Archive for August, 2010

It’s time for Labour to be nicer to Catholics, says Kevin Meagher

21/08/2010, 12:15:59 PM

Forget Ann Widdecombe. Or any of the other establishment talking heads rolled out to speak for the Church of Rome for that matter. Most Catholics in Britain are like me: working-class, from the North and ethnically Irish. And most vote Labour.  

But relations between Catholics and some on the left have traditionally rested on a delicate modus vivendi. We walk in tandem on economic and social justice. We both abhor war and starvation. We even have similar things to say on the environment (although the Vatican, understandably, stops well short of ‘Earth worship’ greenery). And we both have a penchant for moral absolutism. 

But we go our separate ways on abortion, birth control, gay rights, euthanasia and the ‘importance’ of marriage. And there it lies. Like Cyprus or Korea we have a demarcation line that is simply irreducible. The iron doctrinal differences on either side are simply not bridgeable.  

So, wisely, we try and avoid confrontation that will dredge up the full extent of our differences and instead focus on the significant areas where we do agree. But it’s not easy. Our time in office saw one flashpoint after another. Sometimes on big issues: Abortion adverts on television; the Mental Capacity Bill; euthanasia; faith schools; human embryology legislation and gay adoption. But sometimes on smaller issues too, like the British Secular Society’s splenetic call for hospital chaplains to be cut – which, sadly, saw no health minister take to the airwaves to denounce such mean-spirited nonsense.#

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Counting the graduates in the dole queue, it’s clear that our system isn’t serving the young, says Claire French

21/08/2010, 10:00:02 AM

Last summer, tens of thousands of young people fresh out of school went straight onto the dole. Student loans were paid late, occasionally months after the autumn semester began. By all accounts, it’s going to be worse this year. With increased numbers of applicants and an under-cut of 10,000 university places by the coalition government, there is severe competition.

Having graduated this summer, I too am feeling the pressure of swathes of graduates leaving university with a respectable degree and no job. Finding myself with no other option than signing onto job seekers allowance while looking for employment, I find myself wondering how we have reached a state where so many young people – having attended university or not – having no other option than to look to the welfare state for help?

Higher education would supposedly become more accessible and universal after the introduction of top-top fees near the beginning of the Labour administration. In reality from applying for university places through UCAS to landing their first job – many young adults are now fighting harder than has been fought before. The threat of soaring youth unemployment is leading to what some commentators call the “lost generation”.

With the projected number of young people missing out on a university place this Thursday standing at around 150,000, it is time to seriously question the new Labour 50% university target. Educating the future workforce to a highly competitive standard is obviously important for the economy and our global position. At this time of austerity, is not feasible for hundreds of thousands of young people to be signing on to job seekers allowance because they cannot afford to take a gap year, or because they leave university with no other option.

The further education system over emphasises the importance of a university degree. The Labour party continues to predict that 40% of jobs will be filled by graduates by 2020. Those who are less than taken by the idea of being indebted suffer from the current lack of apprenticeships and unskilled work. 

An undergraduate university degree is no longer a foot-in-the-door in today’s tough labour market. As areas of the private sector begin to advertise for more graduate jobs than last year, the public sector is tightening its belt – with huge redundancies being made and cuts to department budgets around the country.

The Guardian last week reported that only “36% of final-year students expect to find a graduate-level job this summer”. High numbers of graduates from some institutions are left out of work and not in education for more than six months after leaving university (up to one in four).

For many university leavers, a degree is not enough to land a paid, graduate-level job. Employers expect candidates to have skills and knowledge that is best demonstrated through previous work experience. For individuals without well-connected parents this can be a battlefield.

Internships – an increasingly popular form of learning in the professional workplace – pose a number of problems, foremost because many remain unpaid. Firstly, the majority of placements are located in London. Secondly, the nature of ‘the internship’ is to provide free labour to an employer in return for training. For applicants who need to pay for travel, accommodation and other outgoings this poses a problem. Campaigns such as Intern Aware and Internocracy work for fairer conditions, including a wage for interns.

Worldwide, the outlook for people aged between 15 and 24 years old is bleak. The global youth unemployment rate is sitting at 13%, 81 million people in real terms. It’s a big number that we need to address, and the current system just can’t cope.

Claire French is an aspiring journalist and writes at www.clairefrench.co.uk

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Saturday News Review

21/08/2010, 09:29:17 AM

Kennedy talks step up

Labour stepped up its attack on the Liberal Democrat wing of David Cameron’s coalition government by hinting Charles Kennedy, the former Lib Dem leader, has been in talks to defect to Labour and take several of his party colleagues with him.”– The Guardian

The fight down under

“Australians go to the polls tonight in what is predicted to be one of the closest battles in decades and offering a stark choice between two very different leaders.” – Wales Online

“The World Cup had Paul the “psychic octopus”. The Australian election – the closest in years – has Harry, the Australian saltwater crocodile with supposed predictive powers. Like Paul, Harry correctly picked Spain to win the World Cup last month. Now Harry has forecast a win for Julia Gillard in tomorrow’s vote.” – The Guardian

Posting the union vote

“Labour leadership candidate Ed Balls is to visit a number of post offices in the coming week, pledging his support to keeping the Royal Mail publicly owned. The shadow education secretary will launch his support in Glasgow on Saturday, followed by Durham on Sunday, Burnley on Monday, Wolverhampton on Wednesday and other parts of the country later in the week.” – The Press Association

Barmy Burnham

“Andy Burnham has long been a staunch supporter of Top of the Pops, so when he was asked at a Labour leadership campaign event in Nottingham this week whether he still planned to lobby for the programme to be returned to the BBC, his answer was a foregone conclusion, according to today’s diary in the Independent.

But as well as praising the show, he went on to complain that the BBC was too “London-centric”, perhaps referring to the ongoing controversy over the reluctance of certain BBC bosses to relocate to new premises in Salford. According to Burnham, the Beeb has also lost touch with “ordinary people” — and he went on to rachet up the rhetoric, saying that “they’d never hire someone like John Peel now”.” – The New Statesman blog

How to host a party by David Miliband

“Under the headline “What you should be doing”, the document starts at 5:30pm: “Get in from work, give the place a quick vacuum and general tidy (or not, if you’re not that type).” In case the idea hadn’t occurred, hosts are told to “prepare food and drink… no one can resist a delicious spread of food!”…” – Sify.com

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Could we, or should we win again? Paul Bower on his difficult relationship with Labour

20/08/2010, 03:00:32 PM

I left the Labour party in March 2003 when the bombs began to fall on Baghdad.  This ended a formal relationship that began on 4 May 1979, when I joined the day after Thatcher was elected.  My Labour leanings had roots in my childhood in a small Sheffield terrace with no bathroom.  One of my earliest memories is of my dad explaining to me why Harold Wilson and not Alex Douglas Home should lead the country. My dad died in 1968.  He was a toolmaker in a family firm where conditions were Dickensian. Health and safety was non-existent and there was no sick pay or pension.  He didn’t trust politicians, but he told me that Labour were our best hope. He suffered from a series of lung diseases and his life was saved by the NHS on at least three occasions starting in 1949.  If Nye Bevan and Clem Atlee had not created the NHS I would not have been born.              

In between working with bands like ABC, The Human League and Heaven 17 I campaigned vigorously for Labour. In the 1983 election I argued with voters who looked at you incredulously when you explained that Michael Foot should be Prime Minister. In 1985 I played a small in part setting up Red Wedge, the collective of radical musicians, comedians, writers and film makers who attempted to engage young people with politics and encourage them to listen to what Labour had to say. We supported Neil Kinnock’s efforts to bring the party into the modern world without losing its passion and principles.  We liked Neil.  

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Our new leader will need to ‘fess up, stop spinning and start inspiring, says Sally Bercow

20/08/2010, 11:30:10 AM

At a drinks party recently, I got chatting to someone who said that if Labour is to win the next election, it needs ‘rebranding’. This chap did something in marketing, so he would say that wouldn’t he. Nevertheless, it was rather depressing to hear, and in my view it is wrong to boot. Our party is not a packet of sweets or a jar of coffee awaiting new packaging; in fact that is precisely where the last Labour government went wrong – by substituting idealism and vision with spin. Our new leader must break decisively from the past; he (for it will be a he) cannot simply change the advertising agency (although he should definitely look at that), rehash what’s gone before and embark on a rebranding exercise.

Encouragingly, all five Labour leader candidates seem to appreciate this – at the moment. However, the persuasiveness of the spin doctors, advisers and pollsters that will flock around our newly elected leader should not be underestimated. They will bandy about empty phrases like ‘progressive centre left’ whilst arguing that Britain is fundamentally a deeply conservative country and so Labour dare not move more than a milimetre to the left of the Coalition. As a result, the temptation will be to tinker at the edges and carry on much as before, banking largely on the Con-Libs becoming increasingly unpopular. This will not wash. It does not, however, mean lurching drastically to the left on every issue. What it does mean is fashioning a new approach based on three concepts.

First, if Labour is to start to regain the public’s trust we have to be brutally honest about where we got it wrong and (dare I say it) where the coalition might be right. ‘Fessing up to a few oversights; even ones as significant as being too soft on the bankers and allowing the state to become too controlling, will not cut it. Our new leader should own up lock, stock and barrel – even though they might find it a bit awkward because they sat in cabinet at the time. With a bit of luck, the new leader will admit to Labour’s mistakes in areas including civil liberties, ID cards, prisons, housing (or more accurately the desperate lack of it) and the digital economy, then duly consign those policies to the scrapheap.

