Archive for 2010

I don’t want a new best friend. I want a Labour Prime Minister

24/07/2010, 12:00:21 PM

Back  in 1994 Tony Blair sealed the deal with many of us when he was billed as “the man the Tories most fear”. After the crushing blow of losing in 1992 we wanted a winner. Damn his policies! As the late Tony Banks exclaimed “my members will eat shit to see a Labour government”.

Blair was given enormous latitude. The party was desperate to break its losing streak. We got hooked on successful – but corrosive – habits about stifling internal debate and adopting an approach to discipline that would make a Gordonstoun headmaster blush. But that approach helped keep us in power for 13 years; albeit with a long trail of political capital and supporters leaching out on the road behind us.

We now find ourselves in the middle of Labour’s first truly modern leadership campaign; one that eschews the left/right factionalism of the past and the fatalism we used to have about whether we could actually win power at all. It is opening up debate in a way that we are unused to.

But we have to be careful we don’t overuse our new gifts. There is a balance to be struck between embracing the party’s new glasnost and forgetting the old ways – and why we adopted them in the first place.

At the moment, there’s a lot of tummy tickling going on but not much vision. We need a discussion about how do we equip ourselves for a world where coalition governments may become commonplace. Where there is less money to spend our way to our social democratic nirvana. Where we articulate our own version of The Big Society. Where we back up our grand rhetoric on localism and environmentalism with real commitments next time. But these kind of hard-edged issues are simply not breaking through. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Saturday News Review

24/07/2010, 09:42:49 AM

Cash money

David Miliband has raised more in donations than any of the other candidates

David Miliband, the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, has raised at least £200,000, his campaign has revealed, as the disparity in financial backing for the five candidates emerges as a big issue. Two wealthy donors have each given him £50,000, sparking accusations within the party that the former foreign secretary is deploying far more staff than his rivals and is in danger of “buying the election” with “Blairite” support. – The Guardian

Apathy

More than 2 million people have a vote in the Labour leadership election, which will trudge on through the summer to a crescendo on 25 September. But how many will avail themselves of the chance to vote must be a cause for concern. The Society of Labour Lawyers has completed a ballot of its 598 members to decide which candidates would receive the society’s formal backing. Labour lawyers, you might think, would be among the more motivated sections of the electorate, yet turn out in this ballot was a dismal eight per cent. In other word, 48 out of 598 bothered to vote. The result was Ed Miliband 18, David Miliband 17, Diane Abbott 8, Andy Burnham 9, and Ed Balls nil. If that reflects the level of enthusiasm, it is not going to be a resounding mandate. – The Independent

The contest has raised barely an eyebrow of public interest, though whoever wins may find low expectations a blessing. There is nowhere to go but up, as opinion polls offer cold comfort. Guardian readers should not be deceived by our daily reasoned critiques of profoundly misguided government policies. The coalition may be about to crash the economy, shipwreck the NHS and splinter the education system but the public does not agree, as yet. The coalition’s honeymoon may last a while. – The Guardian

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Today’s growth figures vindicate the action Labour took, argues Alistair Darling

23/07/2010, 02:30:44 PM

Today figures show the results of the Labour Government’s balanced approach to supporting the recovery. And they remind us of the threat posed by the coalition’s willingness to take risks. 

This is the fastest growth we have seen for over four years. It shows that confidence was returning. And you can see the success of maintaining support for important sectors like construction. This is the final nail in the coffin of the Coalition’s argument that things are worse than they believed before the election. Today’s figures show that growth was twice as fast as expected.

The Coalition’s economic policy is not inevitable – it’s the choice they’ve made. And they will have to accept responsibility for the risks they are taking with the economy.

As I have consistently argued, withdrawing help to the economy now puts growth in jeopardy and could be more costly in the long run if more people lose their jobs. It is increasingly clear that we’re seeing the return to politics of a serious ideological debate. This  government’s clear and overriding priority is to cut back the state. Otherwise they would not announce cuts with such relish (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour must show it could cut the deficit and drive growth and the jobs of the future, argues Pat McFadden

23/07/2010, 10:49:13 AM

The Tories have a clear plan for their austerity programme which is to discredit Labour’s economic record, blame the situation they inherited from Labour for all the cuts they will make and suggest that anyone who doesn’t support their programme has no worthwhile economic proposition at all. 

 It is a plan which should be challenged at each point.  But it would also be a mistake to suggest that anyone on the centre left who wanted to address the issue of the deficit was somehow endorsing the Tory plan.  That isn’t true and would appear to suggest that there was no worthwhile difference between the plans on which Labour and the Conservatives fought the election. 

