Archived entries for

Have your say in the Young Fabian Survey 2010

Bright ideas? Burning issues? Got a suggestion? Or just want to take the first opportunity to sign up for this year’s policy development groups?
 
The executive committee wants to hear about the direction Young Fabians want the organisation to take during the next year. Young Fabian members are invited to have their say today in the YF Annual Survey 2010:
 
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/youngfabiansurvey2010
 
All responses received by the closing date of Monday 15 February will be entered into a prize draw to win a £25 book token.
 
The survey is quick and easy to complete, and is your chance to tell the YF executive committee what issues and activities are most important to you. This year, as Vice Chair, I am responsible for our policy development groups. These will be launching soon and you can sign up to join them by completing the survey.
 
The survey will be used by the executive committee to guide our planning over the course of the next year. Individually and collectively, our members are the heart of our organisation and it would be fantastic if you could feed in your views. If you have any problems, comments or questions about the survey then please email me: aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk.
 
Here’s the link again – http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/youngfabiansurvey2010.
 
I look forward to seeing your responses.
 
 
Adrian Prandle
Vice Chair, Young Fabians

How much do we need to know?

Dominating most of the papers today is John Terry and stories of his relationship with another football player’s former girlfriend; his initial gagging order overturned by a judge who believed Terry more concerned with the loss of lucrative sponsorship deals than the invasion of his privacy.

Surely this is strange though, do we really need to justify our right to a private life? Surely the right to privacy is absolute and regardless of our motivations for wanting to maintain that privacy, it should be protected?

It is also being championed as a triumph for the freedom of speech, but is it not a slightly sad reflection on society that we revel in the fact that we get to read about a man cheating on his wife. Is this really the epitome of freedom of speech? Was this really information that we not just needed, but had a right to know?

Why we must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our fellow Fabian

Sound strategy or massive gamble? - reaction to Obamas missile moveAt half-time in Tony Blair’s testimony to the Iraq Inquiry, let us recall the horror of Saddam’s regime, and the threat he posed to his own people, the region and the wider world. One need only cast minds back to this Monday, and the execution of Ali Hassan al-Majid – aka Chemical Ali.

Here’s a reminder of the evil perpetrated by Chemical Ali:

“He was known for his ruthlessness, ordering the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX against Kurdish targets. The first such attacks occurred as early as April 1987 and continued into 1988, culminating in the notorious attack on Halabja in which over 5,000 people were killed.

“With Kurdish resistance continuing, al-Majid decided to cripple the rebellion by eradicating the civilian population of the Kurdish regions. His forces embarked on a systematic campaign of mass killings, property destruction and forced population transfer (called “Arabization”) in which thousands of Kurdish villages were razed and their inhabitants either killed or deported to the south of Iraq.

“He signed a decree in June 1987 stating that “Within their jurisdiction, the armed forces must kill any human being or animal present in these areas”. By 1988, some 4,000 villages had been destroyed, an estimated 180,000 Kurds had been killed and some 1.5 million had been deported.”

Fast forward to the eve of war and today’s protests, and the debates about the legality of the war. Leaving aside the need for a second UN Resolution or an “urgent need for self-defence” – the apparent lack of either cited as grounds for illegality by opponents – let us look at a third factor pertaining to the legality of war, a “humanitarian crisis”.

This is what the undisputed chapter in the 2002 Iraq Dossier, titled “Iraq under Saddam”, says:

“Human rights abuses continue within Iraq. People continue to be arrested and detained on suspicion of political or religious activities, or often because they are related to members of the opposition. Executions are carried out without due process of law. Relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice. Thousands of prisoners have been executed.

“Saddam has issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Anyone found guilty of slandering the President has their tongue removed.”

These facts are just part of what we know; the true nature of Iraq under Saddam, the real figure for casualties under Saddam, may never be known. What’s certain is that the figure is less than that of the past seven years.

Finally, to the opponents of the war, I ask this:

• Had WMDs been discovered, would that have made the war legal, despite the lack of a second resolution?

• Had they been discovered, would the aftermath have been any less bloody?

• If the UN had passed a second resolution, would that have made the aftermath any less bloody?

• Had the aftermath not been as bloody, would the question of legality had been so important?

• If Britain had not joined the war, would America have gone ahead regardless, and would the resulting aftermath have been any different?

And imagine, for one second, that there had been no war, that Saddam had developed WMDs, that he’d used them, on the Iraqi people, neighbouring countries or even us. An emboldened, strengthened, nuclear-armed Saddam. Untouchable. Torturing, raping and murdering innocent men, women and children forever more…

As internationalists, liberals and democrats, whatever the reasoning, justification or legality for the war, we should all be proud that it was a Labour leader, a Labour Prime Minister, who removed this evil regime and freed the Iraqi people.

