Labour Women’s Conference – what women want

The Labour Women’s Conference in Liverpool today is its own justification. Numerous people over the past few weeks, within the opposition and media, and disappointingly within the Labour Party itself, have queried the need for a separate women’s event. If women want to be mainstreamed, isn’t the best way to do that to make their views heard within the framework of the mainstream party conference?

But the discussions today have amply demonstrated the need for a dedicated space for women in the Labour movement to discuss the serious issues facing us in Britain today. This is more necessary than ever during the current cuts, with women suffering disproportionately as both public service users and as public sector workers.

Yvette Cooper in her rousing keynote speech, and Fiona Mctaggart and others in the subsequent panels, highlighted just how badly women are doing under the Coalition government, and how the gains made through the hard work of women in the Labour movement over the past 60 years are being threatened and undone across the board.

As Angela Eagle MP put it “this government has a problem with women.” Well, we have a problem with this government.

Hard-won rights and services are being undone by a government that has just four women in its Cabinet, and that – as a recent leaked memo revealed – canvassed women’s opinions not through serious consultation and representation but by rounding up the few women in Number 10 for a brainstorm of ‘what women want’.

If we’d been asked we could have easily told the Coalition.

What women want is the ability to work and raise a family, or to do just one of these, without being vilified or disadvantaged.  What women want is the right not to be raped, stalked or harassed at work and to be able to prosecute successfully if they are. What women want is fair representation in public life.

And what we need is the support and encouragement of the Party- and the right to self-organise in women forums and yes, at Labour Women Conferences – until such a time as what we want becomes a reality.

Claire Leigh is Treasurer of the Young Fabians

Future of Finance Perspective: Why we must never allow Westminster to turn into Washington

In her first column for the Young Fabian Blog, Young Fabian Future of Finance Network member Gillian Econopouly writes about the the US debt ceiling crisis and argues that British politics needs to avoid the toxic political discourse which has enveloped US politics.

This weekend, America woke up to the news that its seemingly infallible triple-A credit rating had been downgraded, as ratings agency Standard & Poors’ made good on warnings that wrangling over the US debt ceiling could have serious consequences for the country’s finances.

Whilst blame has been attributed to both parties, from both within and without, fascinated UK observers watched as moderate US Republicans struggled to bring the fulcrum of power within their party back to the centre ground and away from the now-infamous ‘Tea Party’ activists. This time, they seem to have failed in their efforts, even if the party won the day on the debt concessions.

Whilst Labour Party supporters (and let’’s be honest, many Conservatives and Liberals too) who hope to see a second Obama victory will welcome the electoral opportunity created by such internal division on the right, what has happened in the past weeks and months is actually incredibly damaging.

News reports have focused mainly on the embarrassment of the debacle to the US, as the country was chided by China for its irresponsible behaviour. This makes for excellent geo-political drama, to be sure, but the real cost as usual is to those already hit hard by the recession. Americans who have found their way back into work after the economic crisis will fear for the security of their jobs, whilst those still seeking paid work will continue to face an uphill battle. Even taking into account the cuts to public services in the UK, the social safety net for Americans remains much less developed, meaning poor parents will struggle to put food on the table and access health care for their children.

The Tea Party is not the only culprit in this saga, but it has a lot to answer for. The group ascribes to a political philosophy which is not only knee-jerk and divisive, but also seems to reject informed debate and instead rely on a folksy defiance against tax and government involvement without considering the relative merits of each issue. Critical analysis is rejected, and a values-based rhetoric about freedom and personal choice is being used to lure poorer Americans into basically voting against their own interests.

Whilst we have our own difficulties with fringe parties in the UK, we must never let what happened in Washington come to Westminster. Not just the downgrading of our credit rating (although that too would be damaging). But the lowering of political debate to a level so toxic and unproductive that we lose sight of the people who rely on policymakers from both parties to use intellect, information, judgment and yes, compromise, to make the decisions that the country needs.

In opposition, the Labour party has a responsibility to avoid the temptation of low-brow politics and instead focus on creating informed debate, undertaking considered critique, and putting forward real solutions and alternatives.

Our democracy demands it, and ultimately, voters will respect it.

You can find out more about the Young Fabian Future of Finance Network by clicking here.

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.

Reviving the Fabians: What the new General Secretary must do

The selection of a new General Secretary is an important juncture for the Fabian Society. It is a chance to revisit our purpose and vision, refresh the way we do things and re-fit the organisation to the changing context in which it operates.

But for this opportunity to be fully realised, Andrew Harrop, who has been recently appointed as the Society’s new General Secretary, needs to be clear about the severity and nature of the challenges that we face.

We exist in a world in which many people have given up on politics, in which the social equality which the Society was founded to promote is facing its biggest onslaught for a generation, and in which Labour appears powerless against a Coalition Government which is both more radical and politically more stable than anyone thought possible a year ago. At the same time, the Society risks being marginalised as the labour movement seeks to rebuild, cast as a fuddy-duddy irrelevance that cannot provide the kind of transformative ideas the party needs.

More immediate crises – the precarious finances of the organisation, for example – need to be addressed as part of a much more fundamental stock-take that asks what the Fabian Society is for, where we want to get to and how we need to change in order to get there.

Over the next three years the Fabian Society needs to rediscover its ‘USP’ – its strengths and the things that set it apart – and then build on it. We are never going to be all things to all people. We need to know who we are and then endeavour to be really excellent at it. Our three unique characteristics also represent three important opportunities: our membership, our substance, and our independence.

Member-led

First and foremost the Society is a members-led organisation. But this needs to become something we actually do/live/breath rather than just say. Our members have a wealth of talents – specialist knowledge and skills, networks that extend far beyond the society’s reach, access to the movement outside London – and need to be given far more opportunities to use them.

We need to grow our membership across three dimensions: (1) by recruiting more members in absolute terms, (2) by diversifying our membership across age, location, gender and ethnicity and (3) by empowering members to engage more deeply with the Society and its activities.

Becoming a truly ‘members-led organisation’ is not only a way to have a greater influence and to draw on the creativity, energy and ideas of a greater number, it is also the smart way to expand Society activities at low cost. In other words we need ‘less top, more bottom.’ By capitalising on our greatest untapped asset the Society would at the same time demonstrate how the Fabian Society is not diametrically opposed to the Blue Labour/community organising zeitgeist, but rather can play a part in realising the vision of a revitalised grassroots movement.

Intellectually Substantial

Secondly, the Fabian Society is substantial and intellectual, and should be unashamedly so. Rather than combating accusations of wonkish irrelevance by dumbing down or taking a more populist approach, we should recognise that substance and new ideas is what the movement is crying out for, and the Fabian Society is better placed than anyone to provide it.

It is precisely our ability to offer big, singular new directions and ideas that will prevent us from becoming marginal or irrelevant. It is for this same reason that we should fight the urge to take a scattergun approach to our published outputs, events and media presence. Clear themes and substantial projects should continue to be the modus operandi. However, this should not necessitate an exclusive and centralised command and control approach. The Society could do far more to democratise involvement and ‘crowd source’ inputs from its members.

Affiliated but independent

Finally the Society’s USP rests on being affiliated to, but not part of, the Labour Party. This affords us an unequalled level of access to the party leadership and influence over parliamentarians. But it also means that we can be critical, objective and take risks in a way that the party itself is often unwilling or incapable of doing. While the Labour Party was in power the Society had one type of role to play. Now we have entered a period of opposition, another role is demanded of us. We need to rediscover an ‘opposition voice’ that is bolder in its vision for the left and more critical of the Coalition.

So the focus of the new General Secretary should be to help us as a Society rediscover who we are and what makes us unique, and then to focus on becoming really good at it. But there is little time for naval-gazing and time is of the essence. The next three years takes us almost to the next election, meaning internal reform must be front-loaded and efficiently managed.

The best of luck to Andrew as he takes the helm at an important and potentially exciting time in our history as an organisation.

Claire Leigh is Treasurer of the Young Fabians and was shortlisted for the position of Fabian Society General Secretary.

Why Labour’s economic narrative needs to change

In this member post, Young Fabian member Max Krahé argues that Labour should own up to its economic mistakes, or risk losing the argument at the next general election.

In order to win the next general election, Labour must grapple honestly with its economic past. It should highlight its mistakes, and not overstate its achievements. Labour has everything to win from admitting mistakes, and everything to lose from denying them.

This article is not about actual economic analysis and will not dissect Labour’s economic record. It is about taking a step back and looking at narratives that can credibly be constructed. It is concerned with the image of Labour’s economic management, not with the actual record.

Labour got a lot of economic decisions right in government. But attempting to tell a story about ‘Labour’s decade of economic golden years’ is foolish: in the midst of the largest recession since 1929, a narrative of success is unlikely to wash.

The recession started under Labour, and in a sector closely associated with the Labour boom. People who have lost jobs, seen their savings wiped out, or find themselves in negative equity do not care if inflation was under control for the last 10 years. Labour’s economic successes are too far removed from most people’s day to day experience.

Negative stories on the other hand, including of course the Tory ‘deficit denier’ narrative, fall on fertile ground: they effectively exploit a gulf between positive Labour statements, e.g. ‘look at how well we managed the economy’, and people’s daily lives.

As a simplistic positive narrative about the economy is not viable (nor indeed true), what should Labour’s message be? A simple story might be this: Yes, debt was on the high side, and not every pound spent was spent wisely. The deficit was structural.

Nostra culpa, nostra maxima culpa*.

It’s not a line that should be used unprovoked, but could form part of any response to the next round of deficit denial and ‘Labour mess’ allegations.

How might it play out? By accepting the Conservative’s accusations we end the argument about national debt levels, and vacate ground on which the Conservatives are winning. Reducing debt levels is generally perceived as a good thing (as distinct from the narrative of ‘cuts and austerity’). So let’s not talk about debt.

Of course, the Conservatives may continue to attack ‘Labour’s high deficit’. So much the better: criticising a previous government’s policy would make the Conservatives look like an opposition party, undermining claims of being forward-looking and concerned with growth and the future of this country. It would lend support to our rival narrative of the ‘no-vision austerity Tories’.

Compare this with a continued defence of the deficit. In the short term Labour risks looking like a sore loser, and the deficit denier story may sink in for good (dishonesty is probably more damaging than excessive spending).

Even if the Tories eventually stop making ‘deficit denier’ accusations, this would merely freeze the debate. At the next general election expect the Tories to wheel out the same accusations: Labour cannot be trusted on the economy, they are still deficit deniers etc etc. Unless a credible counter-narrative has been established in the meantime, these statements will fall on fertile ground.

So if we don’t settle this debate now, we risk being branded (successfully) as economically incompetent at the next general election. Or we admit to our mistakes at a later time, taking the inevitable hit in the polls closer to the election.

The time to own up is now.

We should not be afraid of buying into the Tory story of the ‘Labour mess’. This will settle the issue, neutralise one of the more potent rhetorical weapons in the Conservative armoury, and will do so with plenty of time to spare before the next elections.

If we do not own up to our mistakes now, we leave ourselves open to Conservative attacks. And doubts about Labour’s competence on the economy are likely to re-surface at rather inconvenient times.

*Admitting to leaving behind a bit of a mess shouldn’t taint Labour as economically incompetent, if managed well. In owning up to the ‘Labour mess’, we regain the credibility needed to argue that 2008 was 1929 but 2009 was not 1930. Yes, debt may have been on the high side, but let’s not miss the wood for all the trees: Labour has prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector; Labour has saved the country from the brink of an economic depression. Maybe it’s ok if we didn’t leave the kitchen spotless in the process?

Introducing our 2011 Policy Commissions

The Young Fabians will soon be launching four Policy Commissions. Our Policy Commissions form the backbone of our policy work and since their inception they have increasingly become strong access points for our members into the policy making process of the Labour Party.