Yet the difference between the two parties is being felt every day in issues from the abandoned school building programme to cancelled regeneration projects and support for key industrial projects such as the Sheffield Forgemasters plan to make Britain a key player in the worldwide civil nuclear supply chain.

Labour won power in 1997 partly because we had worked hard to develop economic competence, to move on from a reputation for having big hearts but soft heads when it came to the nation’s finances.  We didn’t lose that focus in government.  We presided over the biggest increase in GDP per head in the G7 between 1997 and 2009, even after taking into account the financial crisis.

Of course the global financial crisis and our response – designed to stop recession turning into depression – meant borrowing was raised but this was a choice, a judgement we made. 

Labour fought the election on a plan to reduce the deficit over a longer timescale, with a different balance between spending reductions and tax measures and with key priorities protected.  That plan would have required some tough decisions and there’s no getting away from that.  We had already announced some spending reductions in the PBR last year and had proposed for example changes to civil service redundancy terms.  But Labour’s approach would have been very different to the Tory plan now being rammed through, a plan characterised by deep cuts started before recovery is established, with no regard for the impact on the private sector or future industrial opportunities for the country.

Labour’s plan would have had, at its heart, an active role for Government in promoting growth and ensuring Britain tried to develop key capability in areas of future employment growth such as low carbon vehicles, the digital economy, green energy and other areas.

The Tory deficit plan pays no regard to these areas.  This week’s document issued on this had little to say.  In fact, in addition to cancelling the Forgemasters loan the Government seems to be giving up on plans for a Green Investment Bank.  And their plans for abolishing the RDAs and cutting support for the regions will make recovery and growth even harder to achieve.

Cutting the deficit in the way they are doing is faith based economics, with the Tories playing the role of high priests and the Lib Dems displaying the zeal of the recently converted.

The challenge for the Labour Party is to address the deficit in a way that also includes a drive for the growth and jobs of the future.  And that’s a far cry from what the Tories and Lib Dems are doing.

The Rt Hon Pat McFadden is MP for Wolverhampton South East  and Shadow Secretary of State for Business

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Friday News Review

23/07/2010, 08:30:10 AM

 Leadership Contest

“I am an economic realist. The public finances need addressing. Labour’s plans would halve the budget deficit and remove the bulk of the structural deficit in four years. It is the sensible, credible middle-ground between extreme cuts and unchecked spending. But the government’s proposals, designed without an escape hatch in the event of slowing growth, reflect ideology, not realism” – David Miliband, Financial Times.

 Ed, the younger of the two Miliband brothers, has been heavily supported with Coral bookmakers in the last two days to be the next Labour Leader, and has been slashed in price to 13-8 (from 9-4). David is still the odds-on favourite at 1-2. – Live Odds and Scores.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

It’s time for a local discussion about what our representatives should do for communities, argues Fiona Gordon

22/07/2010, 05:30:11 PM

Like many people I feel that I am still recovering from the strangest general election campaign that I have ever been involved in.  I helped organise the Birmingham Selly Oak campaign not only in the month of the short campaign but for 3 years leading up to it. We won –   thank goodness, not least because the candidate was my partner Steve McCabe.

So I say all this not as a armchair socialist but an active campaigning member of the Labour Party.

Don’t you think it is strange that there are rules and regulations about selections and elections  in our Party but nothing at all about what we should get from our Labour representatives once they are elected?

I understand why the Labour Party has followed  a key seat strategy, concentrating on the seats we have to win to form  a government. I have been a Labour Party staffer and have been part of implementing this. But don’t you think it is time for a change. Politics is changing and the Labour Party needs to too.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

We’re finally starting to see who should lead the Labour Party, observes Dan Hodges

22/07/2010, 02:30:56 PM

The legendary American football coach Vince Lombardi once confided to an assistant that he found analysing match replays more stimulating than sex. “Either you don’t know how to have sex”, the assistant replied,  “or I don’t know how to watch game footage”.  I was reminded of that quote when someone at Saturday’s Labour Friends of Searchlight leadership hustings gushed to me how the leadership election was “energising the movement”. Either I have unrealistic expectations of what it means to be energised, or elements of the movement  have to get out there and get some excitement into their lives.

This leadership election is dire. The candidates are exhausted. The contest is mired in tedium. There  is lots of sound, but precious little fury. We are a beaten party going through the motions, and it shows.

And yet…and yet. Despite the banality, the drudgery, the parsing, the positioning; somewhere through the gloom, the odd chinks of light are starting to seep through. Patterns, barely discernable, are beginning to form. Gradually we are unearthing the first clues  to who could, and should, be the next leader of our Party.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Cuts in Housing Benefit will cause hardship and increase homelessness, says Karen Buck

22/07/2010, 12:53:48 PM

Beveridge, intellectual giant, architect of the post war welfare state, threw in the towel when it came to sorting out rent subsidy. The Beveridge report argued, not unreasonably, that any coherent national system of subsidising housing costs for those who could not afford them was not feasible while rents varied so greatly between different part of the United Kingdom.  The problem which confounded him has, if anything, intensified over the years. In the last three decades, to add to the intractable problem of regional variations in costs, governments of both colours pursued a deliberate policy of allowing Housing Benefit to ‘take the strain’ generated by decline in the provision of social rented housing.   Today, housing need is one of the great policy challenges of the century, with demand for affordable homes far outstripping supply and subsidy, in the form of Housing Benefit, going instead into the pockets of private landlords supplying the roof over the head of an ever increasing number of low income households.

Taken in isolation from wider housing policy, one can understand the concern at the rising bill, and recognise the sense of injustice amongst working families at the small number of very extreme cases of households claiming Housing Benefit in our most expensive neighbourhoods. Intuitively, it seems as though we have got it wrong and the system is ripe for reform.

Yet seeing where a policy is wrong does not necessarily help us get it right. The measures set out in the Coalition budget for cutting subsidy to low income households is draconian, runs counter to all attempts to create mixed communities and could easily create a crisis of homelessness.

To summarise the proposals, a cap on the highest  rents (mostly in  London) will be followed by a reduction in Local Housing Allowances everywhere in the country, with future up-rating limited too.  Working age households in private and social housing alike will see their benefit cut if they are deemed to have any spare bedrooms, and, in 2013 anyone on Jobseeker’s Allowance for a year loses 10% of their benefit.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

“Marvin … What do we do now?” Hopi Sen’s advice for the next leader

22/07/2010, 10:26:03 AM

The passage of time being what it is, some Uncut readers won’t be familiar with “The Candidate”, a 1972 film featuring Robert Redford as an insurgent Senate candidate struggling to retain his idealistic purity while trying to beat a popular Republican incumbent.

The film was written by Jeremy Larner, a speechwriter for Gene McCarthy in the 1968 Election campaign.  McCarthy didn’t win the Presidency, but Larner did win an Oscar.

It’s a great film, not least because of the perfomance of Peter Boyle, playing political consultant Marvin Lucas. Once you’ve seen Lucas, all gleaming pate, glasses, beard and calculated cynicism, it’s hard not to see the West Wing’s Toby Ziegler as a tribute act.

Why do I raise a forty year old American film?

Because the challenges that face the next leader of the Labour party mirror those facing the fictional Bill McKay. At the end of the film, McKay turns to the man who has reshaped and remoulded him and asks “Marvin, What do we do now?”  

On the 25th of September, when the last vote has been wrung out of the campaign, when the challenge to inspire the party alone has ended, one of the teams will need a great answer to that question. 

It could be Spencer, Stewart, Polly, or Jim, Douglas, Blair or Kate, or Alex or another Jim who get asked. Their answer might decide the fate of the Labour party for years.

The questions the new Labour Leader will be confronted with won’t be much different to the ones they’ve faced over the campaign, but the attention paid to their answers will be.

These first months can kill when you’re a new opposition leader, unknown to most of the public and with years to run before an election, as Kinnock, Hague and IDS all discovered. Each was defined early in their leadership. None quite recovered.

So in an attempt to be helpful, here are five things to do, and two disasters to avoid for the next leader. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Thursday News Review

22/07/2010, 07:30:42 AM

Unison backs Ed M

Unison has declared it's support for Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband has won the backing of Britain’s second biggest union, Unison, in his campaign to become the next leader of the Labour Party. Yesterday’s decision suggests that the younger of the Miliband brothers is emerging as the favourite candidate of trade activists, which will boost his vote but will be used against him by the Tories if he wins. – The Independent

Ed Miliband’s odds were cut by three bookmakers, with Ladbrokes trimming him to 2/1 from 9/4, Paddy Power 7/4 from 9/4, and William Hill from 2/1 to 13/8. He is also backed by the GMB union, while his brother has the support of two unions – Community and Usdaw. – The Telegraph

The leadership contest is now seen as a two-horse race between Mr Miliband and his brother David, who remains ahead on nominations from MPs and constituency Labour parties. Ed Miliband’s supporters claimed that the backing of Unison, the country’s largest public sector union, now puts their candidate in “pole position”. – The Mirror

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon