Labour and the World: The Rational and the Romantic

Yesterday evening the Young Fabians hosted a round table as part of our Labour in the World Policy Commissions with Labour MEP for London Mary Honeyball. The meeting got a little stuck on the tactics of how Labour talks about Europe, rather than the political direction for Europe. Specifically, the question discussed was: how do pro Europeans make the case for EU membership in a net contributing EU member state?

There seems to be two approaches: the rational and the romantic.

Of the large net contributors to the EU budget, the French and Germans seem to fall on the romantic side, they hold a deep routed historical and ideological commitment to the European project following the aftermath of WW2. However the significant CAP and Structural Funds they share between them bend towards the rational. The Italians have the EU to thank for ridding them of the Lira, another rational argument. But what has Britain got to shout about? And will it be rational facts or romantic ideals that will work to make case for EU membership in any potential future vote on the matter?

During our period in government, departments successively made the case for Britain’s EU membership rationally and dispassionately, dealing with hard-headed facts. We spoke about trade, jobs, market access and a single set of market rules all meaning British companies and jobs are better off with Britain in, even if we pay more to the budget than we get back in hand outs (the rebate included). So our position in effect was (and largely still is) this: we pay more in, but without it, we’d be poorer. So in effect, EU membership is an indirect fiscal benefit to the Treasury and thus UK taxpayers.

So far so rational, but it’s not exactly going to send people rushing to the polling station to cast a yes in any prospective future referenda. So what is?

Do we need instead need to break the issue down to the emotive and evocative, using stories and images backed up by hard-headed facts?

The image that Europe, a continent that had been in conflict for centuries, has been at peace for over half a century is strong but it doesn’t seem as relevant today as in the last century.  But twin that with the rational facts of our inter-dependent trade and we might just have a script.

So to tell a story evocatively, as well as dealing in rational facts, Labour should weave a narrative of Britain needing to stand on the world stage with others and not alone, needing to draw on the resources of others to forge a way forward, needing to help those in their greatest need and a Britain that looks outward not inward and to quote a phrase, looking forward not back.

Brian Duggan is Young Fabian Policy Officer.

You can find out more about the 2011 Young Fabian Policy Commissions by clicking here.

US Focus: Power and Irresponsibility

In the first of a series of member posts on US politics in the run up to the Presidential race next year, Young Fabian member Jonathan Bailey reflects on the current political battle over the US debt ceiling.

“With great power comes great responsibility” is one of those toe-curling American clichés. Watching the Republican tactics on the debt issue you cannot help but think that the right phrase should be “With some power comes great irresponsibility.”

Next week, the Federal government will reach its debt ceiling and without Congressional intervention will likely default. So what we can learn about opposition tactics from this impending disaster?

1) If you are on a bipartisan commission, never miss an opportunity to create division:

11 of the 18 members of the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan commission agreed to $4 trillion in spending cuts, and tax increases worth about half that level. Both sides dug in on principle and the 14 required votes were missed. Right now that 2:1 cuts-to-tax ratio looks pretty attractive even if some of the details do not.

2) If you want to make a name for yourself, re-define radical:

Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget with its ‘privatisation’ of Medicare and tax cuts did not capture mainstream support until Presidential-hopeful Newt Gingrich slammed it as being ‘radical’. Gingrich’s Presidential campaign never recovered , and the Ryan budget became the new Republican orthodoxy.

3) If you’re all opposing the same thing, oppose it harder:

With Paul Ryan ruling out a Presidential run, the other Republican candidates lined up to say ‘I agree with Paul’ before competing on how forcefully they could pledge to vote against an increase to the debt ceiling.

So far Sarah Palin is winning.

4) If your side is compromising, be a hero:

After House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama looked close to agreeing a compromise deal with around 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor jumped in to sink the deal by blocking tax increases. Not content with that superhero move he had the closest thing to a punch-up with the President that the Secret Service would allow.