This year we launch the Commissions at a crucial time for Labour. With a thorough examination of party policy under the stewardship of Liam Byrne MP, there is a timely opportunity for our members to take a firm grasp of the chance to offer Labour our ideas on the party’s policy renewal. The process we are undertaking will be a vehicle for our members to develop their ideas and test their suggestions which we will offer into Liam’s Fresh Ideas policy review.

Over the coming months, four Young Fabian members will lead informed debates and discussions, open to all Labour supporters which will result in our submission to Labour’s Policy Review and a Young Fabian Pamphlet setting out our ideas for Labour’s future policy offer.

Our four commissions will look at:

1. Renewing and Reforming Our Economy – Maneesh Sharma and Graeme Henderson

The task of this group will be to investigate the path Labour should take to build a more sustainably prosperous economic settlement for Britain. It will investigate the need for an active industrial strategy, the fairness divide in our economy, job creation and productivity. It also will look towards opportunities in the green economy and in new and emerging markets as well as looking to incentives for business to break out of the ‘low pay low skill’ cycle.

2. Building Stronger Communities - Richard Angell and Anas Sarwar MP

This group will look at the strength and resilience of British community life in the modern world. It will investigate how families across the country are working harder for longer for less. The consequence of this for family life and community activism will be explored. It will also look at the challenge of how communities are empowered into the political process so that citizens become stakeholders in their communities and in national life.

3. Securing the Future of the Next Generation – Joani Reid

Ed Miliband has stated that “the British Promise, that the next generation would always do better than the last, is now under threat like never before.” The key challenge of this Commission will be to investigate how young Britain is coping with the consequences of government fiscal retrenchment. Facing debt, a difficult labour market and a challenging housing market, the next generation of Britain is under huge pressure. This commission will look at how Labour should respond to the challenges facing the next generation.

4. Labour and the World – Debbie Moss

Foreign affairs is at transformative moment and this group will explore Labour’s role in the World. It will span aid policy in a time of austerity, to security in the context of defence cuts and the criteria for military intervention in fragile states and the balance between domestic security and external stability. Labour in the World will look at Britain’s relationships to other states and institutions and how we form an ethical foreign policy and learn lessons from past conflicts.

Young Fabian members have much to offer these four big policy areas.

Please sign up to join our Policy Commissions and join in the debate about Labour’s future policy offer.

Together we look forward to offering the Labour Party a series of new, fresh and robust ideas.

Brian Duggan is Young Fabian Policy Officer.

Why Labour should take Gok Wan more seriously

Hear me out. At the weekend I bought some new shirts, but suffer from the problem that my neck is too large for my body. Or at least, the way the shirts are cut means that by getting a shirt with the right collar size, I end up with shirts that make me look like I’m about to set sail. Even opting for ‘slim’ or ‘tailored’ fit doesn’t completely address the issue, and it costs me more.

In this sense, I am victim of poor fortune – being born with a large neck means I have to pay more than others to look as good in shirts. If only shirt manufacturers didn’t seem to assume that men with big necks are also fat!

This got me thinking. Perhaps Labour needs to take the philosophy of Gok Wan a bit more seriously?

In Gok’s Fashion Fix, Gok demonstrates that it is possible to look like you’re wearing designer fashion but on a high street budget. In essence Gok is a fashion egalitarian who thinks your budget shouldn’t affect your ability to look good.

There are at least two reasons why Labour should take that sentiment more seriously.

Firstly, academic research suggests a link between career prospects and appearance* (for example, here or here). So wealth is partly a function of how you look. If people with bad luck have to invest more to look at least the same as people with good luck, then this might compound income inequality**. If Labour is serious about tackling the causes of income inequality, then it might develop policies to ensure looking good is more affordable. Fashion advisers to those on unemployment benefits, for example? Or propose legislating to prohibit discrimination on sartorial grounds?

