Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

A Clegg-Cam deal could consign the Lib Dems to history

Monday, May 10th, 2010

Clegg-eronWith it looking more and more likely with each passing hour that the Liberal Democrats will do a deal with the Conservatives, huge opportunities have opened up for the Labour Party – opportunities which if seized could propel us back into power in a matter of months.

The Fabian Society has today published a briefing paper outlining the potential for a revitalised Labour party to take full advantage of the discord, disillusionment and downright anger amongt Liberal Democrat voters – many of them Labour supporters who switched tactically – and win a second election within the year, in the event of a highly unstable Lib-Con alliance falling.

The reasearch shows that 18 of the Lib Dems’ 57 seats are prey to a Labour surge were just one in four Lib Dem voters to switch. If one in ten switch, the most achievable aim, eight seats will fall – Norwich South, Bradford East, Brent Central, Manchester Withington, Dumbartonshire East, Birmingham Yardley and Edinburgh West.

The Liberal Democrats are also vulnerable in Lib-Con marginals. In the south west of England, where 13 of the Lib Dems’ 57 MPs were returned, the Tories finished second in all but one of those contests. A swing of only 2.5 per cent from the Lib Dems to Labour would see the Tories take six of those seats, with a swing of 5 per cent resulting in the Lib Dems losing all but two of their seats in the region.

As I argued on these pages two weeks ago, it just doesn’t make sense for the Liberal Democrats to join forces with the Conservatives. On a whole range of policy issues, from Europe to equality, from climate change to the economy, in opposition to fox hunting and the Tories’ regressive inheritance and marriage tax plans, the Lib Dems are much much closer to Labour than they are Tory, their activists and those who voted tactically even more so.

But it is on electoral reform that they are most at odds with the Conservatives. As the graph below illustrates, the Liberals were even more screwed by the first-past-the-post system this time than in each of the past three elections, losing five seats in return for an increase in their vote of nearly 850,000:

Difference-between-votes-and-seats-1945-2010

The ball now firmly in his court, wooed by everyone, the world at his feet, it’s the moment he’s waited his whole life for, but in his haste for power, and his desire to “do the right thing” – even though he’d be doing nothing of the sort – could Nick Clegg be opening his side up for attack from left and right, and from within, and in so doing signing his own political death warrant and consigning his party to another 90 years in the wilderness.

It’s high stakes poker with the dice loaded in his favour; the question is, will he roll ’em or be rolled?

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

A reminder of what this election is all about

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Yesterday all three party leaders attended the Citizens UK May Day assembly. The biggest meeting of the General Election campaign, it is testament to the power of community organising to influence the decision making process. The meeting was attended by 2,500 people from 160 community organisations including churches, mosques, synagogues and trade unions.

I was fortunate enough to visit a Citizens UK meeting a few months ago. I had become interested in community organising following my time on the Young Fabians trip to Ohio for the Obama campaign. Barack Obama had been a community organiser in Chicago before running for the presidency and had talked on many occasions about the role that it can play in engaging communities in the issues that affect their lives.

At that meeting I was struck by just how powerful community organising can be. The room was rammed full of residents, passionate about bringing about change in their local communities. I met Muslims, Jews, Christians, Trade Unionists and many others. Few belonged to a political party but all were deeply involved in politics.

The Citizens UK assembly serves as a pertinent reminder of what this election is all about. In recent weeks there’s been a great deal of talk about which party is up and which party is down. But this election isn’t about the parties. It’s about the people. With polling day now on the horizon it’s important to remember that.

James Green is Anticipations Editor and Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Cheltenham. He blogs at www.jamesgreen.org.uk.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Vote for substance. Vote Labour.

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

As we enter the final two weeks of the General Election campaign all is still to play for.

Labour were the underdogs at the start. Now, following the Leader’s Debates, all bets are off. We are in unchartered waters. The only thing that’s certain is that this will be a transformative General Election.

Labour have been talking about the big issues from the outset and that is what we must continue to do. The twin crises of MPs’ expenses and the credit crunch provide the backdrop for this General Election campaign. People want substance not spin. They want practical measures to fix our broken politics and bold action to secure the economic recovery. Rarely has the outcome of an election been so important.

Labour are on the right side of these arguments. On political reform we are have pledged in our manifesto to hold a referendum on changing the voting system. This could herald the most substantial reform to Britain’s electoral system since women got the vote. On the same day we’ll hold a referendum on a fully elected House of Lords. My view is simple – if people make our laws they should be elected. And we’ll set up a Royal Commission to lead the way to a written constitution. People demand more than soundbites when it comes to constitutional reform. Labour’s manifesto is rammed full of substantial policies.

Yet, despite their rhetoric, on all these issues the Tories fall short. They talk about giving people greater power but refuse to back Labour’s plans to change the voting system. They talk about being progressive but blocked Labour’s efforts to remove the final hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Gordon Brown put it best when he said “the future will be progressive or conservative, but it will not be both.”

And on the great challenge of our time, securing the economic recovery, the Tories would put the long-term future of Britain’s economy at risk. The growth figures released last week showed that, while we are coming out of recession, the recovery is still fragile. If we make the wrong decisions and cut too early, as the Tories would have us do, we could risk falling into a double dip recession. Yet the Tories promise a new tax giveaway seemingly every week. Taking £6 billion out of the economy in National Insurance is the wrong thing to do. As is giving a £200,000 tax cut to the country’s 3,000 richest estates. The Tories priorities aren’t Britain’s priorities.

The decisions that are made in the next Parliament will shape life in Cheltenham and across the country for a generation. We need to make the right calls. The Tories were wrong on the recession and they are wrong on the recovery. They were wrong on the causes of our broken political system and they are wrong about how to fix it.

There is a real choice at this election. Vote for substance. Vote Labour.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Liberals would be mad to coalition with the Consevatives

Saturday, April 24th, 2010

Nick-Clegg-Sky-debateAs the Liberal Democrats maintain their rating in the polls, with Nick Clegg flying high having lived up to heightened expectations in the second leaders’ debate on Thursday night, attention has inevitably, even more so than last weekend, turned to the question of who the Lib Dems would join forces with in the event of a hung parliament.

So what is new, what have we learnt in the past seven days that we didn’t know before, and where does this leave Nick Clegg and his party, whose approval he must gain were he to enter into government – 75 per cent of Lib Dem MPs AND 75 per cent of the federal executive OR two thirds of delegates to a special conference OR 50 per cent of the entire membership – the so-called “triple lock” which could take months to pick.

But I digress; assuming the general election results in a hung parliament, who should the Liberal Democrats join forces with? Well, of course you’d expect me to say Labour, and so I will – Labour makes sense not just for us (obviously), but for the Liberals themselves. On some of the key dividing lines, they are much closer to Labour than they ever will be to the Conservatives: on Europe, climate change, equality, the Tory flagship marriage and inheritance tax plans and on the biggest issue of all – the economy.

Ken Clarke, in an interview with the Telegraph, has today revealed for the first time that the Conservative Party was drawing up plans for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The shadow business secretary said:

“Our starting point would be to say to the other two parties ‘you know you have got to control the deficit and debt’, and have a plan our creditors believe for getting rid of the structural deficit over the next parliament. If they just sit there and say ‘that’s just your party platform’, my own view is that the economic consequences of abandoning that would be catastrophic.

“The core problem is the debt and the deficit, and the Conservatives have been the most consistently sensible on that. I don’t think it would be in the national interest to resile from that… You’ve got to ask yourself, would either of the other parties be prepared to do that?”

Well, there you have it, leaving aside the Tory leadership’s – and even more so the Tory membership’s – regressive hostility toward Europe, tackling climate change and gay, gender and race equality, on the economy, their plans to withdraw £6 billion from the economy and start slashing public sector jobs (see last night’s Jeremy Paxman interview with David Cameron for more), there will be no compromise.