Simultaneously, and this does not come naturally to the more tribal amongst us, we will earn the public’s respect if we stop trying to score points for the sake of it and actually admit it if the Coalition has a case. It is simply not credible for the new leader to roundly condemn every single one of the coalition’s policies and planned cuts.

Second, on the back of such unflinching honesty, our new leader can go into battle. He must defend the last Labour government, who left a better, fairer, more tolerant country with transformed public services and an economy saved from depression. He must expose the chronic iniquity and manic ideology of the coalition’s policies and seek to thwart or temper them. And, most importantly of all, he must set out a clear, attractive and viable alternative.

Third, beyond adopting this new honest approach, Labour needs to develop a new programme. This should be done not by pandering to media prejudice, by shifting according to fluctuating opinion polls or by becoming overly cautious. Instead, we must craft an inspiring credo, driven by progressive Labour values, which has the potential to improve the lives of the mainstream majority in a way and on a scale that this right-wing government cannot imagine, let alone deliver.

It is time to rediscover our principles, our values and our idealism. An unerring focus on social justice – fighting for a fairer, more equal Britain – coupled with economic dynamism should be at the heart of our new programme. This focus on social justice will mean taxing the rich more, reducing the gap between the haves and the have-nots, creating more affordable housing, reducing the ugly disparities in educational achievement and thereby paving the way for a more socially mobile Britain.

Economic dynamism will mean an explanation of how we would reduce the deficit (by credible spending cuts and bold, but fair, tax rises) and over what timescale. In addition, we must develop a clear plan for growth and an active industrial policy (investing in manufacturing, green industries and apprenticeships), so that we can create a broader, more balanced economy, rather than the skewed, misshapen and city-driven creature of neo-liberal economic theory.

Labour’s new programme must not be imposed from the top but fed and informed by people in communities across the country who have something to tell us and hold our fate in their hands. Never again must we allow ourselves to become so aloof and out of touch. This means listening to and engaging with our councillors, activists, trade unionists, rank and file members and, above all, those who either deserted us in the polling booths or didn’t bother to turn out at all.

Every government runs into trouble and the coalition will be no exception. The biggest mistake would be simply to wait for them to lose the next election. Instead, Labour needs to ‘fess up, stop spinning and start inspiring millions of voters by fighting for a fairer, less divisive and more equal Britain.

Sally Bercow

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Changing the record on politics: Peter Jenner talks sex and drugs and rock and roll

20/08/2010, 09:00:47 AM

 Labour was not too bad on sex. Gay rights, single parents, sex education, civil unions, AIDS treatments, STD education, general openness of discussion of sex issues, problems and possibilities. These all added up to a pretty positive development in the social environment. Chronic British uptight-ness, prejudice and repression were dealt with in social life and interaction, the arts and education. It made a Britain a better place to live in. 

In contrast, the treatment of drugs was a classic opportunity lost; fear of every hysterical headline demanded a conservative response. Drug czars, the war on drugs and experts on the misuse of drugs sacked or resigned all played to the worst of Labour’s populism and PR directed policy responses. Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson orchestrated a mindless response to the drug problem, despite all the evidence that repression and prohibition was having little if any positive effect, and that the most dangerous thing about drugs were that they were illegal.  

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Friday News Review

20/08/2010, 08:07:26 AM

The campaign crosses the border

“The Shadow Energy Secretary, who today begins a three-day tour of Scotland with a visit to Govan shipyard, is said by his camp to have secured most first-preference votes among Labour MSPs and is doing “particularly well” on second preferences among Scottish Labour MPs.  A source close to Ed Miliband told The Herald: “We are not taking anything for granted but are encouraged by the response among Scottish parliamentarians. We’re confident that, by the time people vote, Ed will have majority support in Scotland.” – The Herald Scotland

“Ed Balls explaining why he thought he was not doing as well as his opponents north of the Border: “It’s partly having had an English portfolio. It’s partly through people thinking to themselves we need to move beyond Gordon Brown and I started off as being the person three months ago who was closest to him.” – The Herald Scotland

The Philip Green agenda

“Sir Philip has been hired to advise on Whitehall efficiency. His wife Tina is a Monaco resident and as owner of Arcadia received a £1.2bn dividend in 2005 on which UK tax did not have to be paid.  Alastair Campbell, the former Downing Street spin doctor, said the deficit would already be smaller if billionaires paid the same amount of tax as everyone else.” – The FT

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Battle of the stats: Oona King’s campaign manager rebutts Steve Hart

19/08/2010, 08:00:29 PM

This article is a response to an article from Steve Hart based on his pamphlet ‘Who can beat Boris?’