Fab 5: Thursday 28 January 2010

Another day, another selection of web articles we recommend you read:

  • Sara Mojtehedzadeh writes for the Sky News Boulton & Co blog on women in Afghanistan.
  • Diana Smith writes for Labourlist on the cuts we don’t see – those at the local authority level.
  • Is it time to allow broadcast bias in the UK? – that’s the question Hopi Sen ponders today.
  • Will Straw of Left Foot Forward highlights a report by the IFS into the impact of fees on higher education participation, suggesting it will fall if fee increases are not matched with commensurate increases in grants and loans.
  • The economic crisis in Greece continues, threatening the whole Euro project. The Economist’s Charlemagne reports that European leaders are working out how they can bail-out the country, rather than focussing on whether or not they should.
  • Labour should build on trade, Europe and a revised interventionism for a fairer world

    This article was originally published here for Progress on the 15th January 2010.

    A Labour campaign on foreign policy should argue that the values which define our party should also define our international agenda. Values of internationalism, a global solidarity with those in greatest need, and the need to protect those who are vulnerable and suffering are traditional Labour values which we apply at home and should apply abroad. These are the cornerstone of our movement. They define our approach to all policy areas and separate us from our opponents.

    We should focus on three key aspects in Labour foreign policy campaigns. Firstly, we should continue to use foreign policy as a vehicle for economic growth within our nation and beyond our borders. Secondly, we should commit to drawing up a new doctrine for intervention and, thirdly, we should not being afraid of leading in Europe and in other international institutions.

    To take the first strand, Britain is a trading nation and needs access to the wider European market. As we move from recession to recovery our agenda for growth will require continued access to the global market to secure jobs and prosperity at home.

    In the second instance, there is a need to reassess how and when interventionism occurs, and place it in a consistent framework. This should be founded on a clear relationship between morality and the rule of law. Interventionism cannot be founded upon hubris, neocolonial ambition or economic aspiration. The burden of intervention must also be carried by those who can share it, using international action for military and humanitarian causes.

    And lastly, a key component of Labour’s international policy has been to recognise that the EU is more than just a market to trade with and should be used to strengthen Britain’s role in the world. However, there is a need to settle the economic argument that EU membership costs Britain more than we get in return. We must also defeat the political argument that pooling our strength leaves us weaker rather than stronger. In this international context Labour should continue to argue for reform of our global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank in order to secure a stronger system for global economics and build a more equal world.

    British voters stand much to lose if a Tory government were to represent Britain in Europe again. Many of today’s Tories are obsessed by ‘process Europe’ and rarely by ‘policy Europe.’ We understand that Britain is strongest at the heart of Europe.

    Labour has shown strong influence on the international stage. Those who want to tackle our energy and climate policies, to forge a fair way out of the economic crisis, to protect us from threats of terrorism, to continue to build a European economic area of shared prosperity and stable growth, and promote a positive agenda for the developing world know that Labour has delivered and will continue to do so.

    The Tories meanwhile are isolated, alienated and on the wrong side of the argument. Hague’s liberal Conservative approach would result in a disastrous marriage of isolationism and inaction, a policy that leaves Britain vulnerable and alone, and the world a less fair place.

    Labour recognises that the world has changed since the fall of the empires. It is Labour that understands that to achieve for one nation you have to work with others. Labour’s foreign policy is an agenda for a better Britain and a fairer world and that’s a cause well worth fighting for.

    This is an abridged version of the international policy chapter from the Young Fabian report ‘Fast forward: The next generation of progressive politics’

    Brian Duggan and Marie Loewe are, respectively, international officer and equalities officer of the Young Fabians

    On Chilcot, Blair and the “truth”

    Today the Guardian ask, in relation to the Chilcot Inquiry, whether the “real truth” will emerge at last. This, presumably, is distinct from the “false truth” which we have apparently been fed in previous inquiries.

    Never has the saying “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” been more apt than in relation to Iraq-war inquiries, where success appears to be defined purely in relation to the finding of guilt or otherwise of specific individuals.

    There is much to say on Iraq, Chilcot, Blair and the rest. But because they have already done it more eloquently than I could manage, I will quote from two recent web posts on the topic. First, Nick Cohen’s recent column on the Chilcot Inquiry:

    However much [Europeans] loathed Bush and Blair, surely they would have offered unreserved support for Arabs and Kurds struggling to escape totalitarianism…
    …And yet mainstream public opinion has never been interested in offering solidarity to the victims of Ba’athism and Islamism. Instead of talking about what happened to Iraq either before or after the invasion, it has remained stuck in the groove of spring 2003, endlessly scratching the record for a conspiratorial explanation for Britain’s decision to invade…
    …We are now enduring our fifth Iraq inquiry… [Anti-war campaigners] do not seem to know it but if they hold inquiries until the crack of doom, the war’s opponents will never convict [Blair] or the Labour leadership. Their central allegation that the second Iraq war was “illegal” is unsustainable and not only because no competent court has validated it…
    …However vigorously they seek to parse UN resolution 1,441, the use of “illegal” demonstrates that Tony Blair’s lawyerly critics believe that the Ba’athist regime, which was guilty of genocide and under UN sanctions, remained Iraq’s legitimate government, entitled by law to treat the country as its private prison.

    Next, The Economist’s Bagehot, who wrote in a recent blog post:

    THE question whether the Iraq war was legal in international law has never, I confess, been the aspect of the misadventure that most worried me. It always seemed to me that the legality issue was amenable to more subjective interpretation than whether Saddam Hussein had WMD, whether there was proper planning for the post-war occupation or whether a very large number of people have been killed.

    While I admit we have learned some interesting things about the decision making process in relation to the Iraq war from Chilcot, we should not waste the opportunity the Inquiry affords us to learn concrete lessons for the future – whether these processes were sufficient, whether military planning was appropriate, whether sufficient resources were made available once troops were committed etc.

    Sadly, though, I predict two things in relation to the Chilcot Inquiry.

    First, irrespective of what Tony Blair says tomorrow, the headlines for Saturday’s newspapers and accompanying prose have probably already been written.

    Second, if the anti-war campaigners are disappointed by Chilcot’s conclusions following this latest inquiry – if they receive the “false truth” once again – then they will try, and try again until they get the truth they want to hear. The “real truth”.

  • UPDATE: I’ve just been made aware of this Wall Street Journal article by Con Coughlin, the Daily Telegraph’s executive Foreign Editor, which is worth reading ahead of the Guardian piece.
  • Fab 5: Wednesday 27 January 2010

    Your Fab 5 for today:

  • Tom Harris writes about today’s reports that the inequality gap in the UK is at its highest in several decades, focussing on the top end of the income bracket, rather than the bottom.
  • Meanwhile, Zoe Williams, writing for the Guardian, thinks the results of the latest Social Attitudes Survey imply the main legacy of New Labour is that we’re all conservatives now.
  • Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting sets out pollsters’ views on the winning margin the Conservatives are expected to achieve at the next general election.
  • Lib Dem Voice argues that MPs shouldn’t be spending their time debating whether or not Councils should publish their own newspapers.
  • And Chris Dillow argues against Tom Harris’ views on the causes of voter apathy.
  • Anticipations goes to print

    This year I took over the reigns of our quarterly magazine, Anticipations, from Alex Baker. They were big boots to fill. Alex has transformed Anticipations over the past few years, giving it a professional look that could hold its own on any newsstand. 

    Putting the magazine together has been an incredible but challenging task. From securing engaging contributions to designing a professional looking publication, from ensuring that we had strong images to getting it all printed, it has been a steep learning curve to say the least! Last night the magazine went to print and it will be hitting Young Fabian members’ doorsteps at the beginning of February.

    The topic of the edition couldn’t be more current. With many predicting that the next General Election will be the first to be fought online, Anticipations asks ‘Can the Internet Change Politics?’  With contributors including Sarah Brown, Ben Bradshaw MP, Tom Harris MP, LabourList’s Alex Smith and many others – including a good number of Young Fabian members – it should be a really interesting read.

    We’re always looking for new ways to make Anticipations even better. If you have any ideas for new features, topics or contributors please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

    I hope you enjoy the magazine!

    Fab 5: Tuesday 26 January 2010

    Five articles you may want to read today:

  • GDP figures released today show the UK is technically out of recession. The BBC’s Economics Editor, Stephanie Flanders, provides the IMF’s take on UK growth prospects. Will Straw of Left Foot Forward highlights rising GDP per capita since 1997, and a new campaign to end the “fixation” with economic growth.
  • PPC Liz Kendall, writing for Progress, gives her views on Cameron’s “social recession” remarks from the front line.
  • Luke Akehurst ponders, amid the ongoing Chilcot enquiry, about the legality of wars.
  • Finally, The Economist’s Charlemagne wonders why Baroness Ashton took the new EU Foreign Policy portfolio given the increasing volume of briefings against her.
  • Fab 5: Monday 26 January 2010

    Your Fab 5 for today:

  • David Cameron’s “social recession” jibe has prompted a leader from the FT criticising aspects of Tory tax policy. Meanwhile, The Economist’s Bagehot contrasts the leaders of the two main parties.
  • Meanwhile Chris Dillow has four questions for George Osborne.
  • Alexandra Kemp argues on Labourlist that extending free school meals could reduce child poverty by 50,000
  • Finally, Charlie Brooker believes everything tastes better covered in Cadburys.


  • Copyright © 2004–2009. All rights reserved.

    RSS Feed. This blog is proudly powered by Wordpress and is derived from Modern Clix, a theme by Rodrigo Galindez.