The events of a decade or more, when a small group of militants terrified the Labour leadership, has burnt deep into the Labour psyche. It is the back cloth against which the NEC will this week consider whether or not to kick George Galloway and John McDonnell out of the party. Dealing with the infiltration by a small group of people who do not share Labour’s approach to democratic politics, and individual members expressing views, however repugnant, require two very distinct approaches.

For what seemed like an eternity, at least for one of those people on the receiving end of Militant’s unsolicited attentions, the NEC simply equivocated on countering the Trot takeover bid. When Neil Kinnock finally had an NEC with the bottle to act it took action not simply to expel Militant, but to ensure that the Party had effective defences against any future takeover by undemocratic elements masquerading as old lefties.

There is a world of difference between countering Militant type organisations and dealing with dissident MPs. No-one is suggesting that George Galloway and John McDonnell, the two MPs now in the NEC’s sights, are part of a wider conspiracy to take over the Labour Party lock stock and barrel, which was Militant’s aim. The two MPs may be, for all I know, associated with dissident groups from which most of us would run a mile. There are some pretty grim weirdoes on the extremes of both left and right in British politics. But again associating with undesirable elements is not a crime, although it obviously reflects on the judgement of the person concerned.

Bringing the party into disrepute is high up on the charge sheet against these two MPs. When the Party adopted this proper defence of its integrity it had group activity in mind. I doubt whether any Party member supporting the new defences believed they were voting for a thought police to operate against individuals.

That is the dangerous charge which will be levied against the party if it is on these grounds that the MPs are expelled, or prevented from being Labour candidates at the next election. For any party, such a charge will run uncomfortably in a country which rightly prizes the free expression of opinions as the cornerstone upon which its democratic institutions are built. To an electorate having huge difficulty in distinguishing from Party statements where truth ends and spin begins, the running of a thought police will be seen as a final act of an organisation consumed by control freakery.

The NEC needs to assert that it is not in the business of turning what was a collective defence of the Party into an instrument for disciplining MPs. It also must demonstrate that it is conscious that Labour’s foundation and growth to a national party was partly accomplished by incorporating into the democratic process groups who might otherwise have resorted to the bomb, rather than the ballot box, as a means of promoting their views. As a consequence, the Party has always had within its ranks people espousing views, such as Irish unity, which are not shared by the majority.

There has always, therefore, been a somewhat hazy line between what is legitimate for Party members to advance as a minority view, and how these views are advanced by non-democratic elements outside the Party.

Most people will view John McDonnell’s congratulations to the murderous IRA as the judgement of a warped mind. But there is nothing illegal in what he has said, although he might be hard pressed to find a hundred people in his constituency agreeing.

Likewise, I guess most voters will judge George Galloway’s outburst against the Prime Minister and in favour of Saddam Hussein as the ravings of someone suffering from Iraqi sunstroke, or something much worse. His views made me shudder, but I never for a moment thought the attack would do anything but strengthen the Prime Minister’s position, and undermine still further George Galloway’s advocacy of the Iraqi cause.

Here is the crux. Each of them has to get themselves reselected. Even if they are then returned by the electorate it will be the equivalent of outdoor relief. Both MPs have effectively committed political suicide. What is worrying is that the NEC does not seem to appreciate that its intervention has already been successful.

Even if both or either of them are successful in being returned to the next Parliament, neither of them have a future in Parliament in influencing events. Despite the fact that one of them is amongst Parliament’s best orators, they are like a walking shadow, a poor player, described by Shakespeare, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot.

What the NEC must not now do is to breathe new life into these two political corpses. Making them martyrs would do precisely that. Neither of them deserves such an honour.