Beware those bearing false statistical comparisons and wishful thinking. Steve Hart’s argument that Ken Livingstone is more popular than Labour is based on a flawed set of assumptions that, don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Steve claims that in 2008 Ken Livingstone out performed London’s MPs in the 2010 general election; and in so doing, he makes a totally false comparison. The mayoral election in 2008 was a London-wide election that was effectively a two-horse race – and voters understood it this way. The Liberal Democrats (and smaller parties) weren’t competitive and many voters simply voted with a major party without going through the charade of transferring their vote.

The general election in London was, in contrast, effectively more than 70 local races. Many of which the Liberal Democrats were competitive in – either where they already held MPs, in say Steve and my own constituency of Hornsey & Wood Green or Richmond or where they were hopeful of taking MPs: Islington South or Hampstead & Kilburn. This meant their vote was motivated to stick with them, rather than to stop their least favorite as was the case in the 2008 mayoral election.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

We should all be in the dock on immigration, says Dan Hodges

19/08/2010, 05:12:35 PM

Next month, a special election court will rule on whether Phil Woolas’ 103 vote general election victory in Oldham East and Saddleworth will stand. The verdict will hinge primarily on a number of leaflets distributed during the campaign, which were the subject of a complaint by Lib Dem candidate Elwyn Watkins. The leaflets themselves, which were doing the rounds on the internet and Twitter over the weekend, relate to the ongoing debate over race  migration and religious fundamentalism, and given the sensitive nature of the allegations. It would be inappropriate to go into details here.

However, the Oldham case has thrown into sharp focus one of the most difficult, controversial – and in my view defining – issues we face as a Party. Our stance on immigration.

Some cards on the table. I’ve known Phil Woolas for twenty years. He was in the front line campaigning against racism and prejudice long before he sets his sights on a Westminster seat. I saw  first hand how, behind the headlines, as a home office minister he tried to push the case for a fairer, more progressive immigration and asylum system. Those people trying to pin Phil to the wall are missing the bigger picture.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Government transparency in the age of austerity? I won’t hold my breath, says Vincent Moss

19/08/2010, 03:00:44 PM

Something strange is going on in Downing Street. Workers are removing “Tony Blair’s mirrored gym”, ripping down a wall and installing a lavish new kitchen, we are told, in the flat above Number 11 – the London home of David Cameron and his family. Meanwhile, the Camerons are enjoying the first week of their holiday at the PM’s country retreat Chequers, with its tennis court, heated pool, and staff to attend to their every need on the 1,000-acre estate.

 That’s a bit odd too, given Downing Street initially led the media to believe they’d be in Cornwall this week. But does any of this really matter when up to 500,000 public sector workers are facing the sack in the tightest spending squeeze in living memory with every pound of the public finances under scrutiny? Yes, it does.  As chancellor George Osborne (who has the run of the croquet set at his country residence of Dorneywood) keeps telling us: “We are all in this together”. 

Both men are making far greater use of these pads, more suited to rock stars than to servants of the people, than their Labour predecessors.   And, while the residences are funded via charitable trusts and not taxpayers’ cash, Cameron’s and Osborne’s growing fondness for their new homes sits uncomfortably with their rhetoric about austerity Britain.

When it comes to the Camerons’ flat above No11, the media were initially told that the family would be shelling out for all the work in the building.   According to the Sunday Telegraph, it now looks like they may only pay any costs above £28,000. We’re also told the main Downing Street kitchen is also getting a major makeover.  Is that a top priority in these difficult times?  How much is that costing? Only days ago, communities secretary Eric Pickles courageously revealed details of all the spending Labour made over £500 in his new department during Gordon Brown’s last year in power.  Pickles insisted this was all in the need of greater openness and transparency and challenged other Whitehall departments to do the same.  “This department, like the rest of Whitehall, needs to look at where every penny is going and getting this data out in the open will help that process,” maintained Pickles.  Although I’m not sure the edict has yet extended to the chauffeur-driven Jaguar that Pickles reportedly enjoys courtesy of the taxpayer.  

It’s a similar story when it comes to the cash being poured into the revamp in Downing Street.   Digging around for a bit of Pickles-style “transparency”, I find Labour Uncut’s guest editor Tom Watson has already fired in questions in the hope of some clarity.  So far, nothing has emerged.  Why?  Haven’t they got the Pickles memo yet? If we really are all in this together, Cameron and his ministers should be leading by example.  He should start by publishing all the spending on the renovations on his taxpayer-funded Downing Street flat.  And then, he should insist that all Whitehall departments publish all their costs over £500 on a quarterly basis. I won’t hold my breath.

Vincent Moss is political editor of the Sunday Mirror Group

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon