Category Archives: Labour Party

Labour: You’re doing it right

by maxattacks

I have touched on the problems of the rail industry on this blog before and the whole area surrounding Privatisation vs. Nationalisation. Well I think to someone in the Labour party may have been listening. We have a policy! And it’s crackin’ good un’ at that. An effective re-nationalise the Rail industry.

To remind you why this is such a cracking idea, here’s some reasons why:

  1. The UK already has the most expensive rail fares out of any European nation
  2. The UK is the only nation in Europe not to have a nationalised rail industry
  3. UK rail users pay 10 times that of their Italian counterparts
  4. The UK already subsidises Virgin by £1.4 billion (a company that should not receive a penny in my books)
  5. For those who say Privatisation leads to better organisation, think again
  6. Estimates figure that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present.

In a nutshell, Privatisation has indeed failed for the rail industry. There’s no real ‘choice’. If I want to get a train from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Picadilly I can only go via CrossCountry and if I want to get a train from Birmingham New Street to London Euston I can only go via Virgin trains.

As a semi-regular train user, this is a brilliant step in the right direction for Labour and the rail industry. Hell extend it to Buses as well!

Max

A nasty authoritarian streak

by maxattacks

I’m going to say this now and nip it in the bud, I’m no fan of the Blairite think-tank Progress. But ultimately, this post is not on the ideological flaws and merits of Progress and any personal problems I have with the think-tank. This post is about the continuation of plurality within the Labour party.

In the last week, the Trade Union, GMB, called for the expulsion of Progress as an affiliate organisation to the Labour party. Now whatever you may think of Progress this is indeed a nasty authoritarian streak by the GMB leadership. The Labour party has always prided itself on being a broad church and it’s only through open and fair debate within the party that we can come to a united progressive/social democratic/socialist agreement and movement. Yes, I’ll admit in the last twenty years or so this open debate and communication between different segments of the party has often subdued or ignored. But as a party pluralist and a man of consensus this is the ideal way forward.

If GMB is really not a fan of Progress, how about an open and honest dialogue to attempt to come to a common agreement or even to persuade members of any ideological flaws they may have.

We are stronger united as a Labour party and yet we are still entirely capable of having our own internal disagreements and discussion. Childishly excluding segments of the party will only take steps to further alienate ‘factions’ and even lessen our electability.

Max

The Lib Dems, a Tory lurch to the right, UKIP and Europe.

by Alex Swanson

Hopefully, the fantastic election results for Labour on Thursday will mark the point at which the coalition begins to unravel. Indeed, since the election Tory backbenchers such as Nadine Dorries have accused the PM of ‘privileged arrogance and bad manners’ and have allegedly begun discussing a motion of no confidence.

Dorries goes on to claim that “we do not have true conservative values in our party at the moment – we have a predominance of Liberal Democratic values”, a sentiment most grass-roots Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly disagree with. Can a government which has implemented such draconian cuts really be considered one which has embraced ‘Liberal Democratic values’?

The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that their vote share declined to a measly 16% of the vote, a second year of pain for a party which has traditionally done better in local elections than in general elections. Lib Dem activists fear that the loss of so many councillors may result in the party facing an ‘electoral wipeout’ in 2015. The Liberal Democrats do deserve the rejection by voters due to Clegg’s decision to abandon core Lib Dem positions, such as on tuition fees, and the failure to moderate a government dominated by conservative principles. However, the product of weaker Lib Dems may just be an even stronger Tory party, especially in the south, or worse, a stronger UKIP.

The worry is that the Tories’ declining share of the vote, coupled with the success of smaller parties such as UKIP, which polled 14% of the vote in areas which they contested, could lead to the party making a further lurch to the right in order to win back the more conservative voters won over by UKIP. Calls have been made by MPs such David Davis to abandon progressive elements of the coalition’s policies such as Lords reform and gay marriage in order to give a “more Conservative flavour to the coalition”.

In particular the success of UKIP has the potential to ignite a fight from Tory backbenchers over Europe, and in this regard both the Tory right and UKIP represent a further danger to Britain. With the European elections approaching in 2014, the Tory party could see the increasing popularity of UKIP, who usually perform well in elections to the European Parliament, as a sign they need to adopt a more Eurosceptic approach. Following David Cameron’s recent unwillingness to work with fellow European leaders on solving the Eurozone debt crisis, a more Eurosceptic approach has the potential to further isolate Britain on the periphery of the European project.

Although, the EU has many, many problems, including a clear democratic deficit, it is an institution which ultimately does serve the British interest. In particular, when it comes to the environment, Europe has led the way internationally in agreeing to ambitious emissions targets and unilaterally implementing a tax on aviation.

What Labour needs to do is address the genuine concerns the public have when it comes to the EU. Last week, the former business secretary, Peter Mandelson, called for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, due to the fundamental changes in the nature of the EU in the decades since the last referendum on Britain’s relationship with Europe. Such a high-profile call for a referendum by a former Labour minister, should be heeded by the current Labour leadership. The Labour party has the potential to redraw the debate around Europe by taking the initiative and adopting a policy which would show that the party is listening to the millions of people who clearly have issues with Europe. The opportunity to make the case for Europe would expose divisions within the Conservative party over the issue, while also giving the British people a chance to have their say on a changing institution which does have huge implications for the democracy of this country.

A (mostly) referenced version of this post is available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcmZYW11nzzWq1OWKVc7s2laxdhHAVJHyp7UsqA4W9Y/edit

By Alex Swanson, BULS Website Editor

Labour’s best local election result since 1995 and the Tories’ worst since 1996, yeah, we’ll take that

by maxattacks

Labour leader Ed Miliband with Labour Group leader Sir Albert Bore

Ed Miliband in Birmingham yesterday with Birmingham Council Labour Group leader, Sir Albert Bore

That’s right, throughout Friday Labour saw it’s best performance in a local election since 1995 (all in proportion to how many Council elections were up for grabs as last year we gained more but far more were up for grabs). And similarly the Tories saw their worst local election result since 1996 and the Lib Dems now have dropped down below 3,000 councillors for the first time in the party’s existence.

This was a result that exceeded everyone’s expectations on all fronts. With most Tories attempting to spin the result to say we needed around 450 councillor gains to be seen as a success, we only smashed that with 823! When everyone expected Scottish Labour to lose Glasgow City Council we not only fought off a SNP challenge but took control of the council at the expense of the Lib Dems and Tories. When everyone said Labour would only win a slight majority in our very own Birmingham City Council, we smashed all expectations by gaining 20 councillors and winning a 34 seat majority. When it was expected Welsh Labour would fail in taking Cardiff City Council, we defied all predictions by gaining 33 councillors and winning a majority of 17! And we’re very proud of very nearly almost gaining control of the Greater London Assembly, falling short by 1 Assembly member.

This election wasn’t without its disappointments though. BULS’s very own Honourary life Member, Dennis Minnis, was unsuccessful in taking Edgbaston. And biggest of all, huge disappointment at Ken’s defeat. We are all glad Ken did defy most  (but not all, sadly) odds by not letting Boris have a shoe-in election by pushing the margin on the second round to a close 3%. Many Tories see Boris as the next leader and Prime Minister in waiting. “Wiff-waff” may well have edged it in London, don’t expect the country to do the same.

Of course, the results did see successes close to our hearts in BULS. Obviously there was turning Birmingham City Council red, but BULS saw former student of the University of Birmingham, Karen McCarthy, join former BULS Secretary, Brigid Jones, as a Councillor for Selly Oak. Quinton ward, where Grandee Nash played a large hand in, was also successful in electing Caroline Bradley.

All in all, while this was a brilliant result for Labour nationally we have to remember this has happened to opposition parties in the past. Hague, Howard and Kinnock all saw similar successes at mid-term local elections in their time in opposition. This was a much needed boost, not a prelude for the general election. Though it is safe to say, that the media, politicians and the wider public can no longer claim Miliband has no chance at 2015. There’s still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but we now know that we still do have a shot at 2015.

Max

BULS Supporting Michael Chessum to be VPHE of NUS

by edjamesgilbert

Following careful consideration, BULS has decided to support Michael Chessum’s campaign to be VPHE of NUS and we ask Birmingham delegates and Labour students nationally to do the same. We believe that Michael is the most competent candidate, and will achieve the most for students now, and in the future.

He has been the only candidate to continuously fight against the Tories’ fee regime and its further marketisation of our education system. Michael has been instrumental inthe organising of two national demonstrations, mobilising thousands of students across the country. Such demonstrations proved highly successful, gaining the support of Labour Students, and the general student population, nationally.

As Labour students we should be fighting against the current coalition government’s outrageous, and damaging, policies concerning higher education fees and their on-going commitment to severe austerity measures. Education is a public good and, at Birmingham, we believe that education should be universally accessible and publically funded. Michael Chessum is the only candidate for VPHE who we believe shares our values and will fight to defend them.

Furthermore, Michael is the only candidate committed to opposing Theresa May’s regressive and racist visa changes, which will have a detrimental effect on International Students who contribute so much to our higher education institutions and country as a whole.

Michael’s past record shows that he knows when and how to use direct action tactics, whilst his pivotal role in founding NCAFC proves his dedication to fighting the government’s austerity measures.

We need a VP Higher Education that will offer a robust defence against the coalition’s stark attacks on education. We wholeheartedly believe it is time to put factional divides behind us and unite in our support for Chessum, as the candidate most able to deliver.

Catie, Ed, Ellis, Areeq, Alex, Sam and Dan

Local elections: our candidates

by edjamesgilbert

As we all know, the London mayoral election is quickly approaching. The two front-runners, and perhaps the candidates who are of most importance to us Labour lot, are well known: Ken Livingstone, the famous collector of lizards, and Boris Johnson, the living incarnation of a 15th century duke.

However, whilst these candidates have received plenty of media coverage, it remains that others have been pushed into the background. So what I want to – very briefly – highlight, are a couple of local council candidates in Birmingham.

BULS has, in the last year, been very active in the local area. Last year, Edgbaston council candidate Dennis Minnis lost by only 21 votes. This year, he is standing again, and BULS has been behind him 100%. A few weeks ago, a few of us went out on a Saturday to talk to local residents with Dennis. As we were walking down Charlotte Road (not too far from the Vale), Dennis told us that in the early 1990s, he won a large redevelopment fund for the street. Before, he said, there were partially deserted and dilapidated high rise buildings. These tower blocks are now gone, and the street looks entirely different (there’s even a nice playground there, where Catie Garner, our incoming Chair, got very distracted with the shiny swing sets). Dennis is incredibly passionate about his local community, and this is just one example of the astounding work that he has done in the past.

Another candidate who I would like to quickly mention is Elaine Williams, the council candidate for Harborne ward. Unlike Dennis, she has never been a councillor before, but is by no means any less passionate. I met Elaine last October, and have been out campaigning for her ever since. Recently, she wrote in Harbone Local News about the local elections (http://www.harbornenews.com/April2012/index.html). On page 15, she talks about the work she has done in the last few months for Harborne. One point she highlights concerns the sale of the Clock Tower on Harborne High Street, a former local community centre. In short, the grade II listed building was in need of repair, and the local Tories commissioned the erection of scaffolding on the building. Along with James McKay, the only Labour councillor in Harborne, Elaine found through an FOI request that the scaffolding cost around £12,000 a week. They then subsequently found an alternative quote of £2,000 a week, which was ignored by the Tories. Within no time, the debt quickly amounted to around £800,000. Recently, the centre was sold for £100,000, effectively meaning that £700,000 of local taxpayers’ money was lost. As James said in a radio interview, you’d be hard pressed to find a flat for £100,000 in the centre of Harborne, let alone a grade II listed building.

It’s also worth having a look at this – http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/harborne_clock_tower_sale_price?unfold=1 – to see more about the work she’s done regarding the Clock Tower (scandal). 

As one of the most talked about issues in Harborne, Elaine has been at the forefront of the debate. Like Dennis, she has been passionate about local issues, and would no doubt do a fantastic job as Harborne’s second Labour councillor.

This is my first blog, and as boring as it might be, I really wanted to highlight this issue. Whilst other political issues like the London mayoral election and the Birmingham Mayoral referendum are at the forefront of the news, dedicated individuals like Dennis and Elaine are hardly talked about. Of course, I’m not surprised, but I wanted this rant to provide some needed attention to our local candidates. It’s easy for these candidates to be lost in the political mix, but with the local elections dawning on Thursday 3rd May, I wanted to quickly show that councillors can make a difference, and that these candidates will make a difference if elected.

By Ed Gilbert, Vice-Chair-elect

Fixing the Ballot

by Nash

Unfortunate rumours come via the Guardian of further plans for central Labour Party meddling in the potential mayoral elections this autumn. It has been suggested that sitting Labour MPs should be barred from seeking a mayoral nomination, even if they resign their seat.

It is bad enough that the NEC has imposed a shortlist system for the nomination, cutting down the choice that will actually go to party members from at least four candidates to only two. It is also underhand that they have suggested sitting MPs should resign if they become a nominee, before they even win a mayoralty. The whole idea behind these various restrictions is to prevent unnecessary by-elections, especially in the wake of Bradford West. It is probably also to ensure that the “right” candidate (from the central party’s perspective) gets the nomination. To me the whole thing stinks of heavy handedness.

The whole point of elected mayors (and police commissioners to an extent) is greater local democracy. Two key words their, “local”, and “democracy”. Arbitrary decisions and rules being handed down by the NEC are neither local or democratic. The field for the nomination should be as open as possible, and that field should be presented to the membership. That is the democratic way. It cannot be right for someone in London to ultimately decide who we in Birmingham have as our mayor for the next 4 years.

The danger here is that, by being heavy handed and trying to force nominations, the NEC risk seriously alienating sitting MPs and CLPs. The NEC and the Labour Party as a whole does not actually have the power to remove sitting MPs – all it can do is expel them from the party, most likely if they persist to run against the “official” candidate. For an MP set on becoming mayor, this offers a simply choice; give up ambitions or leave the party. I can’t imagine a Labour MP actually running as an Independent, yet were it to happen and were a city to find itself with an “Independent Labour” Mayor, then this whole affair would have backfired horribly on the central party. Not only would Labour still face the by-elections it had hoped to avoid, but under the unfavourable circumstances of having just lost a mayoral election to and Independent and having a hostile outgoing MP.

Instead the selections should be made as open as possible, to all Labour candidates who wish two stand. Any further elimination can come when the party membership in a given city fill in their ballot papers. The eventual nominee will be the genuine choice of that city, and not just the preferred placeman of the party machine. Is there a risk that some cities will end up with maverick Labour mayors, who don’t tow the line, who do things their own way, and who embarrass the party leadership in London? Possibly. Should the decision as to whether this happens be entirely down the party membership and the electors in that city? Absolutely.

The Future of LGBT Labour

by maxattacks

I joined the Labour Party in 2008. This was before I was prepared to accept my sexuality. I have now come to realise that it was joining the Labour Party, and learning of all of Labour’s achievements in Government in striving for sexual equality that helped me on my way in accepting myself. Being proudly gay and proudly a member of the Labour Party can and should be mutually reinforcing. I will always be thankful to Labour for this.

Whilst we can look back proudly on all Labour achieved in equality – and there is no need to list these here – ending legislative homophobia is not the same as ending homophobia engrained in society. Top-down measures can only work so far. Greater acceptance of homosexuality as being ‘equal but different’ to heterosexuality can only be achieved through increased exposure of what it is to be gay, i.e., being capable of loving someone of the same sex. At its most basic this can include couples walking down the street holding hands. Unfortunately, we are not yet at a stage where this simple statement of homosexuality is uncontroversial. There is still a need for gay couples to act as pioneers. I can speak from experience that some members of society are not ready to witness such sights.

Labour is at its best when fighting for the rights of minorities within society, championing the fundamental need for equality. However, whilst I am well aware that homophobia remains an issue, the greatest issue of inequality relates to income. The lack of equal opportunity in the world of work adversely affects women, the BME community and disabled people more than it does the LGBT community. With this in mind, the LGBT Labour needs to rally round and support those who also fall under the umbrella term ‘minority’. Liberation Campaigns and caucuses are vital in recognising and celebrating our differences (note the very discourse of the word ‘Pride’ in our annual Pride Marches, and the rightful presence of Labour at these marches), but our shared difficulties and experiences need to be at the forefront of our campaigns.

This is, I believe, should be the next step of LGBT Labour in Britain, standing up for the voiceless in society, speaking for those adversely affected by the Government’s draconian and ill-balanced cuts. Even if we do not self-define as members of a particular caucus, Labour needs to unite and continue the fight for equal opportunity for all.

By Dan Harrison, Outgoing BULS Chair

Fourth by-election on the trot

by maxattacks

That’s right, four by-election victories on the trot. Yes, all these were in Labour held seats, but it’s important how every single one has seen a significant swing towards Labour each time. The results were as follows:

Labour – 12,639 (54.42% up by 10.79%)

Conservative – 6,436 (27.71% down by 6.32%)

Liberal Democrats – 1,364 (5.87 down by 7.87%)

UKIP – 1,276 (5.49& up by 3.45%)

This has seen a 8.6% swing from Tory to Labour, when compared to the last general election which saw a mere 4.8% swing from Labour to Tory. Yes, the turnout was very low, but what do you expect at this time of year?

Either way, great result!

Max

An Englishman’s Home is… beyond his wildest dreams

by labourluke

For some reason, going back into the mists of time, the British people have an obsession with private home ownership, even though most of us should technically never be able to afford one without borrowing. In Continental Europe, people are far more satisfied to rent, either from private landlords or more ‘trustworthy’ institutions – maybe there is some correlation between these statistics and the lower levels of stress and dissatisfaction there compared to the UK.

Nevertheless, we are where we are, and there is no going back on the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme introduced by Margaret Thatcher in 1981 however much we might want to reverse it (indeed, many of us may actually agree with it, being as it was extremely popular with the low paid, who for the first time had a stake in their council homes and some sense of freedom, however delusional). What we have now is a housing crisis coming at the worst possible time, during a dire economic climate caused by sub-prime mortgages themselves.

Tensions over housing and its’ availability have an effect on many areas of life, including levels of antagonism towards immigrants, the environment, growth, inequality in our cities, personal debt, and of course the Daily Mail and Daily Express front pages. We need to deal with this timebomb if we are to stem a rise in far-right politics and avoid a lost generation of young people. However, worryingly this government is going about it completely the wrong way.

Not only has it made squatting illegal when there are more empty properties than there are homeless people in this country, but it has appallingly placed a cap on housing benefit, effectively pricing the poor out of our capital city and entire swathes of the country – those parts of the country which have job vacancies. The government is slashing the public sector and saddling young people who go to university with ever higher debt, meaning their chances of even being able to look forward to putting down a deposit are negligible.

What our housing market needs is a Keynesian-style investment in house building and construction; not only would this lower house prices for first-time buyers, but it would also ease tensions in the community and increase demand in the economy generally, leading to growth and the beginning of the end of the deficit that the ConDems love to remind us about so much. As a bonus, it would even lead to a return of Location Location Location to our TV screens. Gordon Brown’s plan before the proverbial shit hit the fan in 2007 was to build 3 million new homes – we need this sort of commitment now, coupled with a healthy proliferation of 1940s-inspired New Towns (hopefully better designed than the likes of Milton Keynes) and more social housing. Today’s announcement from Cameron and Clegg about guaranteeing 95% mortgages may look like a repetition of exactly what went wrong in the first place, but should not be dismissed entirely, as it is the taxpayer, not the banks, helping first-time buyers, and there is real potential for an increase in demand as a result.

However it goes nowhere near far enough. If we can’t get people to fall out of love with the owner-occupier dream, then we need to build, build, build, spending more money in the short term to get us out of the mess in the long term.

A great year for Irish Labour

by maxattacks

Michael D Higgins, of the Irish Labour party, is set to be confirmed as Ireland's ninth president. Photograph: Julien Behal/PA

Michael D Higgins and Eamon Gilmore will now go down in History as two of the Irish Labour Party’s electorally successful Politicians. It was announced today that Michael D Higgins is to be elected the 9th President of Ireland receiving almost 40% of the first preference votes. This will make him the first ever Labour Presidential Candidate to have become President without the support of from other parties.

Of course this adds to the great success Irish Labour received in the Irish General Election last May where Eamon Gilmore led Labour to its largest number of seats in the Irish Parliament ever. This meant Labour has entered its 8th time in a Coalition Government where it takes up 8 out of the 20 Cabinet posts.

On behalf of all of us in Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS) I would like to wish our sister party across the Irish Sea a huge congratulations on the results they’ve had this year. And we hope the best is yet to come.

Max

The pressure mounts

by maxattacks

With inflation around 5%, consumer confidence falling for four months on the trot, business confidence falling to a two year low, growth flat-lining in the past 9 months and growth expectations themselves being cut, you would have thought Gideon (George) Osborne would think things could not get any worse.

Well apparently they can. It seems 100 leading economists have written into the Observer to tell Gideon to adopt a plan B. Now while letters like this have been done in the past, the difference being that this time it has an alternative outline. It’s an alternative Miliband and Balls should take head to:

  1. An immediate halt to cuts, to protect jobs in the public sector. (Although I wouldn’t not cut entirely, for one, I’d cut the renewal of Trident).
  2. A new round of quantitative easing but the money wouldn’t go to the banks. Rather to finance a “Green New Deal” to create thousands of new jobs.
  3. Benefit increases to put money into the pockets of those on lower and middle incomes and give a boost to spending.
  4. A financial transaction tax to raise funds from the City to pay for investment in transport, energy and house building. (Robin Hood Tax anyone?)
  5. Introduce a truly progressive tax system so that those at the bottom don’t face the greatest burden proportionately (Or simply having the rich pay their taxes will be a start)
  6. Introduce a tax on land value to increase revenue and reduce the possibility of another debt-fuelled housing price boom.
  7. Copy South Korea and China’s model of state assistance for industry by creating a British investment bank. (Something that Lord Mandelson was beginning to champion in the last year of the Labour Government)
  8. Invest in transport and infrastructure to create jobs, but also to encourage people out of their cars and into trains or on to bicycles
  9. Judge the economy not on whether there is growth in GDP, but on a new catch-all criterion that takes into account the desire for minimal unemployment, and for work-life balance, economic and social stability, and job satisfaction.
So Gideon, even though we know you wont, please take heed of the recommendations. Simply living in the nostalgia of a failed plan of the early 1980s wont guarantee success. And Miliband and Balls, these recommendations should be the essence of your policy review, take them on board!
Max

David Miliband

by suzannahrobinson

I’ve just got back from the double David Miliband event, and just wanted to write a report.

I thought the crowd during the first part (In Conversation with David Miliband – in the great hall) was fairly tough, there were questions about Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Guantanemo Bay. One of the best questions was “What would you say to David Eastwood about the Browne Review?” and David replied in a very diplomatic manner, ending with the comment that he didn’t think it was “all Professor Eastwood’s fault”. I for one hope that Eastwood noticed the resentment in the room and the general jibes against tuition fees and millionaires.

The second part (The Living Wage Launch with David Miliband) was more relaxed and entertaining. Luke asked a great question about solidarity with potential allies and recognising the real enemy. David replied “kicking Lib Dems is pleasure, kicking Tories is business. Politics is business”. He also highlighted the work of his “Movement for Change”, responding to comments that it seemed similar to the Big Society by stating that society is our turf, we have always been known as socialists not statists, and the Tories are only developing policies to promote society because they are terrified of being known as the “there is no such thing as society” party. I’m sure many of us can see through their Big Society strategy to a purely Thatcherite idealism, and recognise that grass roots activity and community organisation always has been and will remain a Labour policy area.

In conclusion, congratulations to the BULS members who helped to organise the talks, and I hope those who missed out come to the upcoming great events!

Suzy

9/11 Ten Years On, Coalition Politics and Blood Donation

by labourluke

9/11 – A Warning from Recent History

For someone of the age of the current crop of Labour Students, it is particularly difficult to believe that it is ten years tomorrow since the lives of millions were changed forever on September 11th, 2001. Most of us were still in primary school at the time, and it is perhaps apt that our generation – one that was constantly told we were growing up too fast – had our innocence of the world around us robbed so suddenly on that bright Tuesday morning. Hearing and seeing the images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center still transfixes all of us, and as much as we might want to look away having seen enough, we can’t quite bring ourselves to stop watching.

However it is our generation – the 9/11 generation – who will be the politicians and headline-makers of the coming years, and if anything good can come of the last decade, it is surely the lesson  that those in power have a responsibility not to overreact when faced with such onslaughts. Our party’s most successful leader (in electoral terms) no doubt had good intentions, but made the grave error of marching the troops gung-ho into an unplanned and illegal war, probably creating a whole new generation of terrorists in the process, while at home him and those around him were complicit in eroding many of the freedoms we were meant to be protecting, including detention without charge and freedom from torture. If the horror of terrorism reaches us again, we must pause and assess the causes before acting. The same rule should apply for other crises, like the riots this summer.

Backbench Tories Have Nothing To Worry About

Today is the final day of the Plaid Cymru autumn conference in Llandudno, north Wales. The outgoing leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, made his final conference speech yesterday after an electoral drubbing for the nationalist party in the Welsh Assembly elections in May. Unlike in Scotland, where the SNP have been successful, he argued that coalition government in Cardiff Bay (of which Plaid was the junior party) meant Plaid’s achievements in government were smothered by Labour, and that the party was punished by voters for not claiming credit for them.

Aside from the fact that Plaid achieved very little in government in a time of economic turmoil other than a referendum with poor turnout which managed to bore even political anoraks, their experience in coalition should serve as a lesson to Westminster politics. This week Tory backbenchers, angry over law and order, Europe and abortion, moaned that the Lib Dem ‘tail’ was wagging the Tory ‘dog’ and that Nick Clegg was being given too many concessions by the Prime Minister. However come the election in 2015, the Tories will have nothing to worry about, as the voters are likely to give them sole credit for any successes – particularly if the economy picks up (not a given considering Osborne’s slash-and-burn approach) – and they will certainly not be looking to make some sort of permanent alliance with the Lib Dems, contrary to what some commentators are predicting. The coalition dog will probably have his tail docked when the voters are next given a choice.

About Bloody Time

This week the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood for life in Britain was finally overturned (although you’d be forgiven for not noticing the leap forward because the BBC thought Strictly Come Dancing was more important on the news bulletins that night). This is a triumph that equality campaigners have been working tirelessly for for years, and at last gay men will be able to save lives and help tackle the urgent need for more donors. No more will the official policy imply that gay men cannot be trusted to practice safe sex and ‘probably have HIV’.

Although the ban was only replaced with a one-year time lag since a donor’s last encounter, it is still progress, and puts us more in line with the situation in similar countries.

Why Turn Blue When Just ‘Labour’ Will Do?

by labourluke

As Ed Miliband gathers opinions and considers the future policy direction of the Labour party as part of the Policy Review, there has been much debate recently about whether or not to pursue ‘Blue Labour’, as proposed by the academic and Labour peer Maurice Glasman. Blue Labour, a response to ‘Red Toryism’, aims to put co-operatives and the community at the heart of the lives of ordinary British people, and is a rebuttal of New Labour’s strangling embrace of neo-liberalism, which left swathes of grassroots Labour supporters feeling alienated and ignored by the party leadership.

Glasman has a point, for throughout the history of the ‘people’s party’ there has been a split between liberals, state socialists and those who favour co-operatives and more local organisation – many Labour MPs today are also members of the Co-operative Party, and since its inception at the turn of the twentieth century the Labour movement has been associated with local organisation and mobilisation.

Martin Pugh in his 2009 book “Speak for Britain: A New History of the Labour Party” argues persuasively that the real dilemma for Labour through its history has not been attracting liberal support, but attracting hard-working but low-paid voters from the temptations of the Conservatives: many ordinary working class communities share the Tories’ patriotism; love of the armed forces (many of them have close relatives or friends serving in Afghanistan); desire for home ownership and a tough stance on law and order – why did so many vote for Margaret Thatcher in 1979, read the Daily Mail, and in a few cases drift to more extreme parties through fear of their jobs because of immigration and globalisation? Pugh stresses that when Labour came into being many voters were torn between it and the Tories because of these economic concerns, plus social beliefs like temperance or the role of the Church in schools.

Where Glasman takes the wrong path, in my view, is in his attempt to respond to Cameron’s Big Society by mimicking it and advocating a further retrenchment of the state, along with a return to a 1950s-style focus on the family, the flag, and feminism being almost unheard-of. That’s not ‘Blue Labour’, that’s just conservatism. If we as social democrats want to see equality of provision across the board, we need to expose the Big Society for what it is: a cover for cuts dreamt up by Steve Hilton when the Tories needed to be seen to be shedding the aura of Thatcherism.

If Labour is to win elections again without ditching our principles – to do so would be an insult to people like the families of those killed in Norway – we need to ‘re-connect with the grassroots,’ to use the spin-doctors jargon, by addressing, or at the very least appreciating, the legitimate concerns of the hard-working folk who keep the economy growing and keep money coming into the Exchequer. Instead of Big Society initiatives, we need to take the lead on key issues like housing, providing ample employment for deprived communities and young people generally, and not simply dismissing people’s concerns about migration and welfare dependency. That does not mean leaving the EU, saying we should only have British jobs for British workers, or undertaking humiliating fit-for-work tests like those currently going on under Iain Duncan Smith. It just means listening to those too well-off to be on benefits but on low wages, as well as staying true to  proud values like tolerance. If we go some way to pointing out these worries in opposition, whilst criticising the Con-Dems’ unfair cuts, the sought-after swing voters will follow, and we may just wake up to find ourselves in government again.

The end of Murdoch’s political monopoly?…Let’s hope so

by maxattacks

To be brutally honest, when this whole phone hacking milarky began to come out 6, 9 months ago I really couldn’t care that much. But now, truly, everything has changed. The biggest circulatory newspaper of all time is being dropped, Andy Coulson has been arrested, murder and soldier victim families phones being tapped and quite frankly, the media will never truly be the same again.

So what can we identify and salvage from this wreckage? Well first off to get you in a good mood only Ed Miliband’s finest performance as Labour leader to date by being the first to call for enquiries, the first to call for the axing of the PCC, the first to call for Rebekah Brook’s resignation and the first to demand the transfer of the BSkyB bid to the competition commission. Ultimately, this is a welcome overcoming of fear of the Murdoch empire. Too long has a US-based media tycoon dictated overarching control over Britain. Don’t get me wrong, Labour’s hands are far from clean when it came to dealing with the tycoon master, but this is a major break not just for Labour but for British Politics as one major political force cuts it’s links with the media empire it feared. Miliband despite his fine performance recently has to be careful as already a senior Miliband aid received a “very hostile” threat, not veiled at all, from a News International journalist warning: “You have made it personal about Rebekah, so we’ll make it personal about you.”.

This break for British politics is all very well but it depends on Cameron following suit, which he has so far shown to be unwilling. It is clear that Camero also fears the monopoly and is too entwined in the spider’s web of Murdoch’s empire to truly break free. It was Cameron’s decision to bring in Coulson fresh from News of the World not only in to his team while in opposition but as Director of Communications in No. 10 despite an uneasy background record and he has paid dearly for this judgement. Let’s hope Cameron can make the right decision over the BSkyB deal as this is truly the real prize in all this chaos.

For Murdoch to jettison the very paper that brought him into the British media it seems that he realised the true potential of BSkyB. Newspapers are in decline, the future is the internet and TV. Sky’ revenue is already greater than the BBC’s which combined with his remaining papers would place Murdoch beyond reach of any rival media circles and organisations. With this power he could begin to truly cripple one of Britain’s greatest institutions, the BBC. Any chance that Sky would remain a fully bias free organisation is impossible given Murdoch’s record with the Times, the Sun, the NoW and Fox News over in the USA.

We’ve made our move, it’s time for Cameron to follow suit and do the right thing and remove this poison from British politics once and for all.

Max

Gove Could Learn A Lesson or Two

by labourluke

The papers today report that Education Secretary Michael Gove is asking school leaders to recruit members of the “wider school community” to take over the job of teachers striking on Thursday, the implication being that it is better for parents and governors to take classes for one day then see the school close. Aside from the bad logic that if the main aim is keeping the school open so as not to incovenience working parents, then there won’t be any parents available to teach Henry VIII’s six wives, this policy demonstrates the Big Society is a means of undermining unionised labour as well as a cover for cuts. The only positive thing that could come of this ludicrous suggestion is that parents who do act as supply teacher on 30th June may get some idea of just how difficult a profession teaching really is.

Further to my blog a few weeks back, “Unite Behind the Unions”, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are still pandering to the right-wing media by warning the unions that striking would be unwise and counter-productive, while Tony Blair on the BBC’s Politics Show today refused to be drawn on any domestic policy issues, except to say that the unions are small ‘c’ conservatives who should learn to ‘modernise’, whatever that means. But then Blair never pretended to be on their side.

I do not dispute the fact that pensions need to be reformed in line with the ageing population and gender equality, while many in the private sector would be dancing all the way to the bank if they had pension schemes like those of some public servants; nevertheless what is going on at present smacks of the 1980s, and the threats of changes to union legislation mooted by Gove are deeply worrying.

And who says we don’t have policies

by maxattacks

Back in 2008 the Institute of Fiscal Studies concluded that the 2.5% cut in VAT that year was an effective tax-cutting stimulus measure particularly for consumers. Now since the welcome rise in retail spending by 1.1% in April there has been a complete reversal of that fortune with retail spending dropping by 1.4% in May. In the light of the recent figures (yup we can flexible, unlike some) Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls has called on for an emergency tax cut and another repeat of the one off tax on Bankers bonuses to raise £2bn of which most would go towards creating 25,000 affordable homes which is still a pressing problem after a decade of rising house prices.

Now this is quite important as much as I personally am a fan of the two Eds, we do need to create a very very broad economic narrative before the policy review is completed. And this is a good and welcome first step.

Max

Old news

by maxattacks

Right this had to be cleared up. As you probably know the Telegraph recently published leaked documents on Ed Balls’ role in the Gordon Brown’s camps attempt to oust Blair. It seems from the documents that Balls was a primary agitator in the attempts to demand a leaving date from Blair and presenting Brown as a Prime Minister in waiting……..well is any of this new? Of course not! Will it effect his ability to do his job as Shadow Chancellor? Again, of course not! Will it mean Balls will follow a similar path to his former master, Brown and attempt to oust Ed Miliband? Of course not as unlike Blair and Brown, Balls and Miliband actually ran against each other in the leadership election which was conclusively resolved (if you exclude disgruntled sore-loser supporters of David Miliband). And frankly, Labour is far beyond the petty squabbles of the Blair-Brown and is a largely united force unlike after losing power in the 1950s and 1980s. So all of this is totally irrelevant, we have moved on.

There’s also accusations that Balls alongside Brown ignored warnings and continued spending increases well above inflation and so further created a deficit before the crash of 2008. Come off it! These claims were directed around the year of 2006….when Balls was merely a back-bench MP. Of course you have to remember this is coming from the Telegraph and these claims have jumped on by particularly Michael Gove. This is all very well, but Gove fails to mention that Gideon was committed rigorously to Labour’s spending plans up until the 2008 crash and that on the eve of the 2008 crash Brown had a lower deficit than he had inherited back in 1997 as Chancellor.

Max

Unite Behind The Unions

by labourluke

This week, the ominously-titled Business Secretary, Vince Cable, quickstepped down to Brighton to address the conference of the GMB Union, and calmly warned delegates, in no uncertain terms, that they can either lay back and take the savage cuts from the coalition government or face the consequences, which will take the form of more draconian anti-union legislation than even Maggie could dream of.

The coalition’s plans to pre-empt any upcoming Seasons of Discontent include only allowing official strike action to be valid where over 50 percent of members vote to withdraw their labour. This despite the fact that turnout in May’s AV referendum was only 42 percent; if the rules being drawn up for the unions were applied to that particular plebiscite we would now be going through that shambles of a campaign all over again. Perish the thought.

However over the last twelve months we have come to expect this sort of hypocritical posturing from the government, aimed at punishing the ordinary working man and woman for the 30-year poker game that took place in the City of London. We have even got used to the fact the the Liberal Democrats are happy to do all the dirty work while the Tories get on with the more important matters of screwing up the NHS, the Royal Mail, higher education and so on.

What is most worrying is the deafening silence coming from the Labour party over the last week.

It seems Ed Miliband, frightened by the response of the reactionary media after his speech at the March for the Alternative in Hyde Park earlier this year, has taken cover in the vain hope that all will blow over and the coalition will make itself so unpopular by 2015 that he will be swept to number 10 to save the day. It is not going to blow over. The Con-Dems will continue on their crusade against the public sector in the coming years, and can be forgiven for believing they have no effective opposition – when the only public figure speaking up for public sector workers is the Archbishop of Canterbury, you know Labour is in a bit of a pickle.

It’s time we got over the 1983, defeatist attitude and spoke up for ordinary working people who face falling wages, living standards and an uncertain future. This does not mean retreating into an unelectable, hard-left cocoon; it means not forgetting those who founded the Labour party in the first place over a century ago.

They Just Don’t Get It

by labourluke

I’ve now returned to Birmingham after a week in which the Coalition managed to look incompetent and shambolic as well as cruel. We’ve had Willetts admitting he is content to see poorer students having to settle for a degree at their local sixth form, rather than enjoying the full university experience; Norman Tebbit joining the near-univeral coalition against the NHS transformation; U-turns on defence spending and health to add to the growing list which includes school sports and buildings, forests, and even the Downing Street cat; and of course Nick Clegg. When he hasn’t been complaining that he is the nation’s ‘punchbag’ or facing criticism from his own son, he has been making some interesting comments about social mobility.

I am not going to slam the Deputy Prime Minister for having had a leg-up from his neighbour (a peer of the realm) in order to get an internship at a bank (it had to be a bank), because I challenge anyone reading this – assuming I have a readership – not to have seized the opportunity in the same way if they were in Nick’s position. A Labour party which wants social justice and equality of opportunity from birth should not be blaming someone for a background thay had no control over, and that even includes Cameron who had someone put a word in from Buck House. However, Clegg’s attempts at addressing the age-old problem of the ‘It’s who you know’ culture were embarrassing, coming at the same time this government is slashing Sure Start centres, EMA, univeristy budgets and allowing socially divisive ’free’ schools to blossom up and down the country.

I spoke to people this week in the valleys who have Masters’ degrees who have spent over a year unemployed – young people with ambition, drive and what should be a promising career ahead of them. I overheard sixth form students on the bus complaining that they had not been accepted for any of their UCAS choices, despite the prediction of 4 As at A-level. I have personally had difficulty finding summer placements when I am not lucky enough to be able to work unpaid for six months in central London. Nick Clegg’s diagnosis was correct, but there is far more to it than setting an example to almost-bankrupt businesses by paying interns at Lib Dem HQ.

We need a new cultural shift in this country, brought about by government, where the disadvantaged are caught as soon as possible and at every stage of their lives are helped to gain the same opportunities as the better off. This should not involve positive discrimination or handouts, but should involve investment in our young people which other European countries manage while they bail out their neighbours, but we seem to think is unaffordable. A national internship scheme or national bursary programme, complementing investment in careers education (which at the moment is dire) to inform young people that they are just as talented and ambitious as the more privileged, and what opportunities are out there for the taking, is desperately needed. The underlying factors, such as affordable transport, need to be subsidised so someone who lives in the middle of nowhere with no ‘contacts’ can get work experience in a city near them.

There are important elections coming up in the devolved nations and local councils in England. Young people should be demanding better from the government and their local councils at the ballot box, and should express their dissatisfaction with the Coalition, which just doesn’t get it.

To AV or not to AV? That’s not the Question…

by labourluke

 

So the eagerly awaited and oh-so exciting AV referendum is now in sight, with Ed Miliband today setting out the Labour leadership’s opinion on one side, and many other Labour MPs and party members saying why they will be rejecting the proposal on the other. It does seem that the party is split down the middle – not a great position for an opposition party reassembling itself after electoral defeat. Incidentally, it is perhaps not the most shining example of ‘new politics’ or maturity when our leader refuses to unite with Nick Clegg because of his new status as Public Enemy Number One – surely there would be less cynicism in the electorate if we as an opposition party took each issue exclusively, instead of pointing the finger at the Tuition Fees Bogeyman.

The arguments for or against the Alternative Vote aside (I’m personally in the ‘Yes’ camp for want of something marginally further down the road to Proportional Representation), what strikes me the most after the disheartening advertising tactics of the ‘No’ camp (I’m sure you’ve seen the baby-in-incubator and soldier billboards) is the lack of interest amongst the wider electorate. Today I asked a friend of mine whether he had yet considered which way he would vote, and the reply was that it would make no difference to the political scene, so why should he bother? I wanted to answer his rebuttal, but found to my horror that I couldn’t. Whether or not we stick with First Past the Post or adopt AV will have little bearing on electoral outcomes on a national scale, only at constituency level (where AV would make elections far more interesting, as those who witnessed the Guild election results will testify), therefore the best we can hope for is the lesser of two evils, while those running for office continue to make vacuous or downright deceptive pledges in their election manifestos e.g. the marketisation of the NHS and tuition fees.

The real question on the ballot paper should not be ‘AV vs FPTP’, nor even the far more deomcratic ‘AV vs FPTP vs AV+ vs STV vs AMS…’, but something which reads less like a mathematical formula and more like a choice between two fundamental democratic frameworks that disillusioned voters can really get their teeth into. We need a choice over whether or not we want to overhaul the House of Lords (a process which has thus far taken a century); whether or not we want to de-throne and de-robe the monarchy; whether or not we want to reduce the stranglehold of the elites over our economy; in short, whether or not we want a new constitution. That is not to say the previous government had a gleaming record on constitutional affairs, although devolution and removal of hereditary peers were a good start. But by throwing a bone for the Lib Dem poodle in the form of a paltry referendum on AV, the Tories have got away with it again, whichever way we vote on May 5th.

The deficit blame game

by maxattacks

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the biggest fan of the Head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, but I do recognise he still know (at the very least) a fair bit about the economy. Now one of the reasons why there has been such little apathy or support for the cuts so far is that the Coalition has been always been able to simply say “Well we are just cleaning up the mess left by the previous Labour government.” which I can say if repeated as often as they do say, does make an impact and it does stick with you. But, that may well about to change.

Although he supports the Coalition’s current policies to cut the deficit (which I’ll disagree with, rightly so), he also over last weekend during the Tory’s spring conference in Wales stated that the real reason for the deficit was in fact not because of the last Labour government. Rather, like what we have been saying for the past two and a half years it was the fault of the banks and more stingingly of all that the action taken to address the financial crisis, in 2008 and 2009, “prevented a repetition of the Great Depression”.

Yes that’s right, the Governor of the Bank of England stated that 1. the deficit is not the fault of the last Labour government and 2. the economic stimulus was the right thing to do. If you’ve watched Question Time result over the last few weeks, the ‘deficit blame game’ is really not working.

Max

Barnsley result

by maxattacks

Dan Jarvis reacts to victory

It was without a doubt Labour was going to win the Barnsley Central by-election, but what wasn’t known was the margin and the performance of the other parties. The results are as follows for those who don’t know:

Labour-60.8% (47.3% in 2010)

UKIP-12.19% (4.7%)

Conservative-8.25% (17.3%)

BNP-6.04% (8.9%)

Independent (Tony Devoy)-5.23% (1.6%)

Liberal Democrat-4.18% (17.3%)

This represents nothing less than a whitewash for the Lib Dems, second place to sixth and losing their deposit is nothing less than humiliating. The Tories fared little better losing around half of their support. Yes, Labour was always going to win this seat, but what we have here is resoundingly bloody brilliant win as public opinion ever so gradually begins to swing against the Coalition.

Max

The case for AV

by maxattacks

As I noticed on the BUCF blog today, they have made their position clear on the upcoming referendum, no guesses what side. Now this is the first nation-wide referendum since the 1975 referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EEC, but, BULS officially doesn’t have an opinion on the matter. Now unlike the Lib Dems Youth Society and BUCF, BULS is a far broader church in regards to electoral reform with all forms of voting being supported by individual members, FPTP, AV, AV+ and STV. However, I’m pleased to officially announce that this may well change, as on (probably) the 24th March BULS will have an internal debate and vote on the direction of support for the referendum with “Yes”, “No” and “Neither” being BULS’ final decision on the referendum (ironically using an AV system). This blog is where I’ll put the case for a “Yes” vote for BULS.

One of the great myths of AV is that it fails to produce strong and stable governments. If you look to Australia  and its AV system since 1910 there have been only two hung Parliaments, 1940 and 2010. Comparing this to the UK’s FPTP system where we have had hung Parliaments twice in 1910, 1929, February 1974 and 2010, not to forget almost hung Parliaments in 1950, 1964 and October 1974. While in Canada where they also use FPTP, there are more less permanent hung Parliaments.

The second is that people who vote for minor parties get two votes, which simply fails to acknowledge one of the simple aspects of AV. Candidates who are eliminated also have any first preference votes they received eliminated also. So no, people can’t vote twice.

And thirdly is that AV is not tried and tested unlike FPTP. For those in the “No” camp from the Tory party who fail to remember that AV (or at least a similar form of it) was used in the 2005 leadership election and if FPTP had been used, David Davis would have been elected leader of the Conservative party. AV is also used to elect people in charities, businesses, trade unions and even MPs electing their speaker. Hypocrisy is consequently laid bare for some politicians and political party members who oppose the referendum.

AV represents a change to end tactical voting, MPs appealing to a narrow section of their constituents and wasted votes. I’ll be voting “Yes” on March the 24th and May the 5th, I hope you can do the same on at least the latter.

Max

p.s. This is my 200th blog(!) making ‘Ramsay’s F Word’ the largest single category on the BULS website!

Stagflation?

by maxattacks

Growth stalling, inflation rising and unemployment rising, for all the Tories comparison themselves and 1979 coming in “to clean up Labour’s mess”, it seems this government more reflects the 1970s than did Labour. Now, in BULS we’re wise enough to recognise that this ‘stagflation’ is not due to the cuts (as they are still yet to take fully effect yet) but rather the ending of Darling’s economic stimulus.

Up until the growth figures came out last month I personally very much doubted that the UK would actually slip into a full blown double-dip recession, but rather ‘bump along the bottom’. Since these figures have been produced, I fear there is a very good chance now. If this continues and even if worsens when the cuts bite (which I have a feeling they will do) Labour will have the sad duty of saying “don’t say we didn’t warn you” as throughout the election we campaigned to keep investment in the economy until 2011. But, I hope for the sake of the people of Britain, that day never comes.

Max

Wolverhampton Labour

by maxattacks

It was only very recently brought to my attention that the West Midlands Labour Students region has the honour of welcoming another Labour Students Club to its ranks. The University of Wolverhampton (or Wolverhampton University, not sure which) Labour Students. This brand spanking new society has already received under a 100(!) new members even though only being set up in December. That is nothing less that phenomenal work.

WULS (like BULS, a shortened name) like us has set up their own website (http://wolveslabourstudents.wordpress.com/) which we as the only Labour Students blog to reach the Top 100 Total Politics Labour blogs of 2010 will encourage and nurture. Ultimately, recent ties we have made will help create the great ‘West Midlands Network’ Chair-elect, Dan Harrison, is so keen to create with the already advertising event of an International Women’s day event in early March (me thinks) at Wolverhampton University.

We wish them best of luck and hope to work closely alongside our comrades in Wolverhampton.

Max

Tories fail to convince even themselves.

by jakelambertonline

As I haven’t blogged in a while, and looming essay deadlines have delayed a number of crudely started blogs, I thought I’d share a picture I took during the 2010 election. My hometown of Eastbourne was considered a fairly safe Tory seat until 2005, when tactical voting turned it into a Tory-Lib Dem marginal. 2010 saw it turn a sickly shade of orange as even more tactical voting brought the Lib Dems narrowly to power. This is exactly the sort of seat where Labour can really hit the Con-Dem coalition in the upcoming council elections. To take seats, or even just to push incumbent candidates close, in areas where Labour was non-existent in 2010, would see a lot of shaky knees in the Liberal Democrats, and the Tories too.

"Jeremy, what do we like again?" "Check the sign dear" "Oh yes; money."

But on a light hearted note, if you want to see just how dispirited local Tories were in Eastbourne, when it became obvious they were going to lose, just look at this photo. They even had to persuade themselves to vote!

Jake

Labour now has the Balls

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell 23 January 2011

Now, I’m not going to focus on Alan Johnson, Suzy has already dealt with that, but I just like to say he’ll be surely missed from the front-line politics.

Anyway, we move onto Johnson’s successor, Ed Balls. Now to many Tories, they will regard this as a late Christmas present. The well oiled Tory party machine has already been making well-directed attacks towards Gordon Brown’s former chief economic’s adviser and playing at his past which was so intertwined with the Blair-Brown feud. Yes, Balls was a major figure during the feuds, but as a wise Baboon once said “Oh yes, de past can hurt. But the way I see it you can either run from it, or learn from it.” (the wise Baboon being Rafiki from the Lion King……..BULS draws wisdom from many walks of life). Yes, Balls’ part in the feud was far from his finest hour and many of the economic policies did contribute to the financial crisis (will come back to the latter part later). But, this is a time for Balls in particular to shape his own image and reputation. As Shadow Chancellor, with his deep knowledge of economics, he will be able to establish at least a broad thinking idea of Labour’s alternative and most likely rip Gideon to shreds in the process (I particularly like the idea of the latter).

With growth beginning to slow, inflation and unemployment rising, there has been no better time to be an “attack dog”. But the Tory-led Coalition is quick point out the failures of economic policy Labour made. We did make great progress under ‘New’ Labour, but we also made grave mistakes. But, to counter the Tory-party machine, we do need strong responses in order as well as humility about our record. When Cameron (or indeed anyone) criticises Labour failing to regulate the banks, quote back Gideon and Cameron’s years of calling for further de-regulation. And when Cameron claims Labour’s spending caused the deficit, don’t forget to remind them that Conservative spending policies before the 2008 crash would have rigidly stuck to Labour’s. The Tory-lead Coalition’s deceit cannot last forever and hopefully, Ed Balls can dispel the rhetoric as soon as.

Max

Ed´s first reshuffle

by suzannahrobinson

A couple of thoughts…

Firstly, I genuinly believe that Johnson´s reasons are personal because he has a good relationship with Mili-E, and there have been no recent big revelations about changes to budget policy that could have worried him enough to resign.

Secondly fears of Balls-Miliband repeat of the Brown-Blair power struggle are groundless and unnecessary. There´s no secret agreement or deal, and having Cooper on the front bench is likely to make the pairing more stable.

Thirdly Miliband has shown brilliant and decisive leadership. Any surprise at his not offering chancellor to his brother is misplaced, David´s made it clear that he does not wish to be a member of the cabinet this term.

Fourthly I´m psyched for a Cooper-May standoff, I´m pretty sure Yvette is going to come victorious out of any tussle.

Suzy

Oldham results

by maxattacks

Ed Miliband out campaigning with victorious Labour candidate Debbie Abrahams

Well the results are in and yes, the most important point of the night, Labour has kept Oldham red. With a 48% turnout (down on May’s 61%) the results are as follows:

Labour – 42.1% of the vote (31.9% in May)

Liberal Democrats – 31.9% (31.6%)

Conservatives – 12.8% (26.4%)

UKIP – 5.8% (3.9%)

BNP – 4.8% (5.7%)

So the first good result you can see (apart from Labour winning) is that the BNP lost its deposit, always a good thing. But without a doubt the most notable result of the night was the complete collapse of the Conservative vote, yes, third parties are always squeezed, especially in by-elections, but not to this extent. A 14% slump in the vote is rather unheard of, leading to a 11% swing from Tory to Labour (a swing I could very easily get used to). It seems that a combination of tactical voting and a half-hearted campaign by CCHQ, despite insistence otherwise, is going to mean DC will have some stuff questions to answered by from his backbenchers.

Also, great to note that Labour’s majority in Oldham (3558) is now higher than it was in 1997, during Labour’s peak.

Max

Oldham thoughts

by maxattacks

Given I’m one of BULS’s token few Northerners, I though it would be appropriate to have a blog on the upcoming by-election. Cautious confidence is probably the best way to describe Oldham East and Saddleworth. Already we have seen a number of polls from ICM and Populus showing Labour having a around 17% lead over the Lib Dems (with a surprising slump in support for the Tories). However, another  polling company, Survation, has recorded the Labour leader being 1&(!!). Labour are the bookies favourite to win, but, I cannot stress any less without doubt, not to slacked the momentum. This is the first time in years that the Lib Dems wont be all masterful in by-elections.

Throughout the entire campaign the Lib Dem candidate and Cleggy have been emphasising that this by-election is about selecting a new local MP. I’d have to agree that this is what it ought to be about, but since when have by-elections ever been about local issues?

Max

Labour’s year

by maxattacks

2010 has been one hell of a hectic year for Labour, nationally and locally. So here’s my review of the year.

So in early 2010 we began with a very slowly (and I mean slowly) improving position (the polls were very slowly narrowing and Brown was beginning to perform a bit better at PMQs). People were beginning to actually question and analyse Tory policy (much to the latter’s own shock).

Gordon Brown

But of course, we remember the attempted Coup on Brown (http://bulsonline.org/2010/01/06/coup-dstupid/), the less said about that final attempted revolt the better. But apart from that the majority of the first few months of 2010 were focused upon the Tories incomplete and ill thought out policies which were actually being looked at now (again, much to the Tory’s shock). Unfortunately though, Labour failed to properly capitalise upon DC’s inconsistency over marriage-tax breaks, the level of the cuts and even the Lord Ashcroft scandal, etc.

Now I’m not going to lie, despite not exactly being an expert at election campaigns, Labour’s performance in the 2010 campaign was not exactly brilliant. Admittedly, we  didn’t have an Ashcroft of our own, but a daily press conference chaired by Peter Mandelson is not a way to woo the public. Moving onto the leadership debates, apart from the first one, Brown’s performances could have been much worse. He undoubtedly was the most policy detailed, but unfortunately, you need more than sound policy to win Televised debates.

The result that followed was no where near as anyone might have expected a year or two ago. Don’t be deluded though, in terms of share of the vote, Labour’s result was far from satisfactory, with our second worse result since the 1920s. In terms of seats we didn’t do too badly though. But, given that a year or two ago we were literally facing oblivion on a Tory 1997 scale (regularly behind in the polls by 20%+ in 2008 and 10%+ leads in 2009) was nothing less than a complete and utter failure on the part of the Conservatives. Labour locally also managed to retain Selly Oak and most surprising of all, Edgbaston, much to everyone shock (including my own if I’m being honest). Labour also made significant gains in the local elections nationally and slashing the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition in Birmingham Council to a wafer thin majority.

But ultimately, we couldn’t hold onto power, the numbers didn’t add up and the Lib Dems had already decided that they were moving to the Tories. And so ended 13 years of ‘New’ Labour. But, life had to move on and so began the process to replace Gordon Brown. I’m not going to lie, to the wider public, the election wasn’t the most inspiring and enthralling one ever seen and I personally had no love for any of the candidates at the start.

Of course, we all know what happened next. Probably one of the biggest political upsets of the past few years. After being tipped as Brown’s obvious future successor, David Miliband or Miliband the Elder, was pipped by his brother at what seemed to be the final post (quite literally, Miliband the younger became favourite on the very last day). This seems what happens when you underestimate Miliband the younger, you in the end regret you ever did. One of the definite features of Miliband the elder not winning was that the era ‘New’ Labour was finally brought to a close with most notably the Iraq war being deemed wrong. Of course, there has been apparent glee from the Tory ranks that ‘Red-Ed’ is a godsend. But, as mentioned before, be careful not to underestimate your opponents.

But of course, what now you may ask? Without a shred of doubt, Labour does need to formalise a coherent and well though out plan for it’s vision. But, we should be careful not to make the mistakes DC made when he became Tory leader. While DC did a lot to detoxify the image of the Conservative party (hug a hoody, huskies in Norway, etc), he very much failed to change the nature of the Conservative party, which ultimately cost him a landslide victory. Consequently, it’s the long and apparently slow road of renewal for Labour. But come 2015, get ready for the real change and the true optimists of British politics!

Max

Coastguards and Lib Dems

by maxattacks

It’s always easy to kick someone when they’re down. We all know it and we’ve all done it, metaphorically. Before, it was Gordon Brown and before that it could be argued it was John Prescott. But it seems now it’s the Lib Dems, or more specifically, Nick Clegg (Cleggy). And yes, the 90% of the population (approximately) agree with the “kicking”. Like John Denham (Shadow Business Secretary and now boss of former-BULS Chair, Tom Guise, well done on the job), we should rise above this natural instinct to further lambast Lib Dem MPs and supporters and resist being a “tribal” party. For this is what the true “new” politics, rising above petty point scoring and reaching out to disenchanted voters and MPs in a hope to win them round. On Thursday, the Lib Dem elite threw away any chance of being progressive. With 70% of Lib Dem party members regarding themselves to be on the left, this could not be a more opportune time build a broad progressive church to argue against the real enemy (so to speak).

Now that optimistic note is out of the way, I can now return to being generally p****d off with the government on the whole. How better than to point out cuts to the number of coastguard control centres. A report recently stated that half of the 19 centres could close. That’s right, half of the centres!! The necessity for deep cuts can be argued for (though I’d have to disagree), but cuts to services that literally save lives is downright disgraceful. These centres probably save hundreds of lives every year in some of the harshest conditions known to man (and woman) kind. So to almost half the number of centres is nothing less than a travesty.

I only hope to god that the Coalition rethinks this particular policy.

Max

Good and bad news

by maxattacks

Great news (well, I think it is personally)! Alan Johnson has decided he will now support a graduate tax. Not only does this mean that Labour can no longer be accused of being disarray over higher education funding, but it means we are presenting the true progressive alternative on higher education funding. A tax that charges more the more you earn, rather than the flat rate level of interest under the proposed system and one that isn’t at completely extortionate levels of £9k a year. Hopefully, this could be the stepping stone to the scrapping of fees entirely in the (hopefully not to distant) future.

And now for the bad news. If you’re not aware already, Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) and the Aim Higher Programme are both being scrapped. Now whatever your views on the proposals on the trebling of fees, I will admit, however much I disagree with them, it is an arguable position. But, scrapping EMA and Aim Higher!? These are two bastions of social mobility. Yes I know EMA for one isn’t without its flaws, but to completely scrap it is completely indefensible. When the department that runs EMA messed up a few years ago when I was at College, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide struggle to makes ends meet (really need to look that saying up, could be “meat”) when it came to paper, books, etc or even simply making their way into college.

To put the bad news into context. Even Birmingham University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor David Eastwood, who was on the Browne committee arguing for higher fees, said at a debate last night that scrapping EMA and Aim Higher was a disgraceful decision. It is an area that has had little coverage given the over-hanging shadow of the tuition fees debate, but it is easily just as important.

Max

All hail the minimum wage

by maxattacks

The Institute for Government yesterday published what they regarded to be “the most successful policy intervention since 1980″ (http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/pdfs/PSA_survey_results.pdf). So what are the top five you may ask, well I’m pleased to say three out of the top five are directly and solely the result of the last Labour government.

  1. The minimum wage
  2. Devolution
  3. Privatisation
  4. Northern Ireland Peace Process (this began under the Thatcher/Major governments but was finished under Labour, so obviously can’t take full credit)
  5. Sure start

It’s good to know Labour had a large positive and successful impact despite all it’s flaws over the past thirteen years.

Max

I told you we were the new party of students

by maxattacks

As you may remember, following Vince Cable dropping a potential graduate tax, I claimed that Labour must become the new party of students. Well it seems the students agree. Yougov recently published a poll specifically for students on their voting intentions (http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-Students-261110.pdf) and well, it’s one hell of a swing.

In May the figures were amongst students Lib Dems-45%, Labour-24%, Conservatives-21% and others-10%. As of the survey between the 16th-19th November, the new figures are, Lib Dems-15%(-30%), Labour-42%(+18%), Conservatives-26%(+5%) and others-17%(+7%). So that’s right, the Lib Dems have been pushed into a miserable third place amongst students, -30% in the space of 6 months still shocks me though.

Yougov also asked a poll on government approval, which came to a net approval of -64%. 80% of students thought it was wrong for the Lib Dems to go back on their pledge and also 78% of students oppose the trebling of tuition fees to £9000 a year.

These figures are good for Labour, but we certainly should not take them for granted. And let us hope Labour’s policy review produces a graduate tax so we can retain our place as the new champions for students.

Max

The People’s Ed

by maxattacks

I’m sat in the main auditorium at this year’s Labour Conference at Manchester Central waiting for Ed Miliband to come out and do his first question and answer session as leader of the Labour party. I look around me and it’s not the sight I expected to see. Coming to conference as a new member, I guess I didn’t know really what to expect, in truth, but I got the impression that it wasn’t the place for ordinary members to come to: everyone is in suits! And there was certainly nobody I could see below the age of 25 – quite odd considering I’d been invited by Young Labour as a new member to come along and meet Ed Miliband at some point during the day.

I ignored this feeling and shortly Ed made his way onto the stage with comedian, actor, mad man (for running 43 marathons in 50 days) Eddie Izzard! Now I’d found out were all the young members are, they were all on stage sat behind Ed and Ed. And this turned out to be the theme of the session. It was about grassroots labour for Mili E.

I’m aware that there has been some criticism of Ed in last month or so (and not just from the usual right-wing press may I say!) focused on his lack of voice and of a true alternative to the coalitions devastating cuts. At conference, however, I could tell he knew what he was doing. He understands the task in hand and has a rough idea of how to succeed in it. What he might be lacking is the specific ideas.

And this isn’t a bad thing. I’ll tell you why…

After the Q&A, Ed came along to a room to the side of the hall where 100 new young members had gathered. Also there was the general secretary, Ray Collins. After a short speech by Ed, he dug straight in and wanted to hear our opinions. That simple. He wanted us to highlight the issues young members have. A lot was discussed and as each idea was discussed it felt like real progress was happening right there.

We need a leader that listens. We need a party that listens. Because I think listening became the main factor in the election defeat. Gordon just wasn’t able to listen. If your government doesn’t listen then you aren’t going to vote for them again. Nick and Dave fooled people by saying that they were going to listen to them. People bought it. But now it appears they lied about this (shock much?).

We need members that can shape this party and determine which way it goes. If everything goes to plan, we will win the next general election. It won’t just be Ed that wins the next general election, it will be the unity of the members.

We need to join together and throw out the ‘new labour’ arguments. Every one of us has a slightly different view on past affairs and even current ones. We are never going to agree on everything but let’s agree on the values we share: the ones that protect every member of society; the ones that insure fairness! Because that’s why I joined the party in May.

I don’t think this branding of ‘Red Ed’ is going to stick. I’m personally hoping he’s going to become ‘The People’s Ed’. The leader that actually listens. And I think that’s all we need him to be. Because we can do the rest…

And if it does all start at grassroots level, then it all starts at BULS as well!

I know I’m ready for the fight, are you?

Oliver Cosentino, BULS Member

 

Divisions? What divisions?

by maxattacks

Ever heard of the website called “LabourList”? No, (forgive me if you have) well it is a grass-roots website, in which nearly all Labour members can contribute to and is essentially the BULS’ website’s “big daddy” and a true bench mark for all Labour affiliated blogs (yes, even the mighty BULS blog is humbled by it’s activity and quality). We should have a link somewhere, but in case you can’t find it- http://www.labourlist.org/

Anyway, a recent survey was published (http://www.labourlist.org/labour-divided-over-av-state-of-the-party—november-2010) on Labour members views on what route the party should take next. The biggest divisive issue had to be support for the AV referendum (42%-against, 33%-for). The next closest issue that divided as much would have to be whether to have primaries to select Labour candidates (for-47%, against-35%) in which I can easily say, isn’t the biggest issue facing the UK.

Although, there were a number of policy areas that Labour members were presented with on whether they would like Labour to pursue more closely. Topping the polls with 78.7% agreement, was taking a harder line on tax avoidance and evasion, which I think is brilliant. Too long has the media focused on “benefit scroungers” which in comparison is a tiny fraction to what the UK looses through tax avoidance and evasion. Also high on the list came rebuilding Labour’s reputation on the economy (64.4%), a National Care Service (62.6% and probably my personal favourite on the list) and making the robin hood tax a reality (61.1%). Coming near the bottom saw online referendums (18.5%), shake up of secondary education, teaching by ability rather than age (21.1%) and employee ownership (31.4%, a mild disappointment personally).

What to make of these figures then? Well one I missed out was that, Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet are still relatively supported (Miliband a mere 12% think he’s doing a poor job, 72.9% think Harman is doing a good job, etc). Also, 65.3% of Labour members believe Labour should adopt an alternative economic model and plan to that of the Coalition’s, which is certainly imperative. Well, it seems that what Labour members want a detailed and clear plan to take on the Coalition (rather than make the mistake of making yourself to vague like Cameron did, which cost him a majority) and an emphasis on what traditionally Labour does best. Taking on the social injustices of the abusive rich in our society and our great compassion, with the hopeful creation of an institution to rival the work of the NHS, a National Care Service.

Max

And wow, my first somewhat optimistic blog in a while. Forgive me, still adjusting to my first ever government that on the whole I’m generally p***ed off with.

In defence of Harriet Harman

by maxattacks

Harriet Harman

“OH SHUT UP!!” are the words I shouted at my laptop screen upon seeing this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11719438. No, not at Harriet Harman, but at the ludicrously stupid Labour MPs, calling on her to resign after the events of former MP and Minister, Woolas’ expulsion from the Commons.

Harman disowned Woolas for an extremely good reason, he lied, not only that but knowingly, directly to his own constituents whose votes he was trying to win over. If we are trying to represent the true “new” politics, it’s vital that we do not tolerate the “old” and all the negativity and petty points scoring that came with it. Woolas’ decision was his own and yes the Tories may have lied and exaggerated themselves (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11614602), but as the old saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. We certainly do not have to stoop to their level.

Max

The day the poorest were to get poorer

by kohalloran

Osborne announced £81 billion reduction in public expenditure

As George Osborne ploughed through the list of ‘efficiency savings’, it seemed as though he struggled to iterate what he was orchestrating. Almost with a guilty conscience, he reached for his glass of water after every departmental shrinkage plan. The monetary arm of the state is no longer the source of promise that has rescued those trapped on the peripheries of society, it has now turned away. With this it has put the futures of a generation at risk:

  • It has forced those who work so diligently to offset their well-earned retirement plans, by increasing the retirement age. This is compounded by a further £3.5 billion worth of contributions that have to be made by public sector workers for their pension schemes.
  • The departmental cuts total £46 billion, including 27% from local government, 29% from the environment and 23% from the Home Office.
  • It has taken a further £50 a week from those who genuinely claim incapacity benefit, and has stripped another £7 billion from the Welfare budget (the equivalent of £1000 a year from 7 million families) on top of the £11 billion cuts announced previously. Those depending on tax credits and housing benefits will now get a significant amount less or nothing at all.
  • 40% cut in Higher Education- stifling the chances of many innovative and bright young people to excel in the world of academia. My thoughts on this are in a previous blog written recently.
  • The Ministry of Defence will face an 8% reduction in funding which equates to the loss of 42,000 army personnel or civil servant jobs over the next five years.
  • He announced that the commitment to the renovation and new building of social housing will be cut by 60% over the next four years.

The list is endless. To take £81 billion out of the budget through depreciating government spending in the vital services and help that our society necessitates over the next four years is without question showing a complete disregard for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. It is widening the gulf between the top of the social ladder and the bottom, and it recklessly diminishes the future prospects of those not even born yet. And as the Tory backbenchers praised and cheered their man’s vast Spending Review it got me thinking- this ties in with traditional and recurring Tory principles- to hold the poorest at arm’s length, and let the rich get richer.

Kieran

Credit where credit is due

by maxattacks

A classroom

“We will agree with the Coalition where we see the merits…” are the words from both Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman over the type of opposition they are hoping to build. And in this instance, we have actually found common ground with the Coalition. It was revealed yesterday that the schools budget is to escape cuts from the spending review. This was a campaign pledge of one of the three main spending protections Labour was going to make during the election. At this, we thank the coalition on this particular issue. Realising and recognising that your wrong on an issue is not a weakness at all and is what the true “new” politics should hold dear.
Max

The first of many to come…

by maxattacks

Ed Miliband at his debut PM's questions

When David Cameron (DC) and Nick Clegg (Cleggy) first had their first press conference in the No. 10 garden last May, they urged the reporters there and the wider public that this is the new politics, “co-operation in the national interest.” which no one can deny is not a good thing. But, a new politics that breaks with the past is a politics that leaves behind the petty point scoring and squabbling of the House of Commons that has plagued most notably PMQs since the late 1960s and particularly since the 1980s.

This is something DC failed to demonstrate today in (Ed Miliband’s very first) PMQs as the Coalition’s new politics often very much looked, sounded and seemed like the old. After five years of complaining that his predecessors did NOT answer the vast majority of his questions, DC seemed very unable to answer Ed Miliband’s questions on Child Benefit. What seemed to happen in the end was DC questioning Miliband on his own policies to which quite rightly he didn’t answer to (to simple fact that this is Prime Ministers Questions) instead brilliantly replying “I may be new to this game, but if I remember rightly it’s my job to ask the questions.”.

Ed Miliband was at least trying to break this mould, let’s only hope the Coalition follows suit.

Max

Labour party is not just a electioneering party

by Eriic

‘We should be the people not just campaigning at elections but campaigning in every town, every city and every village for the things that matter to people there – because that’s the best way we have of reconnecting with people.’ Theses are Ed Miliband’s words at a recent question and answer session at the Labour party conference. After attending London Citizens five day training course in community organising, I feel have the versatile skills to make this rhetoric a reality. After an intensive weeks course I have realised the importance and power of relationships, within and outside of an institution. The Labour party has lost its covenant with the people; it’s lost the public relationship that is imperative to win elections but more importantly to be the real party of the people. The public does not trust in the Labour party anymore and this can only be cured when we create better relational power between the Labour party and communities. As an institution we have been more worried about the spelling of names in the minutes than the stories and experiences which hold us together. The Labour party was born out of civil society and now it needs to move back into communities, away from the bureaucratic institution it has become. After experiencing first hand the power of community organising at an assembly in Tower Hamlets, the Labour party has to trust its membership again but that trust needs to be reciprocated with a hunger from local parties, to work together and build relational power with other institutions. This change has already began, Movement for Change in a very short space of time has achieved a huge amount, training 1000 community organisers in four months however it will take much longer to reorganise the party into a movement again. We need a party based on being in relationship with each rather than being focused on bureaucratic tasks. Furthermore the Labour party must look to work together with friends in the local mosque, synagogue and trade union branch. This does not mean moving to the left, it means moving back into the communities that created the Labour party. It means being a party of action for local people in local areas, not just a meeting point for its members.

Sam Murphy

Labour Party activist and South Staffordshire district council candidate in May

Why it still matters

by suzannahrobinson

The month is April 2010. The location is Joe’s Bar in the Guild. A lively debate is taking place over four pints of beer.

“So you’re trying to tell me that the Conservatives are anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-public services.”

“Basically, yeah.”

“Well then you’re full of **** because I heard Cameron’s speech on the NHS and he says he’s gonna protect it! They haven’t mentioned anything about punishing the poor either, you’re just making that up, cos we’re all in this together. And they have gay front-benchers, and JUST in case you’ve forgotten Thatcher was a woman.”

How many times have we experienced this rebuttal? This battle for hearts and minds, with us hungover in scruffy jeans on one side and Cameron’s big air-brushed face on the other?

And how many people came back to us over the following months and said “Mate, I’m sorry, if I’d known they were gonna cut my cousin’s benefits I wouldn’t have voted for them.”

But by then it’s too late. We need a shorthand, to unpick all the rhetoric, all the speeches, all the elaborate policies with questionable motives. Left and Right.

To say that a party is right wing is to know its history. Its history of opposing measures for the greater equality of gender, race and sexuality. Its financial backers in big business, its think tanks and advisers comprising the bigoted, the religiously extreme, the regressive. Its instincts to offload responsibility, make a profit, and favour choice over health and happiness. How it will respond in a crisis, where its priorities will lie, what it wants to achieve and the kind of country it’ll leave behind as its legacy.

Right wing and left wing speak for themselves.

And once you understand the divide you can read between the lines of speeches, because you know the place they are coming from in the first place. Ed Miliband declaring that he’s not in the pockets of Unite isn’t going to scare the Unions because they also know that they share a common, left wing, goal with Ed to defend workers against cuts. Whereas Cameron promising not to include the NHS in his cuts was a plea to those old enough to remember the last Tory government for another chance.

Right wing and left wing are more important than election promises. Years after everyone has forgotten that speech that leader made at conference the backbone of the party is still the same, and will react to each new problem in an essentially typical way. Giving credit to the Tories for cutting child benefit for the relatively wealthy is to silently acknowledge that it’s a surprise, that it’s essentially out of character, that it’s even a little bit left wing, because the true right-wing instinct would be to just scrap it altogether.

But that would make them unelectable.

Suzy

I can’t say I’m not quite surprised

by maxattacks

Well the results are in for the Shadow Cabinet and to be fair, the appointments have had their surprises. Former Home, Health and Education Secretary Alan Johnson is to take the role as Shadow Chancellor. Now I doubt many were expecting this move from Ed, but if you think about it logically, it is rather a good move. Johnson regards himself as a loyalist by nature (so wont cause much in the way of infighting the Blair-Brown era saw) and given he was a strong supporter of Miliband the Elder during the Leadership campaign this appointment by Ed keeps to his word that he wishes to use all areas of Labour whoever they supported. This also has the added bonus of “balancing” the Shadow Cabinet out as there’s certainly no way anyone is going to call Johnson “Red”, despite being a former Trade Union leader. And to anyone who says Johnson can’t possibly apart of Ed’s “new generation”, think again and remember the “new generation” is not defined by age, but rather your mindset.

Here’s the full Shadow Cabinet results:

Leader of the Opposition: Ed Miliband

Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Harriet Harman

Shadow Chancellor: Alan Johnson

Shadow Foreign Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities: Yvette Cooper

Shadow Home Secretary: Ed Balls

Chief Whip: Rosie Winterton

Shadow Education Secretary: Andy Burnham

Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform): Sadiq Khan

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary: Douglas Alexander

Shadow Business Secretary: John Denham

Shadow Health Secretary: John Healey

Shadow Secretary Communities and Local Government Secretary: Caroline Flint

Shadow Defence Secretary: Jim Murphy

Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary: Meg Hillier

Shadow Commons Leader: Hilary Benn

Shadow Transport Secretary: Maria Eagle

Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary: Mary Creagh

Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Angela Eagle

Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary: Shaun Woodward

Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Ann McKechin

Shadow Welsh Secretary: Peter Hain

Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary: Ivan Lewis

Shadow Lords Leader: Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Shadow Olympics Minister: Tessa Jowell

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister: Liam Byrne

Lords Chief Whip: Lord Bassam of Brighton

Shadow Attorney-General: Baroness Scotland

(Note the red to point out that we are all “Reds” as I know I certainly wouldn’t whant a “Blue” or “Yellow” Shadow Member of the Cabinet……and the simple fact that “Red” Ed isn’t insulting at all but rather, quite funny that many in the likes of BUC”F” think it is)

Max

It’s short-sighted to slam the lib dems now

by Eriic

Let’s be clear this is a Conservative lead government implementing predominately Tory policy bar a few half-hearted attempts at Lib Dem fig leaves, such as the referendum on AV. Recently there has been a lot of anti Lib Dem rhetoric thrown about by the Labour leadership candidates, especially by Ed Miliband who I support incidentally. This kind of rhetoric against the Lib Dems in government, in my opinion is short sighted, too tribal and ignores the true architects of the cuts regime: the Tories.

It will get a loud cheer from the Labour party faithful and applause from the gallery but anti liberal democrat rhetoric places the Labour party in permanent opposition if it continues on this path. As a party we have to be ready to talk and work with other parties on the left as most of the wider public now like coalitions and politicians working together. Of course as a party we should focus on winning a majority at the next general election but after such a heavy defeat in the spring and the way this has election panned out I believe that will be difficult to achieve in only one term. However we should be ready, unlike in May, for a coalition government, we should be looking to work with the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and others on the pluralistic left to make sure a Tory government is a thing of the past. With a progressive alliance we can place the Tory’s in opposition indefinitely.

As well as Labour swallowing its tribal instincts, this kind of politics is very much dependant on the electoral system. I would be in favour of a more proportional system possibly in the form of AV+ however this is not on the referendum ballot paper although I hear Caroline Lucas is mounting an amendment to add it on. Despite the A.V referendum being placed alongside the gerrymandering of constituencies in the same bill, the next leader, whoever it is, should campaign for a ‘yes’ vote. The alternative vote would make coalitions governments more likely and be a step in the right direction to making parliament more representative and go a way to gaining lost trust in the political system. In May as a Labour party we should show the public we are grown up politicians, ready to be an effective opposition but more importantly a credible government. That means as Martin Kettle states in his draft Labour leader speech in Friday’s Guardian, and I paraphrase ‘I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Nick Clegg on this issue’

Come May 2015 the electoral map will look very different, and a Lab-Lib coalition might be very much on the cards. The Labour party has to swallow its tribal instincts and be ready for coalition. Coalitions are here to stay; the country and the labour party can’t afford to be prevented from going into government because it can’t accept a pluralistic vision of politics. Labour needs to not retreat into the introverted tribalism that has marked some of the last five years of power. To avoid a prolonged spell in the wilderness, Labour must look to the wider public and move to a more pluralistic form of doing politics.

Sam Murphy @Murphys_Law19

Student and Labour party activist, South Staffordshire District council candidate in May.

We are NOT all in this together…..and even they know it

by maxattacks

“We are all in this together” is the famous six worded sentence announced by George Osborne at the time of the emergency budget. However, this declaration has taken yet another blow. Despite the budget already being proved to hit women, ethnic minorities and the north disproportionally more, it is now revealed that the Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s First, Deputy and Finance Ministers also concur that we are indeed not all in this together. An extract from the joint statement can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11493001 and so proves that no, it isn’t Labour in denial over the figures, in this declaration we have the DUP, Sinn Fein, SNP and Plaid Cymru as well. And no, they aren’t doing this to gain popularity with a “tussle” with the government in London; they are doing this because what the Coalition is doing in regards to the structural deficit is in fact not in the national interest. But rather a backdrop for ideological dogma, as placed extremely well by the columnist Polly Toynbee, “Blue ideology comes well disguised at a time when all cuts, however extreme, can be disguised as necessity.”.

This is also reflected recently on the daily politics show recently where it was revealed that since David Cameron became leader in 2005 Tory party membership has dropped by a third(!) in the space of five years, yes Labour’s dropped throughout 13 years in government, but this is something quite phenomenal and while in opposition too. This is in direct contrast to Labour membership which has shot up since May 6th with what I’m proud to announce, 65 new fully fledged members of BULS at the fresher’s stall and a further 150 added to the emailing list.

Max

Unity is Essential

by Eriic

“Oh, who would ever wanna be King?” Chris Martin of Coldplay wailed out over the Labour conference after Ed Miliband’s acceptance speech as the new leader of our party. And as his elder brother David may now testify, he has a point. After creeping home thanks to our system for electing the leader (the Alternative Vote, which we will probably have to sell to the wider electorate in a referendum), Ed arguably has a far more difficult task ahead of him than his brother would have had, thanks to our hostile media which takes the Blair view that only “a millimetre to the left of new Labour” would spell doom for our electoral prospects.

However, if he is savvy and true to his instincts, Ed can reconcile the interests of working people who face losing their jobs in the eye-watering Con-Dem cuts and charm the “squeezed middle” voters (according to the BBC this week, a wage of £78,000 per annum is somehow middle class) by using the charge that “it was the unions wot won it” to his advantage. If it was indeed the unions who pushed Ed over the fifty per cent threshold rather than there merely being a majority of Labour members who would have preferred him to David – as was the case, when second preferences for the other defeated candidates are accounted for – then Ed can rightly say that the unions cannot rebel against the line he is taking, because they backed him above everyone else after all. This would allow him to present himself as a credible alternative to the coalition; a mature politician who appreciates that there needs to be cuts and it is wrong to oppose for its own sake, but that the way the coalition is going about them is appallingly unfair and regressive in the extreme.

As for the shadow cabinet, it would be a shame and a disaster for the country if recent history were allowed to repeat itself and we ended up with another feud at the top of the party, where the man who assumed he was headed for the top job was usurped at the last minute by a charismatic young contender. I hope that David can stay in the shadow cabinet and serve under his brother, as he is clearly talented and formidable. I hope his backers can live with that and keep quiet.

However, enough post-match analysis. After all, there are jobs and livelihoods at stake; there is a realistic prospect of a market in universities; the NHS is being practically privatised and the police is about to be run by partial and elected commissioners, in an ideological crusade against the welfare state and a sense of community. It is imperative, more than it has ever been since the 1980s, that Labour unites as a party – not old, not new, not next, not anything – and goes on to win the next election. It has the leader, with charm, insight and a sense of social justice; it has the unions on side, most of whom appreciate that strikes unless absolutely necessary get us nowhere; it has an increasing membership and of course the Liberal Democrats, who make life much easier for us by spitting in the face of most of their core supporters. We must not pander to the media and their absurd analysis of “Red Ed” and fraternal hatred, and instead pander to the people.

Luke Jones