On the Liberals’ other key platform, their raison d’être in many people’s eyes, constitutional reform and a change to the voting system, it would be utterly incomprehensible for them to do a deal with the Conservatives. The Tories, though, have been panicked into announcing some reform measures – but there are no plans to change the way MPs are elected. The BBC website has more:

“The Tories would not allow an unelected prime minister to hold office for longer than six months, David Cameron is to announce in a speech [today]. Their policy would force a new prime minister without a mandate to hold a general election.

“Mr Cameron will say that three of the last five prime ministers, including Mr Brown, have been unelected, but that Tory John Major won his own mandate after taking up the position. He will also outline plans to select parliamentary candidates through postal primaries.”

The plan for primaries is indeed progressive, the presidentialisation of the office of prime minister less so – we elect parties not prime ministers in Britain, and it is for the party most able to form an administration to decide who the prime minister should be. The party’s mandate is already there; Gordon Brown’s mandate came from the 2005 general election, which Labour won, by 66 seats.

As the graphs below show, since the war, the Liberals have suffered the most from the current first past the post system, Labour and the Conservatives benefitting greatly:

Liberal-post-war-election-results

Labour-post-war-election-results

Conservative-post-war-election-results

This is more starkly illustrated in looking at the difference between the percentage of the popular vote each party has received and the proportion of seats in the House of Commons they win:

Difference-between-votes-and-seats

As Jeremy Vine explained on last night’s Ten O’Clock News on BBC One, under the current system, it is possible for a party to finish second in every seat across the land, win more votes than all the other parties combined, get over 50 per cent of the vote, and still end up with no MPs. Fair? I think not.

Under the Tories, with a majority or in coalition, there will be no referendum on electoral reform, no chance for the Liberals to secure a fairer voting system and exert the power their polling figures warrant. Only with Labour can they achieve that fairer future, and realign the left after a centruy in which the right has dominated; better together than apart, for the many, not the few.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Just what is Liberal Conservatism?

Monday, April 19th, 2010

This week is set to be the International week of the 2010 Election campaign. So in theory, we should all understand a little more of what William Hague’s Liberal Conservatism is all about. Ahead of the week I’ve just read the Tory manifesto International affairs section and am still puzzled. I’m hoping, but not expecting a little more clarity during the week.

Rightly, the manifesto identifies that more than ever the interests of nation states are interconnected, economically and politically.  But the policy solutions still seem ideologically unclear and unsound.   

While the answers to Britain’s domestic challenges are met with a shrink-state response, the manifesto calls for “a concerted response from the state” in its international chapter.

There also seems to be a glaring contradiction in Conservative policy to the European single currency, varying between forthright hostility to a guarantee for the public to have their say:

a Conservative government would never take the UK into the euro.”

And later “We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.”

Now, I’m not advocating that now is the right time to join the Euro, but a manifesto is always the right time to be clear what your position is.

The document is unclear of what One World Conservatism is or what Liberal Conservatism would achieve. But from the Tories foreign policy record, I don’t relish the prospect of these ideologies guiding British foreign policy.

Let’s not forget these things as we move into the international week of this election David Cameron went on a free trip to South Africa, funded by a lobbying group founded by a former member of the South African military intelligence to bust sanctions against South Africa. Let’s also not forget that when Labour took office our international aid budget was in decline and we where losing a beef war with Europe. And today in the European Parliament, the Tories lose more legislative proposals than the Liberals, Greens and Communists because of Hague and Cameron’s self-imposed exile from the mainstream grouping.

In the week ahead let’s continue to take a long hard look at the Tories and ask Cameron and Hague, just what is your vision for Britain in the world and where would we be if we took your advice?

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Labour kicks off the Manifesto race

Monday, April 12th, 2010

I don’t know about you but elections always seem more real when the manifestos are published. This week we’ll finally get a chance to see the concrete pledges that each of the parties are staking their political futures on.

Labour has been first out of the gate with today’s manifesto launch in Birmingham. Labour had decided to have well known Labour blogger and supporter Ellie Gellard (a.k.a @Bevaniteellie) introduce the event by telling people about the series of short cartoons that had been created to spread the word about Labour’s manifesto.

It’s good to see Labour catering for busy people who want to get a sense of what Labour’s offering without having to read the full 76 page manifesto.

Although we’ve seen party political broadcasts before, Labour launched theirs very recently:

The idea of explaining and sharing policies through videos which people can pass on to their friends and family is actually quite nifty and certainly means the party is serious about making this election all about ‘word of mouth‘.

Still, if people do take a moment to browse the manifesto proper they’ll see a range of policies looking to tackle the big issues that still face our society:

  • Banking and Financial Services: A People’s Bank at the Post Office; a Universal Service Obligation on banks to serve every community; a clampdown on interest rates for doorstep and payday loans.
  • Cancer care: Legally binding guarantees for patients including the right to cancer test results within one week of referral, and a maximum 18 weeks’ wait for treatment or the offer of going private.
  • Parental work life balance: More help for parents to balance work and family life, with a ‘Father’s Month’ of flexible paid leave.
  • Democratic reform: Referenda, held on the same day, for moving 41. to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.
So far I’ve seen Philip Stephens from the FT say that Labour’s manifesto shows that it has “rediscovered its faith in social democracy” and Michael White calling Brown’s performance “pretty fluent and credible“.
But the real test will be how it stacks up against the other parties. Over the coming days and weeks I’ll be looking these national pledges, and trying to compare them with the Tories (tomorrow)  and Lib Dems (Wednesday).
We’ll be joining Labour youth groups in London to watch and debate the first of the Leaders’ debates this Thursday at Bar Soho from 18:00. See here for details.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Pledge Card Launches #labpledge

Saturday, March 27th, 2010
Launching Labour’s new Pledge Card in Nottingham this morning, Gordon Brown set out some radical ideas which offer a taster of what’s to come in Labour’s Election 2010 Manifesto.
Focussing on a ‘contract with citizens’ Gordon Brown introduced Labour activists to the five pledges:
  • Secure the recovery
  • Raise family living standards
  • Build a high tech economy
  • Protect frontline services
  • Stregthen fairness in communities
GB talked about the need for delivery against these pledges and set out how Labour would manage this through the civil service manchinery.
New contracts between Cabinet Ministers and the PM; performance management of senior civil servants by the Cabinet Secretary; and an open source tool for citizens to monitor the Government progress in delivering change which will be accessible to everyone.
The most exiciting part of the speech for me was GB’s call to arms… ‘We are the greatest force for fairness that this country has ever seen’. This will remind activists who are out on the doorstep this weekend why they are campagining for a fourth Labour term.
The changes that people have seen around them in their own communities over the last decade, from schools and hospitals and better services for vulnerable families are a constant reminder of the force for change that a progressive government can be. Gordon’s message today is by voting Conservative at this difficult economic corssroads, this will all be put a risk.
What do you think? Are you out campaigning today and have you used Labour’s new pledge card on the doorstep? Why no blog about it on our campaigner diary?

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Harassment of disabled people is a scourge on society and a key challenge

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010


I was recently at a social care event when I was reminded of the horrific murder of Steve Hoskin, a Cornish man with learning disabilities. Having dealt with loneliness and isolation he befriended a couple who tormented him, eventually forcing him to take his own life by jumping off a bridge. A few weeks later I read that a man in Manchester , David Askew, also with learning disabilties had died of a heart attack after confronting people who were harassing him on his doorstep. He had suffered 17 years of abuse. This was also on the back of the case of Fiona Pilkington which gained significant public attention in 2007, as she took her own life and that of her learning disabled daughter after sustaining years of torment.

It was on the back of the Pilkington case that the Equality and Human Rights Commission initiated an inquiry into the safety and security of disabled people. In their research so far, they have concluded that the basic human rights of being able to live free from persecution and torture is denied to many disabled people. This is something that most people would find shocking and equate with oppressive regimes in distant lands as opposed to British Society – but in many cases, for people with mental health problems and learning disablilities in particular, it is an everyday truth.

In defining the key challenges we face to make a more equal society, surely this is a key one. In each of these tragic cases there must have been public servants, local officials and communities who knew of the harassment of these people and thus were in some way complicit in it. As a society we must all take responsibility, not only for turning a blind eye but also, in the case of Steve Hoskin, and certainly many others, being complicit in the isolation which lead him to seek solace in people who intended to manipulate this vulnerability.

What is clear is that a society we still regard disabled people as being intrinsically vulnerable – however these deaths illustrate that their vulnerability is not inherent. It is a function of a society that permits people to prey on those who are the weakest. In the fight for gender equality and against racism there must also be a battle cry for equal dignity and respect for disabled people.

The response to disability hate crime cannot be a return to protectionism, segregation and paternalism however. Instead, we must examine ourselves, our prejudices and behaviours whilst ensuring that disabled people are able to make their own choices and control their lives. And where there are dangers to disabled people and their freedom restricted the Police, Housing and other services must act swiftly to both diagnose and respond to disability hate crime. It is good news that this week the Crown Prosecution Service pledged to identify and prosecute such crimes.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

The best fiver you’ll ever spend!

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

The topic of Anticipations couldn’t be more current. With many predicting that the next General Election will be the first to be fought online, the Young Fabians’ magazine asks ‘Can the Internet Change Politics?’ And fittingly, given the topic, for the first time the magazine is available to read in full online.

Anticipations is usually only available to our members, but along with this exclusive online edition for all our supporters, we are also offering a special rate of membership to celebrate our 50th year – £5 for six months membership. To view the online edition please click here.

By joining the Young Fabians you’ll receive much more than Anticipations. You’ll become a member of the only thinktank in the country run by and for young people. For over fifty years we have been at the forefront of debate on the Left, agitating for change through our pamphlets, magazines and events. You can become part of that rich tradition by joining the Young Fabians today.

What’s more, it only costs a fiver. That’s it. For that price you’ll receive Anticipations, priority booking for our events, as well as invitations to our socials and policy debates. It gets even better. You’ll also receive the Fabian Society’s magazine, Fabian Review, and the latest editions of their excellent policy books and pamphlets. So what are you waiting for? Join the Young Fabians today by clicking here.

Anticipations Online Trial

When the British scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989, few could have anticipated its impact. Twenty years later and few aspects of modern life have been left untouched by its influence. Politics is no exception. As the General Election approaches more and more people are asking – Can the internet change politics? It’s an important debate to be had and one that the current edition of Anticipations explores. With contributors from many of the Left’s most active bloggers, politicians and activists, this edition of Anticipations delves into one of the big political debates of our time.

Contributors include:

  • Sarah Brown
  • Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
  • Kerry McCarthy MP, Labour Party New Media Campaign Spokesperson
  • Tom Harris MP, Member of Parliament for Glasgow South
  • Alex Smith, Editor of Labourlist
  • Will Straw, Editor of Left Foot Forward
  • John Wood, TUC Touchstone blog
  • Jessica Asato, Acting Director of Progress
  • And many more, including a good number of Young Fabian members.

I hope you enjoy the magazine!

James Green

Editor, Anticipations

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Social Care – somebody has to pay

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

Reform of social care, or care and support as it is now known, is high on the Government’s agenda. Everyone is agreed that the current system is failing and with demand set to increase action needs to be taken. However, whilst the consensus seems to be that we need a world class system of care and support, when it comes to how to pay for it politicians are timid, and understandably so when voters are hostile to any increase in tax, be it income or inheritance, yet the money needs to come from somewhere.

What is strange is the public perception that social care is not something we should all be expected to contribute towards. Can you imagine if we took this approach to other areas of public policy? If you’re in your twenties and childless would you argue that you should pay less tax as you have no need of schools, or if you never see a doctor would you argue to withhold your contributions towards the NHS?

We already accept that our taxes pay for many things that we as individuals may never use, but we also value both living in a society where we know such services are available and the knowledge, that should we need healthcare, education, the police and so on, they are there. Why is social care so different? Anyone of us could find ourselves in the position of needing social care at anytime and we need to face up to the reality that someone, somewhere is going to have to pay for that.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon


Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.7.3, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.