5) And whatever you do, don’t try to explain the complexities of the situation to the American people:

35% of Americans do not know enough about the debt ceiling issue to know whether it should be increased or not, and most Republicans are borrowing from the climate change debate by denying debt default is a problem. Inaccurate analogies are helpful too; Cameron had his line about ‘fixing the roof’ the Republicans have ‘maxing out your credit card.’

It still seems more likely than not that a deal will be done, but Republican obstructionism will have done significant damage to President Obama. The left is frustrated with his continued lack of fight and his wider policy agenda has been put on hold with the summer recess almost upon us.

Putting the global economy at risk is downright irresponsible, but so far the Republicans seem to be getting away with it.

All politics is global

In this member post, Young Fabian member Debbie Moss reflects on last week’s China-EU Year of Youth roundtable event to which the Young Fabians were invited.

All politics is global.  This was the predominant lesson from last Friday’s roundtable event hosted by the Chinese embassy to celebrate the China-EU Year of Youth.  As one of the speakers commented, out on the door-step we almost invariably campaign on domestic issues.  When faced with questions about jobs and cuts to local services, we seek to explain how Labour would do things differently – cutting more slowly, investing in growth and protecting the most vulnerable.  But in today’s globalised world, our economy, and therefore the prosperity and wellbeing of British people, are inexorably linked with that of other countries.  If Labour is to continue its legacy as the party of internationalism we must integrate this into the narrative we present to voters.

On Friday, our Chinese hosts elaborated on two very welcome, interconnected themes.

First, China’s intention to play its part as a peaceful, responsible member of the international community, promoting trade as well as cultural, educational and other exchanges with Britain and Europe.  Second, China’s desire to be seen to be concerned not solely with increasing its GDP (an image often portrayed in the Western media) but also with social justice, human rights and the environment.

Pre-empting Western concerns about China’s one-party state, lack of democracy and use of capital punishment, officials often repeated that theirs was still a “developing” country, implying at times that China was moving teleologically towards more or less European norms in these areas.  Equally though, we were told that China would chart its own course rather than develop according to any Western programme.  Do China’s leaders believe their country will and/or should one day adopt human rights policies like those in Europe? It was hard to tell.

There are some areas though, on which we already agree.  There was consensus among Chinese officials and young people from across the British political spectrum on the importance of our “partnership for growth” as championed by David Cameron and President Hu Jintau.  Trade is of course a key plank in our bilateral relationship with the world’s second largest economy and solutions to the financial crisis must be as global as the problem.  It was reassuring too though to hear support for the presence of the 100,000 or so Chinese students studying in the UK.  I hope that young Conservatives and Liberal Democrats can play a role in influencing their leaders in Government whose controversial proposals to limit immigration, including student immigration, threaten to undermine the excellence and international standing of our universities.

I could not agree more with Nick Maxwell on the need to foster relations between British and European citizens and their Chinese counterparts.  This plays an essential role, complementary to that of diplomatic exchanges.  Meetings of ministers and ambassadors can achieve many things, but cannot alone facilitate the shared understanding and respect between peoples which our Chinese friends rightly emphasised throughout the event.

The discussion shed light on diverse areas of policy: domestic as well as foreign.  Above all, young British speakers as well as those who identified as Chinese-British spoke of the frustrating lack of Mandarin teaching in our schools.  This resonates for those of us who frequently experience embarrassment when traveling in Europe or around the world, as we realise that our language skills pale in comparison to our hosts, who often converse confidently in English and/or other foreign tongues.   To prepare our young people for the globalised 21st century, surely our education system must do more to prioritise language teaching.

Labour’s current policy review is a unique opportunity for fresh thinking.  Hopefully it will have a strong international element.  The party’s new vision for Britain must take account of our role in an increasingly interconnected global community.

China-EU year of youth: the promise of new foreign policy

On Friday 6 May, as part of the EU-China Year of Youth, the Young Fabians and youth groups from other parties were invited to contribute to a roundtable looking issues from educational links to climate change. Below is a summary of my introductory remarks to the roundtable, speaking about “China and Foreign Policy”

The promise of new foreign policy

There is a promise for a new type of foreign policy, driven by an unprecedented level of shared interests between nations.

The ideal is that UK foreign policy exists to support an environment conducive to sustainable, balanced global growth and stability; and that Chinese foreign policy exists to support an environment conducive to sustainable, balanced global growth and stability.

Across the political spectrum in the UK, there is consensus that we want the promise to prevail.

The financial crisis and the global downturn both demonstrated the extent to which economies, particularly the world’s leading economies are interlinked and interdependent. We are exposed to similar shocks and risks, and preventative action to contain economic risks requires cooperation. We no longer have distinct national interests.

It is important at the outset to recognise China’s achievements. Particularly in terms of poverty alleviation, China’s record of raising urban annual per capita income nine-fold over two decades is unprecedented in human history and raised millions from a life of suffering and squalor.

On the left, we are instinctively international and support the equal treatment and opportunity of human beings. China’s increasing prosperity is the success story of the century for humanity – and long may it continue. There is also much to welcome in the Ambassador’s remarks and the latest five-year economic plan on the environment and social equity.

However, both the EU and China, and indeed other players, need to be vigilant against clear risks to this happy co-existence and shared prosperity. There are three risks that I would like to talk about.

Resources and the return of Malthus

The world is resource constrained. In the UK we sometimes imagine that the globalisation of trade is unstoppable. Resource scarcity in oil, in commodities, in food, and in water – compounded by climate change – has already surfaced and put pressure on our global economic system and free trade. The pressure could mount to encourage countries to break economic links and return to a mercantilist approach to ownership of resources in the world.

State-back Chinese operations focus on securing resources, which can look highly mercantilist, and any draw back from free and open access to resources in a system of global trade will threaten our happy co-existence and the promise of new foreign policy.

The extraordinary growth in world population, expected to reach above 9bn by 2040, will put enormous pressure on the sustainability of our way of life. We should be in no doubt that nations will have to work very very hard not to come into conflict over resources.

China can play its part in building trust and confidence by encouraging transparency in its state backed businesses operating in extractive resources and should work to uphold open economic systems at all times.

Buyout fear

$1 trillion to $2 trillion of Chinese investment is expected to be on the markets by 2020.

We saw with Cadbury how emotive buy-outs can be.

Perceptions that Chinese buyouts are state-backed, unfair and – at worst – compromise on national security could undermine the promise of new foreign and economic policy.

In Europe, we need prepare the ground for Chinese investment in Europe, avoiding protectionism and buyout fear, and embracing new ways of doing business, innovation and investment in our communities.

Again from the Chinese side, there needs to be more effort put into transparency of Chinese companies.

On security, if China ceased to invest so heavily in cyber-military capabilities, it might allay fears over the implications of allowing investment and growth of Chinese high-tech companies in OECD nations. Stop the security hawks playing their games, which undermine Chinese high tech industries – particularly in relation to their Indian counterparts.

Legitimacy, peace and trust

China is not a democracy and its leadership relies on success for legitimacy. When economic success runs dry, history has shown us that authoritarian nations turn to jingoism and militarism to underpin their authority.

The growth of democracy in China will help avoid that terrible fate underpin the promise of cooperative growth and shared prosperity.

Everything should be done to better connect young British leaders in business, politics and civic society to their peers in China to help build understanding and dialogue between the two countries, and help avoid a slip from peaceful development.

A promising century

So it is a promising century for human cooperation, for prosperity – but we shouldn’t be ignorant of the threats to that promise. I think a lot of the choice in which way we will go in this century rests on Chinese foreign policy.

We have heard a lot that we can support from the Ambassador today, and we look to working with you, in the small way that we can, to help achieve the promise of a shared, prosperous and harmonious future.

Nick Maxwell is Fundraising and Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians.

Libya: The End Game

In this member post, Martin Edobor, a member of the Young Fabian Science and Society Network, discusses the current situation in Libya.

In the past few weeks we have seen a wind of change sweep through the Arab nations; a roaring voice calling for change. The first to fall was Ben Ali in Tunisia, and then Mubarak in Egypt and now on the brink is Libya’s Muammar Gadaffi.

Yet despite Tunisia and Egypt’s relatively peaceful uprisings, the Libyan revolution is proving to be both bloody and horrific. More than 200 people have been killed in Benghazi following protest, the use of mercenaries has been reported and a media blackout enforced.

International criticism from the west is intensifying. Gadaffi has defied calls from the world leaders to stand down and halt his act of aggression against the people of Libya. Political leaders in Europe and the US began are beginning to raise the pressure, pushing for a more concrete plan of action against Gaddafi, including a possible no-fly Zone. David Cameron has even talked up the possibility of military intervention. He made the strong statement: “We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets”, echoed by Italy Foreign minister Franco Frattini who has offered their Mediterranean military bases if the plan for military action were to go ahead.

What’s apparent is that there is a stalemate in Libya: a standoff between the rebel army and Gadaffi loyalists. The options being weighed are whether the West should militarily intervene, and support attempts by rebel leaders to oust Gadaffi, or to stand back and indirectly facilitate the current rebel movement (possibly by imposing a no-fly zone), which may risk a bloody and drawn-out revolution.

This is a tricky dilemma, with both options filled with pitfalls and drawbacks. The question now is what will Obama, Cameron and other western leaders choose to do?

Cameron is right to not completely rule out military intervention – when it comes to a tyrant like Gadaffi all options should be kept open. Yet Western leaders should tread carefully, as military intervention carries risk.

This is an Arab revolution, formed from the cries of freedom and the blood of the Libyan people. If the West intervenes militarily the movement may be jeopardised, changing it from revolution to war.

What next for Irish Labour?

In this member post, Young Fabian member Patrick Doyle reflects on the results of last week’s Irish Election, and what it means for Irish Labour.

Despite talk at the end of 2010 about the Irish election creating an opportunity for an unprecedented breakthrough for Labour, the clear winner has been Fine Gael – one of the two traditionally dominant parties. However, Irish Labour have had their most successful electoral showing, and they could be on the verge of a hugely significant decision over their role in the life of the next Dáil.

The most important election since the establishment of the modern Irish state has been one in which Labour emerged with a creditable performance. But, ultimately, one that may not signal a bright long-term future for the party. Undoubtedly Fine Gael have managed to secure their most impressive results since the formation of that party, but one can’t help feeling that the real story is the collapse in support for Fianna Fáil.  With coalition talks under way between Fine Gael and Labour, the latter should be aware of the risks of entering government.

If they accept the offer of power-sharing they will become the junior partner in government.  This is clearly not the first time this situation has arisen in Ireland, but given the context in which the election was held, could set the party back by years. The next Irish government is not going to be a popular one when the extent of their austerity measures becomes clear to the Irish population. Anger at Fianna Fáil is not going to sustain a Fine Gael/Labour coalition for the next few years. (As demonstrated in the UK, it is not always the most significant partner in power who takes the full brunt of public anger.)

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, a Fine Gael/Labour government is likely to resemble a national government given their combined, dominant share of seats in the Dáil.  Despite their poor showing in the poll, Fianna Fáil could present themselves as the main opposition to the new government.  Micheál Martin would quite rightly sense an opportunity to regroup and re-establish his party’s traditional support if presented with such an outcome.

Labour must be aware of what is at stake, but in order for this to mark a true game-changer in Irish politics, they should be bold and reject the offer of government.

Otherwise, the outcome of this general election may merely represent a blip in the Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil consensus that has characterised the political history of the state.

Irish election unlikely to spell end of two-and-a-half party system

This morning, polls opened in Ireland in one of the most hotly-anticipated elections in the history of the State. The coalition, while not a foregone conclusion, will likely have Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny at its head – a situation that seemed less likely some months ago.

Since 1923, all Irish governments have been led either by Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, or their precursor parties. The division between the two parties is historical, rather than ideological, representing the anti- and pro-Treaty sides in the Irish Civil War. Both parties share a broadly centre-right set of policies. The Irish left is divided, with PES sister party Labour likely to become the junior coalition partner to Fine Gael. Sinn Féin is likely to increase its vote share, while the United Left Alliance could conceivably regain Socialist MEP Joe Higgins’ Dáil seat. The Greens are tainted by their association with Fianna Fáil in the last Government; their electoral fortunes look bleak. Furthermore, the already comparatively high number of independent representatives in the Dáil looks set to increase further as disillusionment with the two main parties kicks in.

But from last summer until quite recently, there was serious discussion of the ending of the ‘two-and-a-half-party’ system in Ireland, as the traditionally third-placed Labour stormed ahead in the polls, with its leader Eamon Gilmore the most popular choice for Taoiseach. For the first time, the Labour Party dared to consider the prospect of a Labour-led Government. Tellingly, this slogan has been quietly retired in recent weeks as the election campaign progresses. But what has caused the sudden rush back towards the more traditional Fine Gael?

I would argue that several factors have contributed to the decline of Labour’s poll rating in recent weeks. Firstly, this election is all about the economy. Labour wants to create jobs and stimulate investment, including renegotiating the country’s debt repayments, and may have fallen foul of the mistrust of left-wing parties on economic issues.

Secondly, it is commonly expected that the traditional voting behaviour where families still support FF or FG would break down as the generations move further away from Civil War divisions. However, Irish citizens abroad are unable to vote. Ballotbox.ie estimates that there are 3.1 million voters in Ireland, with a further 800,000 abroad who are disenfranchised. As young unemployed graduates emigrate, the progressive vote may be going with them.

Thirdly, Labour as a socially progressive party has been subject to dirty-tricks campaigning in recent weeks. Labour is the only party with a pro-choice policy in a country where abortion remains illegal. The Guardian reports negative campaigning against Labour from anti-abortion groups in recent weeks. Labour also supports holding a referendum on extending full marriage rights to gay couples – a divisive issue in often socially-conservative Ireland.

Fine Gael are unlikely to take the 83 seats needed to go it alone in Government today. The electoral mathematics make a coalition with Labour the most likely, but not the only possibility. In a coalition dominated by Fine Gael, Labour will face an uphill struggle in Government.

Christine Quigley is Equalities Officer of the Young Fabians.

The Perpetual Crisis in British EU Membership

Across Brussels and in its member states, rarely is there debate on the EU, its institutions and their popularity (or lack of) and the word crisis doesn’t enter the conversation.

Putting aside for a moment, the various international crises that the EU institutions and its member states are engaged in, from the economic crisis, the North African and Middle East crisis and climate change, a perpetual crisis of confidence afflicts this trans-national political structure. And of all the EU member states, Britain seems the most troubled by its membership of the EU.

So this weekend the Fabian Society gathered voices ranging from Shirley Williams to a UKIP MEP to interrogate this continued crisis in confidence of British membership of the EU, debating the question should we be, ‘In, Out or somewhere in between’?.

Sunder Katwala advocates an In/Out Referenda on EU Membership to ‘force the question’ and thus ‘lance the boil’ and bring about a reconciliation of public opinion and the views of the pro European ‘political class’.

But would a yes vote, lance the boil? Would the reluctant British, on a poor turnout with a potential marginal win for the yes campaign suddenly feel a sense of reconciliation with Brussels? I doubt it.  

Historically, it’s worth remembering that Britain has always been a reluctant political European but enthusiastically economic Europeans. It is also worth acknowledging that with the increased politicisation of the EU, the debates in Brussels are less about whether one nation is winning over another, but more about how the European left is struggling to articulate itself.

The political right is in control at European level, in all major institutions, establishing fiscal retrenchment, and rolling back public spending with a knock on to earnings and living standards across Europe. Couple this with the continued liberalisation of labour markets and the centre right’s view of what to use the EU for is certainly in triumph. It’s the European left which is in crisis.

If the European left fails to articulate how to use the EU institutions to achieve our political objectives, then the continued alienation of our voters from EU institutions can be expected.

For voters economic stability and state confidence matters but so too does confidence in the political process and the institutions. What exists in Britain is a crisis of confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve our collective problems and a perception that the EU institutions serve the elites and not the many.

For the left to emerge from the doldrums and to tackle Euro scepticism head on, we need not to be defending the EU for its own sake, but to set out our vision for what we would do with its power under our leadership.

There is undoubtedly a crisis of trust in the EU and in public policy, which afflicts the left harder than the right. The calls for a British referendum on EU membership are symptomatic of distrust in politics and an information deficiency.

So would a referendum on EU membership resolve British tension on EU membership? Will it lance the boil? No. The crisis is much wider than that.

It’s a crisis of confidence in the ability of democratic institutions to solve a crisis in capitalism.  

For the left to renew, we need to set out a credible plan for regaining the confidence and legitimacy of our voters in our ability to set the political institutions at work in serving their needs.

Cameron & Clegg: Fiddling while Egypt burns?

As the world waits to see how events in Egypt unfold, we are all holding our breath. Egyptian cities remain tinderboxes ready to go up should the tug of war between democracy and autocracy go the wrong way. During the last 17 days, David Cameron and other western leaders have done nothing, simply hoping for the best while doing their upmost to ignore the gigantic white elephant in the room: their pro-autocrat policies.

The New York Times has pointed out that Cameron, Clegg and others “badly miscalculated” when endorsing Omar Suleiman to lead the transition to democracy. It should come as no shock that he is trying to retain as much power for the Mubarak regime as possible: he is a Mubarak man man. What really gets me though is the hypocrisy of western leaders.

As the Mubarak administration looks set to fall and stay fallen, we are now hearing endless western ministers denouncing the Mubarak regime. This is as should be. But why are they only speaking up now? Of course, there are issues of real politik and regional stability but western governments have gone far further than simply providing the military aid that is the necessary grubby lubricant of international diplomacy. They have lent Mubarak legitimacy.

They have allowed his henchmen to contaminate some of the highest international offices. Remember Boutros Boutros- Ghali? How did he rise to be the 6th Director General of the UN? After a career dedicated to serving Egyptian despots, including ten years as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs under Hosni Mubarak.

It strikes me as deeply worrying that liberal western governments were willing to be led by a man who owes his career to a corrupt, murderous authoritarian leader.

We also now hear of moves the Swiss government are making regarding the freezing of Mubarak bank accounts. Figures range widely but it clear the man has squirreled away many billions…BILLIONS…of the Egyptian people’s money over his twenty year rule.

Swiss bankers knew about this. America knew about this. Cameron and Clegg knew about this. Why only speak up now? Surely, there has to be a better way to achieve our regional aims than pandering to men such as Mubarak?

Earlier this week, the White House denounced Suleiman’s statement that “the [Egyptian] people are not ready for democracy”. They called it “particularly unhelpful”. What I find particular unhelpful is the excessive hypocrisy of western leaders when it comes to upholding liberal values.

The recent events in Egypt and Cameron’s depressingly accommodating stance brought back memories of Augusto Pinochet popping across to England to visit his good friend Margret Thatcher.

Western Governments should not engage in this way with tyrants that suppress and murder their own people. Cameron and Clegg should stop fiddling at the margins and start protecting the liberal values us Brits hold dear.

Daniel Bamford is the Young Fabian Networks Officer.

World Human Rights Day

You may not know it, but today (10^th December) is World Human Rights Day. Coinciding the with the day that Liu Xiaobo fails to collect his Nobel Peace Prize, awarded for his tireless efforts to promote greater respect for human rights in China, this year’s celebration is a good time to reflect on the billions of people worldwide for whom the very concept of ‘human rights’ must seem like a meaningless abstraction.

I recently returned from Bangladesh, where I spent four days visiting projects supported by UK charity One World Action. Among other things, One World Action works with local NGO Nagorik Uddyog to promote the rights of the 5.5 million Dalits currently living in Bangladesh. Dalits (often referred to as ‘Untouchables’) represent the lowest castes in the traditional Hindu hierarchy, historically engaged in trades and occupations that are considered ‘unclean’ such as sweeping, cobbling, disposing of dead bodies and manual scavenging (a euphemism for sewerage work). In an endemically poor country, these people are the poorest of the poor; Socially, economically and politically marginalised, Dalits are routinely denied even their most basic rights, ignored in public and despised in private.

The plight of Dalits living in India is well documented, having been brought to light by Ghandi as early as the 1930s. However, as most of the Dalits living in Bangladesh were brought in from India under the colonial regime, the majority-Muslim society has until recently regarded caste-based exclusion as an ‘Indian problem’ that does not concern Bangladesh, or at least a ‘Hindu problem’ that does not concern the vast majority of Bangladeshi society.

In the two days I spent visiting Dalit communities in and around Dhaka, the idea that Dalit exclusion is not a Bangladeshi problem became patently ridiculous.

Most Dalits in Dhaka live in so-called ‘colonies’, physically demarcated areas squeezed into the most crowded parts of the city. The entrance of the first colony I enter is marked by a discreet arch, covering a tiny alleyway which leads into a maze of narrow streets beyond. Like Platform 9¾, you would not know it was there unless you were shown. Hidden away like this the colony seems to physically embody the marginalisation and exclusion of its inhabitants; out of sight, out of mind. Our driver Mintu had no idea such areas of town existed and was visibly taken aback by what we saw.

The first thing that hits you in the confusion of smells; open sewers mixed with frying spices and fresh laundry hung over the already crowded alleys, creating a kind of bunting of colourful dripping clothes. Then the inhabitants- not only the dozens of children that we gather as we walk around, but the thousands of flies that make the colony their home. As we tour round a maze of streets we see houses which are no more than small rooms, often home to families of eight people or more. We see the temples and community halls that provide the only large spaces for the community gather. We walk past the toilet block, an open space for showering with no separate areas for men and women, meaning people are forced to wash over their saris and lungis, denied even the privacy of their morning ablutions. The shared WCs are so few in number that they attract an even greater density of flies, gut-churning smells and angry queues of people.

But among the chaos and the squalor you also get a keen sense of a community increasingly aware of its rights and increasingly able and willing to fight for them. I met young women who were studying for college degrees, and who had chosen, rather than escaping their roots, to come back into the community to teach and lead. I met mothers who had started women’s groups, providing the training, support and loans necessary to earn extra income and provide alternative occupations outside the traditional Dalit trades. And I met men and women who through groups such as Bangladesh Dalit Human Rights were advocating at the city and national levels to tackle Dalit exclusion, improve conditions and promote new laws to protect the human rights of all marginalised communities.

A rally organised by BDERM (Bangladeshi Dalit and Excluded Rights Movement) on my fourth and final day in Dhaka demonstrated just how far the movement has come in a few short years. Cars hooted their horns and cycle rickshaws rang their bells in solidarity as Dalit protesters marched past the National Museum proudly holding signs bearing a slogan that is hard to argue with: ‘Dalit Rights are Human Rights.’ As we marched with the crowd I looked to my left and saw that our driver Mintu had joined the protest, the newest convert to a growing movement.