and is once more making endeavours to restore its shaken position and cause a new war, which as its final objective is to bring about the break-up of the Russian Proletariat and the suppression of the budding world revolution, and further would lead to the enslavement of the colonial peoples. 'Danger of War', 'The Bourgeoisie seek War', 'Capital fresh Markets' - these are the slogans which you must familiarise the masses with, with which you must go to work into the mass of the proletariat. These slogans will open to you the doors of comprehension of the masses, will help you to capture them and march under the banner of Communism.
The Military Section of the British Communist Party, so far as we are aware, further suffers from a lack of specialists, the future directors of the British Red Army.
It is time you thought of forming such a group, which together with the leaders, might be in the event of an outbreak of active strife, the brain of the military organisation of the party.
Go attentively through the lists of the military 'cells' detailing from them the more energetic and capable men, turn attention to the more talented military specialists who have for one reason or another, left the Service and hold Socialist views. Attract them into the ranks of the Communist Party if they desire honestly to serve the proletariat and desire in the future to direct not the blind mechanical forces in the service of the bourgeoisie, but a national army. Form a directing operative head of the Military Section.
Do not put this off to a future moment, which may be pregnant with events and catch you unprepared.
Desiring you all success, both in organisation and in your struggle.
With Communist Greetings,
President of the Presidium of the I.K.K.I.
ZINOVIEV
Member of the Presidium: McMANUS
Secretary: KUUSINEN
Loathe as I am to pounce upon yet another bandwagon by adding to the dacreage of comment on the Daily Mail's ill-judged bust up with Ed Miliband, I cannot refrain from doing so. You see, as a leftie, as someone who values reason, equality and the labour movement, I'm de facto obsessed with the paper - at least that's what its beleaguered editor thinks. However, just as England very occasionally confounds expectations and turns in a decent performance befitting the paper value of the squad, Paul Dacre is broadly right. Why?
1. The Mail and their fellow guttersnipes in the hard right tabloid press lie. They say the most outrageous things and peddle the most ludicrous confidence tricks to amaze, entertain and scare their shrinking print readership. They attack, they traduce - yes, traduce - and smear whatever target(s) are in their sights, be it a politician, a celebrity or a member of the public.
2. The Mail doesn't just lie. It hates. Of all the tabloids, The Mail has a record to be ashamed of by their own execrable standards. No one else has quite consistently given it pages over to the hatred of Jews, LGBT people, minority ethnicities, immigrants, women, the young, the disabled, the poor, the working class. Mail hacks and Dacre might point to their "campaigning", particularly around the Stephen Lawrence case, but that does not absolve them of the hate they peddled beforehand or since. The one example of when The Mail did the decent thing stands all the more starkly against the shocking relief of stupid bigotry and wilful, cowardly ignorance that is its daily fare.
3. The Mail is shamelessly hypocritical. It has the gall to lecture and condemn whoever the paper's hating on that particular day in the name of a spurious morality it uniquely claims as its own. The right to private, dignified lives is out the window when its utterly unscrupulous editor thinks some hapless innocent needs to have their name dragged through the mud. It rails against the premature sexualisation of the young - especially young girls - and barely bats an eyelid when it publishes semi-naked photos of 13, 14, 15-year old celebrities.
4. The Mail is political poison. No other paper has openly given its support to a fascist party either back in the day or in more recent times. You can be rest assured that wherever privilege, prejudice and position are challenged, The Daily Mail will pitch in for the powerful. The Mail dreads nothing more than the 'decent working people' it allegedly represents noisily barging their way into politics and threatening to remake the social order from top to bottom.
5. The Mail plays to people's anxieties. It feeds the deep sense of unease, that widespread but intangible sense of insecurity that leaves millions of people prey to rubbish like the Islamic invasion of Britain, backdoor sovietisation by the EUSSR, snowmageddon, Cultural Marxism, and paedophiles in every school. The shivers it desperately tries to force down the readership's spine is the essential preface to its hang 'em, flog 'em, deport 'em politics.
6. The Mail's hysterical frothing is absolutely inimical to reasoned debate and informed political discourse.
The left, whatever its hue, hate The Mail because more than any other paper, party or movement on the "mainstream" right brings to life on its pages everything the left and the labour movement stands against: elitism, lies, bigotry, irrationality. The Mail debases our national life and is a stain upon what passes for Britain's journalistic culture. The left hates it because the paper is our antithesis. It is the worst of British values dressed up as the best, as Alastair Campbell put it.
Yet here's the thing. As much as the left hates the Daily Mail, it is also the one right wing paper we're most likely to read. Its multiple offences against the real world, its foul attacks on powerless victims, the hyperbolic, apocalyptic spin it gives to the mildest of social democratic policies can - and does - fuel a sense of outrage among the left. Just the sheer quantity of left comment generated when the Mail finds itself at the heart of periodic media storms suggests more than a view people with sensible politics regularly keep tabs, at least on its online version. And the marketing bods at the paper know this, they know a substantial minority of its regular audience absolutely hates its guts. Perversely The Mail has a clear commercial imperative in keeping them coming back for more, and the hacks are only happy to oblige with more twisted, hate-filled copy. And that's even before you get sucked into the vacuous but strangely alluring purgatory of the sidebar of shame.
The sad thing is while the left absolutely, genuinely, sincerely despises the Daily Mail; it loves to hate it too.
It's a truism of politics that a cabinet or shadow cabinet reshuffle does not necessarily mean a change in political direction. And that much is true of the first statements of intent from new appointees Rachel Reeves and Tristram Hunt. You don't need me to tell you that Rachel's intent to "be tough" on joblessness, and Tristram's pledge to stick "rocket boosters" on Gove's free school wheeze have not proven palatable with much of the Labour faithful. So what's going on?
Well, to be truthful, nothing has changed at all. Rachel's pledge to be tougher than the Tories is exactly where Liam Byrne left off. The idea the long-term unemployed will be compelled to take a guaranteed job on pain of losing JSA payments is absolutely nothing new. Let's be clear, this is light years ahead of the Tories basically reintroducing the workhouse in their dole-for-work scheme and though it's not without problems the policy is a step in the right direction. After all, isn't the age-old socialist response to unemployment the provision of guaranteed jobs for those who find themselves out of work?
What's true for the DWP shadow holds for the education brief. Tristram's comments about free schools (and a more thoughtful piece on LabourList) and the expansion of parent-led academies bears an uncanny resemblance to what went before. And by before I'm not talking about Stephen Twigg but the changes to schooling under the Blair/Brown governments.
I don't follow education policy closely and don't know enough about the area to offer an in-depth critique. But I for one cannot understand why schools have to be handed over to academy sponsors and have all democratic accountability removed for them to "innovate" and be "successful". In Tristram's Stoke-on-Trent Central patch, and across the city as a whole, most of the secondary schools are or were seriously under-performing. Some of this is down to characteristics common to former industrial cities: an ingrained antipathy toward formal education, and the inequality disadvantages working class kids have to overcome to name two. But this does not explain everything - a number of schools were problematic, up to and including the calibre of some officers overseeing them on behalf of the city council. Yet these issues, which are far from unique, could be tackled without handing over schools and their curriculums to unaccountable academy providers, or allowing parents to set up their own simon pure free schools, thereby effectively opting out of the schools system - especially when doing so is horrendously expensive.
Part of this policy agenda comes from the belief that a mixed school sector will drive up standards through competition. The second bit is the widely-acknowledged but seldom-spoken belief in senior Labour circles that comprehensive education is a busted flush, and that certain academies and free schools (with their independent selection criteria) reintroduces grammar schools by the backdoor. But the third part comes back to the grubbiest motives of all - votes. From the standpoint of winning an election in the first-past-the-post system in which comparatively few swing seats hold the balance of power, it makes absolute sense that Labour is not seen to be advocating the closure of schools, especially successful ones.
If the fates of Twigg and Byrne are anything to go by, I expect Rachel and Tristram will get it in the neck between now and 2015. But the thing to remember is that they're not properly masters of their domains. With perhaps the sole exception of Andy Burnham at health, what is emerging is 'Milibandism'. If Labourism is an outcome of principle wrestling with expediency, Ed's politics are very much in this tradition. The lines peddled right across the shadow cabinet are as much as the leader's views as those who occupy the position. Labour's rejigged free schools policy is Tristram's AND Ed's. Labour's strong words against the non-existent shirking masses are Rachel's AND Ed's. Trident replacement and HS2 are as 'Milibandist' as abolishing the bedroom tax and freezing energy prices. It is qualitatively different from what the Tories have to offer, but is always and all times conditioned by electoral calculus. Hence when necessary, as it was during conference season, the stick was bent leftwards to keep the faithful happy and firm up leftish swing voters. Now we're in the long campaign, expect more announcements and interventions like Rachel's and Tristram's aimed at tickling the fancies of soft Tories and soft UKIPers.
Image credit
From Paradoxes of Gender by Judith Lorber (1994), pp.30-1.
... gender is not a unitary essence but has many components as a social institution and as an individual status. As a social institution, gender is composed of:
Gender statuses, the socially recognised genders in a society and the norms and expectations for their enactment behaviourally, gesturally, linguistically, emotionally, and physically. How gender statuses are evaluated depends on historical development in any particular society.
Gendered division of labour, the assignment of productive and domestic work to members of different gender statuses. The work assigned to those of different gender statuses strengthens the society's evaluation of those statuses - the higher the status, the more prestigious and valued the work and the greater its rewards.
Gendered kinship, the family rights and responsibilities for each gender status. Kinship statuses reflect and reinforce the prestige and power differences of the different genders.
Gendered sexual scripts, the normative patterns of sexual desire and sexual behaviour, as prescribed for the different gender statuses. Members of the dominant gender have more sexual prerogatives; members of a subordinate gender may be sexually exploited.
Gendered personalities, the combinations of traits patterned by gender norms of how members of different gender statuses are supposed to feel and behave. Social expectations of others in face-to-face interaction constantly bolster these norms.
Gendered social control, the formal and informal approval and reward of conforming behaviour and the stigmatisation, social isolation, punishment, and medical treatment of non-conforming behaviour.
Gender ideology, the justification of gender statuses, particularly, their differential evaluation. The dominant ideology tends to suppress criticism by making these evaluations seem natural.
Gender imagery, the cultural representations of gender and the embodiment of gender in symbolic language and artistic productions that reproduce and legitimate gender statuses. Culture is one on the main supports of the dominant gender ideology.
For an individual, gender is compised of:
Sex category to which the infant is assigned at birth based on appearance of genitalia. With prenatal testing and sex-typing, categorisation is prenatal. Sex category may be changed later through surgery or reinspection of ambiguous genitalia.
Gender identity, the individual's sense of gendered self as a worker and family member.
Gendered marital and procreative status, fulfillment or nonfulfillment of allowed or disallowed mating, impregnation, childbearing, kinship roles.
Gendered sexual orientation, socially and individually patterned sexual desires, feelings, practices, and identification.
Gendered personality, internalised patterns of socially normative emotions as organised by family structure and parenting.
Gendered processes, the social practices of learning, being taught, picking up cues, enacting behaviour already learned to be gender-appropriate (or inappropriate, if rebelling, testing), developing a gender identity, "doing gender" as a member of a gender status in relationships with gendered others, acting deferent or dominant.
Gender beliefs, incorporation of or resistance to gender ideology.
Gender display, presentation of self as a certain kind of gendered person through dress, cosmetics, adornments, and permanent and reversible body markers.
Life's temporarily got in the way of blogging, so listen to this instead.
Long time readers know I'm a stickler for anniversaries. As it happens, Monday just gone saw the passing of another - a full year since I returned to blogging. Hasn't time flown? Surely only five minutes have elapsed since I threw down some thoughts about Stephanie Flanders take on Marx? Nope, the Earth had indeed made a single revolution around the sun. In the interval between then and now this blog has attracted just shy of half a million page views, and audience figures are around the point regular service ceased in February 2011. I've also had the odd piece go viral, and overall I'm pleased - nay amazed - that my efforts sometimes merit wider attention.
My intention isn't to allow this post to be a backslap-athon in the tradition I'd previously grown accustomed. Instead, I'd like to say a few things about how much blogging changed because after 18 short months away, it's pretty obvious that it was different when I started writing again and that has only deepened since. The past, even the recent past, is a foreign country.
The 'function' of blogging and blogging culture itself is a many-legged beast transformed. Whereas blogs were once an alternative to and upstart challenger against traditional media commentary, it has effortlessly segued into the commentariat. It's as home in established outlets as your Toynbees and Heffers. The press has essentially colonised and co-opted cadres of writers who came up through the blogs. The top tier bloggers - you know who you are - lead existences virtually indistinguishable from 'professionals' who got into the papers the old way. Media-branded blogs like Comment is Free, Telegraph Blogs, The Staggers, and The Spectator have effectively hoovered up last decade's explosion in creative political writing and have successfully used them to forge successful online brands. Time and again, their house bloggers tend to provide the most interesting (and infuriating) comment, which is why I and tens of thousands of others read them.
This professionalisation, for want of a better word, is best exemplified by Iain Dale's passage from blogging to mainstream punditry to publishing (and back again). Whether you love him, loathe him, or don't have a clue who he is, when Iain Dale's Diary was up and running between 2005 and 2010 Iain did play an important role in getting bloggers and blogging into the mainstream, if only as a by-product of his own self-promotion. But his blog commanded an audience that crossed party loyalties, and that was pretty big. Getting featured if you were a newbie, getting a slot in the 'Daley Dozen' picks of best writing from around the blogs, and/or securing a respectable position in the annual Total Politics poll was a very useful way of getting noticed. Also, to Iain's credit, I found him to be as even handed as you can expect a solid Tory to be. Compare, for instance, his regular picks with the overly partisan boilerplate Guido stamps his/their approval on every day. There are few (if any) blogs that now fill the cross-partisan market Iain's used to. Certainly where the most-read sites are concerned anyway. It is now very rare a piece written on a left blog would receive wide circulation among conservatives, and vice versa. Blogging has always been partisan, but the division of lefties only reading lefties, and rightwingers only reading rightwingers is more pronounced than it once was.
The entry of blogging into the echo chamber was probably always going to happen. Some of it may be left at the feet of the papers and magazine who've muscled in on blogging. After all, they have their political allegiances. But the bigger part has been played by social media, particularly Twitter. When I started tweeting in 2009 it was to promote this here blog and have a bit of banter. Question Time and PMQs running commentary were definitely not things I had in mind. Over the last few years, the relationship between micro-blogging and blogging have found the terms reversed. I can't help thinking that for large numbers blogging is an adjunct of tweeting. That is blog audience, while nice, is subordinated to the insatiable drive to accumulate more Twitter followers.
It has restructured how blogging works too. Leave a comment? Why not tweet the blogger instead? Twitter killed the comments box star. Twitter's immediacy has made redundant certain little traditions too. When was the last time you tagged someone in a post? Who posts memes any more? They're not really needed now. It's a shame because "the old ways", like themed blog carnivals (like the Carnival of Socialism) were excellent for hawking your wares round other blogs, introducing new writers and ensuring marginalised/ignored voices were given a wider airing.
The rise of Twitter has definitely lowered the barrier of entry for anyone who wants to give political commentary a go. Whereas blogs offered a new opportunity for anyone willing to spend the time it takes to craft a post a 'way in', contributions limited to 140 characters or less have pulled that even lower. But in one of those ironies of history dialecticians revel in, the democratisation of comment has made it more difficult to make it as someone with a following. Twitter is a leveller - you, the woman in Yeovil, that nutty ex-Trot from Stoke and thousands of others all share the same "unique" selling point. Hence becoming a "somebody" with a respectable audience depends on more than composing natty sentences. It means playing the game. The interlocking networks of prominent bloggers and media commentariat have become the gatekeepers to large audiences. If you can land a berth or get some informal patronage, you're in. Being in London is also a massive advantage. Theoretically you can still start off brand new and build up a following from scratch, but unless you get in/break in to the established networks in some way, more often than not your writing and your content will find the void its main audience. And, unfortunately, these networks can only crystallise further. There's only so many paid jobs editing a prominent blog, or getting a blog on one of the outlets. The Laurie Pennys, Harry Coles and Owen Joneses are positions taken up by Laurie Penny, Harry Cole and Owen Jones. Even unpaid gigs on bigger blogs tend to be facilitated by networks that have grown up as blogging's evolved. Does my stuff appear elsewhere because it's sharply written and sharply observed? As much as I'd like to think so, connections, ties and friendships have at least as much to do with it.
Blogging is supposed to be the Wild West of political comment. And here I've gone and portrayed it as a crystallising network. Perhaps in due course a cage might become the apt metaphor of choice. Then again, this is probably unduly pessimistic. Every month there's always a roll call of new blogs to highlight. There's no shortage of people wanting to take the chance of saying something that connects with wider layers of people, even if they're only a relatively niche audience. For example, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry that posts about the SWP and posts about the Socialist Party get the numbers flowing - but there's an appetite for it. Thing is the promise of a small audience is enough for many people to start and keep going - at least for a bit.
I think 'big' bloggers and their media bedfellows could do more to promote new writing. The network, the establishment, the cage, whatever you want to call it, the way blogging has become structured cannot be unpicked. If Dan Hodges was to resign from The Telegraph to spend more time with his bitterness, dozens of Dan Hodges still in the Labour Party would gladly take his place. But it can use its position to ensure the mainstream blogging "marketplace" it spreads over never becomes stale by pushing new voices and 'independent' comment from the fringes. In other words, your superstar bloggers have a choice. They can stymie the health of blogging if they only promote themselves and the voices of their mates, or they can remember the times they too had legs up. Unfortunately, I fear we're seeing an acceleration of a digital divide between the 'establishment' and the 'independents', and the narrow pluralism of the former will ultimately be indistinguishable from the concerns and peccadilloes of the Westminster Bubble. If it isn't already.
"Ed Miliband backs down and gives Len McCluskey his dream team!!!" screams Conservative Central Office as if people outside the Tories' increasingly fevered (and depleted) ranks gives a monkey's. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth Ed's shadcab reshuffle is being dissected by friend and foe alike. As with any leader, the appointment of ministers and shadow ministers is never just a matter of ability - it's about the internal politics of party management and how the party looks to the electorate. With these factors in mind, these choices are smart politics. Bring on the Kremlinology.
Firstly, I was heartened to see Andy Burnham retained his place at the health brief. Like many others in the party, I feel Andy has grown into a formidable attack dog and principled champion of the NHS since his leadership bid three years ago. While as wonky as the leader himself, Andy's working class background, policy agenda and obvious passion for the job makes him horribly effective. Which is why the Tories fear him, smear him, and are now apologising to him. Those whose ears catch the idle chatter from the more indiscreet members of Ed's office have let drop that the leader was reportedly "furious" with Andy for raising not-so-oblique criticisms of the 'hush now' approach to party policy, and he could face the chop. And yet he's still there. On 'ability to do the job' there's a big tick. On internal politics, a good many party activists would have been disappointed had he gone - with a difficult 18 months ahead the party needs every pair of hands it can muster. And out there in realworldswingland; passion, competency and a rough plan to implement a national care service to complement the NHS goes down very well indeed. Losing Andy would have been a very serious error of judgement,
I know some readers will be wanting me to say a few things about my ex-boss, Tristram Hunt, who's been promoted to shadow education minister. There's very little to add to what I've already said on Twitter. Tristram will be very effective in pinning down Gove and putting forward Labour's alternative. He also cares deeply about improving schools and ensuring that education produces well-rounded people, not drones for assembly lines with the nonsensical capacity to recite England's kings and queens. And unlike his predecessor, who I believe never really *got* his brief, Tristram has his own ideas about what needs to be done. Internally, it's difficult for the likes of Dan Hodges to maintain there's been a cull of the Blairites when Tristram is one of the directors of Progress. There's also the small matters of promotions for Emma Reynolds and Gloria De Piero, and Wee Dougie keeping shadow foreign secretary and getting joint campaign chair too. Then again it's never the done thing to let facts get in the way of spun narratives.
But is there some truth to the cull hypothesis? A smidgen. It is under-performing Blairites who've had the push, not under-performers normally identified as Ed's people. Was Stephen Twigg effective as shadow education? As nice a bloke he is, I'm afraid not. His barely-concealed support for free schools as Labour policy was at odds with the common view among the PLP and the wider party. He had to go. Same with Liam Byrne. Actually, weirdly, strangely, I've warmed to Liam of late. He's very capable and is an extremely hard-working MP. He has to be - his constituency caseload is reputed to be the heaviest in Parliament. But I think he's too much of the old 'new' school. It's not that he personally believes in being beastly to people who subsist on social security, but is prepared to be so in the name of triangulation. Unfortunately for him, as Labour positions itself as a real social democratic alternative to the Tories, 'conviction politics' are again on trend. Triangulation is subordinate now to politics, not the other way round. Lastly, Jim Murphy who is perhaps the one bruiser the Blairites had left has gone to international development. Jim has been credited with improving Labour's appeal to the armed forces, be they veterans or serving personnel. Whatever one thinks of those efforts, he has nevertheless made real inroads. Jim's problem, however, is not that he is incompetent - rather it was his position over Syria that did for him. It's hardly news that Jim was of a hawkish bent when the matter was still being mulled over by the leadership a month or so ago. His mistake however was to publicly emote and allude to his displeasure with the Labour-led opposition victory against missile strikes. While you could say Andy Burnham was as equally out of order for trying to bounce the leadership on policy, pledges around care are one thing in politics, questions of war and peace are quite another. It meant that for Jim the writing was on the wall.
Yet what of Jack Dromey? I thought he was very effective in housing. Like Andy and now Tristram, he genuinely relished that role. Though the thinking seems to be he's on for some senior role with the shadow home office team.
So here we have Labour's 'Team 2015'. The new line up can be viewed in its entirety here. Not the communist combat squad haunting the limited imaginations of the Tory party faithful, but a collective that can put forward Labour's alternative with passion, rigour and clarity.