Secondly, if there is a link between career prospects and appearance, then maybe there is an argument to focus more on how Labour politicians, prospective politicians and party workers dress? Investment in the personal appearance of ‘Party people’ (for want of a better phrase) may yield electoral benefits. I’ll leave it as an open question as to how much investment might be needed…

So there could be two tangible benefits if Labour took Gok Wan more seriously: it may help reverse income inequality resulting from bad luck (odd body shapes etc) and deliver better electoral outcomes.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

*Although note that sometimes changing your appearance can have negative impacts too.

**In the narrow sense of my shirt example this might not strictly hold – fat people, even if shirts fit them better, may experience slower career progression than those who are slimmer (other things equal).

The ‘Interest Strand’: broadening and deepening Labour

Ahead of the Fabian Society’s Progressive Fightback conference tomorrow, Young Fabian member Bren Albiston argues that Labour can best renew through the development of ‘Interest Strands’.

As pointed out by Jessica Studdert in The New Generation policy pamphlet, there needs to be a greater channelling of members expertise and interests, through the rejuvenation of socialist societies. However, when people join the Labour Party, as so many recently have, they are faced with a whole plethora of choices of which group to join, be it the Fabians, Compass etc.

This can prove quite confusing to many, and they end up not exploiting their passions and knowledge to the fullest extent they can. Furthermore, the thing that has come most to define the political expression of our generation has been the prevalence of the single issue group, at the expense of parties. This then leads me to suggest the creation of dedicated “Interest Strands”. These Strands would encompass different policy and interest areas, so as to channel the particular passions of new members and Labour supporters into constructive policy discussion, campaigning and other action, whilst broadening our support base.

Bringing Societies into the fold

Societies have played an incredibly important role in the party policy structure since its inception, however these supportive societies have become more and more disparate and isolated from each other. However what binds us together is that we want good policy and a Labour Government that delivers for everyone. Thus through a spirit of cooperation we can use the resources of the societies to harness expertise and deliver better outcomes.

This can be achieved through the Interest Strands, as different elements of the Labour movement can come together and work on specific policy areas, whilst including broader elements of the party than are usually involved. This has been demonstrated by SERA, the Labour Environment Campaign. By extending and furthering this model across more and more policy sectors we can generate the space for the Labour Party to grow and push forward the progressive agenda. But also we should extend the reach of this model, not only in its membership but also its action, giving it the ability to publicise and engage more widely with interested individuals on a national scale.

Refounding the Labour Coalition

There is a dire need to refound the Labour Party’s base, its ‘coalition of the willing’. Other Labour and Social Democratic parties across the globe have learnt the same lesson. It’s something that we have put off for too long and we are suffering because of it. If we look to our sister parties in New Zealand and Australia, why is it that they don’t have a Liberal Democrat Party to contend with? Because, rather simply, there is no room for them – the Labour Party has that base covered.

Whilst it is important not to lose sight of our roots, we must also make our party desirable and palatable to a much broader group of people from the centre to the left. And through the creation of dedicated Interest Strands with a degree of autonomy we can help that process along, by reaching out to those that do not currently have an identifiable home within our party.

I believe that our party needs to undertake this sort of reform of its policy and campaigning apparatus if we want to survive as the party of progress in this country. Through the creation of dedicated Interest Strands we can take advantage of the most popular form of political organisation, whilst retaining and furthering our party cohesion, and create a broader and deeper coalition of interests.

The key to Labour renewal? Reflect, campaign and listen

Ahead of the Fabian Society Progressive Fightback conference tomorrow, Young Fabian Membership Ambassador, Martin Edobor offers his view on how Labour party reform.

At the last General Election we failed to convince the electorate that the Labour party was the right choice for Britain. Cameron was unable to form a majority and through compromise a coalition government was born. From the ashes of defeat we elected a new leader and began rebuilding.

A year on, despite Ed Miliband’s steady stewardship, the direction we should take as a party still remains unclear.  At the next General Election, if we are to win, we must be able to communicate to the country our vision of Britain. In order to do this I believe Labour must reflect, campaign and listen.

Reflection must begin by looking inwards at our party’s organisation and structure and outwards to the changing world around us. The recent Scottish parliament election has shown that there are still deep rooted problems with our party’s organisation.  We must no longer take for granted our core votes, but provide a convincing argument for both our supporters and those who remain sceptical. The recent review of Scottish labour ordered by Ed Milliband is a step forward; however we must go further if we are to avoid a repeat of the Scottish elections. Peter Hain’s review is to be welcomed, but we must ensure that it yields tangible improvement.

In the process of renewal we must still remain a campaigning force. With the coalition cuts, Labour must continue acting as a voice for the people. This can be done if we continue highlighting the coalition’s shortfalls and also campaigning on the ground for public services.

Finally, Labour must begin a process of listening. In order to address the concerns of the electorate we must first understand their problems. Understanding can only be achieved if we take time to hear what people have to say. Labour has begun listening, and we must continue doing so if we are to truly reform as a party.

Labour in Northern Ireland

In this member post, Young Fabian member Andrew Gray argues that the Labour Party needs to provide greater support to the Labour Party of Northern Ireland if it is to become an electoral force in elections in the Province.

Currently Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic Labour Party is supported by the British Labour Party and the majority of its affiliates, including the Co-Operative Party. British Labour members in Northern Ireland are only permitted to campaign for the nationalist SDLP, despite the fact that many of them may not care about a ‘united Ireland’ or may be unionist.

It’s time that changed.

In 1907, the British Labour Party held its party conference in Belfast, but in 1913 chose to give the then recently formed Irish Labour Party exclusive organizing rights in Northern Ireland, despite this being unpopular with the majority of organised workers who had unionist, or at least anti-nationalist, leanings. The Irish Labour Party no longer fields candidates in the North, choosing to focus on its well-deserved success in Ireland. As a consequence, the SDLP, formed in 1970, were given the playing field in Northern Ireland with just a friendly agreement between the two parties, both members of Socialist International.

In my opinion, the British Labour Party should have grasped the opportunity instead.

Only in the last few years has the Labour Party in Northern Ireland been formally established because of pressure from members across the province who wanted to be treated in the same way as those in the rest of the UK. And that means contesting elections.

Members of the Labour Party in Northern Ireland weren’t originally considered official members, but they pushed for equality of membership and have made progress. Labour Party members in the rest of the UK should be supporting this, and the Party as a whole should be encouraged by the enthusiasm shown by members in Northern Ireland.

Last week’s elections were supposed to be the first time that the party stood in local council elections in Northern Ireland, to test the waters to see if whether support exists for contesting Assembly or even Parliamentary seats in the future.

Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. Progress is needed this year, ready for the next local elections.

If the party is to have any chance of success then it must root itself in Northern Ireland. The Conservative’s attempt with the CUNF (Conservatives & Unionist New Force) in last year’s General Election shows this. The Ulster Unionist Party may have itself rooted in Northern Ireland, but the Conservative Party has not. The Labour Party must not make the same mistake and should instead focus on getting recognized locally first: being at the forefront of local, or province-wide campaigns to save schools, hospitals and Sure Start centres from closure, as well as the reduction or complete withdrawals of bus routes.

The Party has a mixture of unionists/nationalists and monarchists/republicans, so if we are to have any chance of success in Northern Ireland then I feel that we must be neutral on the union issue. Individual members should not be forced to subscribe to one set-view, as we want to be drawing in working class support from Protestant, Unionist and Catholic, Nationalist backgrounds.

The Party should become the progressive force of Northern Irish politics, choosing to focus on the Conservative’s policy faults and not squabbling over whether or not Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK.

This vision would see both Catholic and Protestant workers, whatever their position on the Union and monarchy, working towards one progressive common goal of a better society.

The British Labour Party uses the Union Flag – including on its election material. If we are to use that flag legitimately then must truly become the UK Labour Party.

Or we should use the Union Flag of 1606, showing openly that we are choosing to ignore part of our country.

• This is an edited version of a post that originally appeared on http://www.blightyandy.co.uk/.