Labour kicks off the Manifesto race

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.

Pledge Card Launches #labpledge

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

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.

The best fiver you’ll ever spend!

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

Social Care – somebody has to pay

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.

Never mind the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 could scuttle any prosecution

With all the talk in the media being of the “expenses 3″ – David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley – being able to avoid a criminal trial by asserting parliamentary privilege under the 17th-century English Bill of Rights, the importance of the more recent Contempt of Court Act appears to have been overlooked.

In their rush to judgement, several politicians and journalists have failed to heed the advice of Keir Starmer when the Director of Public Prosecutions announced the charges against the three Labour MPs and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield:

“Can I remind all concerned that the four individuals now stand charged of criminal offences and they each have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice any of these trials.”

Put simply, it means that nothing that is published once a case is active, from the point at which a suspect is charged, should in any way be seen to prejudice a future trial.

The Act states that:

“conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so”

And applies to any publication

“which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”

As Harriet Harman put it when discussing David Cameron’s latest outburst:

“He’s got to be very careful what he says or his comments might actually jeopardise the trial and nobody wants to see that happen.”

If, for all the arguments about privilege, the case does make it to court only to be thrown out because the defendants could not be assured a fair trial, those like Mr Cameron who seek easy headlines today will only have themselves to blame tomorrow.

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”.

Evening at the movies

Just got back from tonight’s 1st Film Club, tired but contented.  Obviously not as happy as the person who won the copy of This is England that we raffled after the screening.

Whilst the violence is appalling and the racism shocking, that film has a great soundtrack. (Well the girls who’d just handed in their essays had a good dance anyways…)

And Sam Tarry, who introduced this evening’s movie rightly pointed out that today’s BNP are still trying to peddle the same rubbish they were in the 80s in which the movie takes place. Stolen jobs, alien cultures and worthless wars.

For those that haven’t seen Hope not Hate’s campaign centre in East London, it is shaping up to be a vibrant hub for action and reminds me of the campaign offices we saw out in Ohio in 2008. We’ll have to plan a visit soon…

Pleasantly surprised the number of people asking what film we’re going to be screening next. Anyone got any favourite movies they think we need on the list?

Fab 5: Tuesday 19 January 2010

Here’s your Fab 5 for today:

Fab 5: Monday 18 January 2010

Here are our selection of five articles and posts we recommend reading today:

Technical issues prevented us from bringing you Fab 5 for much of last week. Apologies.