Archive for 2012

Rotherham is the most important election of all

14/11/2012, 07:00:06 AM

by Rob Marchant

It seems that, over the next two weeks, we are about to suffer a plague of elections: six by-elections, plus the rather-important PCC elections.

But the one which has the most compressed timescales of all – where candidate Sarah Champion was selected yesterday, with a mere two weeks until polling day and after a walkout at the selection meeting – is going to be the toughest, nastiest and arguably the most important of all.

Why?

Denis MacShane’s resignation a fortnight ago, over the falsification of invoices, was a tragic, shabby end to what was an otherwise rather admirable and productive career, including three years as minister for Europe and some brave work fighting anti-semitism. And whilst there was never any question of personal gain resulting from his actions, it was also clear that his behaviour was inexcusable and that he had to go, to avoid dragging out the pain for him, Labour and his constituents over a further half-parliament.

What has not yet been focused on, however, is the considerable headache that his departure gives Labour.

First, we are in a political climate where the conventional wisdom is that trust in established parties is at a historic low – and therefore the likelihood of major parties being punished is high. Although neither Respect nor the BNP are currently in particularly good shape, this is good news for both of them in all these elections.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour history uncut: the union road from Tolpuddle

13/11/2012, 03:40:50 PM

Pete Goddard and Atul Hatwal continue their tour through Labour history with a look at the role of the unions in establishing the Labour representation committee (LRC) in 1900

For the unions, the road to the Labour representation committee started in a field in Dorset. Not an actual field, obviously. A road starting in a field wouldn’t be very useful, and nobody had yet invented EU infrastructure funding.

In 1832, six agricultural labourers from Tolpuddle gathered together and founded a friendly society. They aimed to protest against the lowering of wages in the area in the hope that they could afford the little luxuries in life, such as food.

The name friendly society was appropriate to the gentle pace of protest in the region. West country militancy had reached its peak a couple of years earlier, in nearby Wroughton in Wiltshire.

In response to cuts to welfare administered by the local church under the poor laws, working men marched along to the church’s graveyard and began smoking. Not in a Tibetan monk-protest type way. They simply lit their pipes and puffed away.

Outrageous.

The local gentry thought so anyway. As far as they were concerned pipes in the graveyard was the thin end of a wedge that inevitably led to mob rule and the guillotine. Sure, they called it a friendly society, but wasn’t that just marketing? In 1789 Parisians had probably been invited to the “unexpected open day of the Bastille” too. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

This government is abandoning Britain to the legal loan sharks

13/11/2012, 10:50:01 AM

by Stella Creasy

Today’s evidence from R3, the insolvency practitioners, that the rapid and rabid growth of Britain’s payday loan industry is leading people to go hungry in order to repay these debts, is saddening but not surprising to me. For two years now along with many others I’ve been trying to warn the government that they needed to protect British consumers from these legal loan sharks- and for two years they have found excuses not to do so. Now as debt engulfs the household budgets of so many, we see the consequences of their choice to do nothing.

As the government tries to claim Britain is now on the up, we ignore how people are coping with the financial hardship of the recession at our peril. ONS data shows families are being squeezed much more this time than in previous eras, as they experience both falling household incomes and rising inflation. Predictions are wages will stay flat for years to come, offering little respite to which to look forward.

Dismissing the consequences of this as some in the government have done by telling people they should ”live within their means” misses the point. Too many in Britain, both in and out of work, cannot make their incomes meet the basic costs of everyday living. Research by Which? published last week found a third of payday loan users had taken out credit they knew they couldn’t afford to repay in order to pay for essentials such as food and fuel.  In the week when British Gas bills will rise again, consumers are looking at the gaps in their budgets and rightly asking when will this all end. With massive cuts in benefits around the corner only adding to the misery they face, it is a question Westminster must answer.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

A gift from Alastair to George

13/11/2012, 07:00:00 AM

by Dan McCurry

The funniest line of George Osborne’s letter to Mervyn King begins with the words, “As you are aware, my predecessor agreed…”

The predecessor is Alistair Darling and the letter concerns the £35 billion of interest payments, or coupons, that would have been paid on the gilts bought up by the Bank of England, under the policy of quantitative easing (QE).

The agreement struck by the Labour chancellor, is that the treasury would not make coupon payments on the gilts, since it would be pointless for the treasury to pay interest to the Bank of England (the state to pay the state).

The reason the letter is amusing is that Osborne won an election on the promise to reduce the deficit at spectacular speed, but has spectacularly failed to do so. However, he has done a good job of blaming his predecessor for his own failure. In this letter he has been forced to admit that his predecessor has delivered a £35 billion gift to the public purse.

All this means that George Osborne must be tremendously happy. You can picture him getting out the bunting in number 11 Downing street. He’s probably kissing a photo of Alistair Darling at this very moment. There must be a proper spring in his step.

All of his efforts to remove Britain’s debt mountain have failed, but then this one policy of Alistair Darling has delivered a massive contribution to the effort.

In all, one third of the UK’s total debt has been bought up by QE. I can only presume that George will immediately take the air waves to thank the previous administration for their brilliant policy.

Without inflationary pressures, the Bank of England can sit on the gilts in perpetuity. This means that next year and the year after, the Treasury will receive a further £35bn in gifts.

The inflationary pressure expected by the policy has been marginal. Paul Krugman explains this by pointing to the lack of demand in the economy. Few workers are demanding higher wages at present. They are mostly just clinging onto the jobs they’ve got. Shopkeepers aren’t seeing the shelves empty at such a rate that they wish to increase their prices.

It may be that once growth returns there will be too much money swirling around the economy. If that were the case, then inflation would be a prospect. The bank would respond by returning the gilts to the market and the treasury would resume making coupon payments. If that were the case, then the benefit would have been temporary, but much appreciated none the less.

However, the people who do sums on this type of thing tell us that there isn’t too much money in the economy. If they are right then there will be no inflationary pressures once growth returns. At that point, if he wanted to, the Bank of England governor could strike a line through a number on a ledger, and the gilts would no longer exist. More likely he would simply allow them to expire, according to their stated lifetime.

All of this must be music to the ears of George Osborne. You can imagine him, with the prime minister and his cabinet mates, drinking a toast to Alistair Darling and sharing a warm glow of affection towards the Labour party.

We feel a warm glow back. Good luck, George. This one’s on us. We look forward to seeing you thank us publicly.

Dan McCurry is a Labour activist whose photographic and film blog is here.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour will only win the economic argument when we make it about the future, not the past

12/11/2012, 07:00:02 AM

by Jonathan Todd

The return of the British economy to growth and president Obama to the White House both suggest that Labour will only decisively win the economic argument when it is primarily about the future, not the past.

While welcoming the economy’s recovery, Labour claims output has been foregone due to the government cutting too far, too fast. This frames the economic debate as being about faulty decisions of autumn 2010 by George Osborne and their consequences over the next two years. As much as the celebrated speech of Ed Balls at Bloomberg in August 2010 is vindicated by events over this period, framing the debate in this way invites the question: Why was the government’s fiscal consolidation programme deemed necessary?

Of course, Osborne then cites the reckless profligacy of Labour. Equally obviously, we contend that this programme was unnecessary and the cause of the recession “made in Downing Street”. What may be less apparent is that, no matter how intellectually justified the Bloomberg speech, arguing about past decisions asks the public to reconsider events over which they have a settled mind.

They would have voted differently at the last election were they convinced that Labour had credible and effective plans for public spending. Especially given the pain that government spending decisions have since brought, it is understandable that we find it difficult to concede this. But a strategy for winning the next election predicated upon the electorate reversing a verdict given at the last election rarely works.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The Sunday review: the US presidential election

11/11/2012, 08:00:19 AM

by Anthony Painter

Politics is part art, part science. The best campaigns combine artistry and method. US election 2012 was the one in which science won and art was overwhelmed. And what a disappointing election it turned out to be – albeit one with a good outcome.

In his victory speech, president Obama declared:

“You’ll hear the deep patriotism in the voice of a military spouse who’s working the phones late at night to make sure that no one who fights for this country ever has to fight for a job, or a roof over their head when they come home.

That’s why we do this. That’s what politics can be. That’s why elections matter. It’s not small; it’s big. It’s important.”

What a pity that this voice was muffled throughout the campaign. The Washington Post blogger, Ezra Klein, explains why:

“The Obama campaign found that their key voters were turned off by soaring rhetoric and big plans. They’d lowered their expectations, and they responded better when Obama appeared to have lowered his expectations, too. And so he did. The candidate of hope and change became the candidate of modest plans and achievable goals.”

This campaign was driven by focus groups and polls – science. Only, this wasn’t a campaign of modest plans and achievable goals. It was a campaign of attack and vagueness. What on earth has changed? In The Audacity to Win, campaign leader David Plouffe’s take on the 2008 Obama campaign recounts:

“Focus groups … and feedback from the field were two of our most important assets…We did not use them to make policy decisions. We used them to gauge how the arguments in the campaign were being received and digested. It was about communications, no content.”

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The future of our reserve forces is vital for national security

09/11/2012, 07:00:17 AM

by Jim Murphy

Yesterday, the government announced a public consultation on the future of reservists.  We support an enhanced role for reserve forces as we know they can make a bigger contribution to regular forces and our country’s ability to project force around the world to achieve national ambitions.

In recent years reservists have operated in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Libya. 29 have lost their lives. We pay tribute to their courage, which is a pertinent sentiment in this week of all weeks, remembrance week.

Labour welcomes much of the content of today’s announcement as we recognise that reservists need to modernise.  We support considering a symbolic name change from “territorial army” to “army reserve”, for example, to reflect their contemporary composition.

This government has announced extreme cuts in regular forces. 30,000 will be made redundant, with 20,000 from the Army and 5,000 from both Navy and RAF. Reserve numbers will be doubled to compensate. Reserve numbers, however, are going up by 15,000, a figure far smaller than those being lost so there is a capability shortfall in manpower the government have yet to adequately explain.

Furthermore, we have already heard from the consultation’s co-author, Julian Brazier MP, that there is a backlog of applicants who cannot sign up because the bureaucracy in place is inadequate.

In light of this, does it really make sense to cut in regulars regardless of whether the target for reserves is met or not?  Given that it is this government’s policy to rely on reservists to meet their defence ambitions, wouldn’t it make more sense to make the cut in regulars contingent upon growth in reserves’ capability?

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour history uncut: Fabians – don’t get mad; get pamphleting

08/11/2012, 01:30:56 PM

Pete Goddard and Atul Hatwal turn their attention to the Fabians as they look at the organisations that set up the Labour representation committee (LRC) in 1900

The Fabians germinated from very modest seeds.

In October 1883 Edith Nesbit, her husband Hubert Bland and their Quaker chum Edward Reese decided to set up a debating society. That was it. They were the first Fabians.

Nesbit was something of a J K Rowling of her day, mixing easily in political and literary worlds. Not content with founding the Fabians, Britain’s first political think tank, she also wrote a series of best-selling books.

Most pertinently for the modern generation, she wrote the Railway Children and thereby can claim the credit for introducing a generation of young men to Jenny Agutter. Thank you, Edith Nesbit.

Helping others even after death, Edith Nesbit’s grave doubles as a handy boot scraper

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour’s opposition to regional pay in the NHS is intellectually dishonest

08/11/2012, 07:00:55 AM

by Peter Watt

There was a debate yesterday instigated by Labour on the introduction of regional pay into the NHS.  Labour’s argument is clear, that by allowing the introduction of regional pay into the NHS the government risks breaking it up.  Of particular focus for criticism were the group of twenty trusts in the south west, the south west consortium.  They are seeking to opt out of the national agenda for Change framework for pay and conditions as an element of their plans to achieve their required cost reductions.  As Andy Burnham said in the debate:

“National pay is part of the glue of a national health service, part of what holds it together, and in turn the NHS is part of what holds our country together.

A one nation service bridging the social and economic divides of our country, uniting east and west, north and south. The N in NHS should be cherished, but instead it is coming under ideological attack.”

Powerful stuff and you may think hard to disagree with.  But Labour has some form in this area, in both government and opposition, which makes their position a little tenuous.  It may well be that there is a perfectly good reason for this apparent inconsistency but you can be sure that this inconsistency will be exploited by opponents.

First, in government it was Labour that introduced the very flexibilities and freedoms that allow NHS trusts to make decisions that ensure their responsiveness to local needs.  And rightly so; as commissioners agree local priorities it was important that the local providers were able to operate flexibly and choose what they did in order to deliver on these priorities.

This didn’t mean an end to national pay and conditions but it did mean that if needed trusts could be flexible.  So for instance, if there was a need for one particular service to be expanded in an area where attracting the right staff was difficult, then a trust could respond.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Will the Tories welcome mad Nad back when she returns from the jungle?

07/11/2012, 06:04:38 PM

by Sophie Lambert-Russell

Almost lost in the swirl of the US election has been one of the more bizarre British political stories of recent months.

Yesterday Nadine Dorries was temporarily suspended from her role as MP for Mid Bedfordshire after it emerged she has decided to take part in the reality TV show I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here, apparently without consulting the Tory high command.

This decision which has been characterised by her constituency chairman Paul Duckett as “unusual” – a euphemism on a par with Sir Humphrey calling a ministerial decision “brave” – has provoked an unprecedented level of criticism among the public, journalists and MP’s across the board.

The general consensus is that Dorries has abandoned Britain in the pursuit of her own fame, and the Conservative press office has failed to come up with an alternative, as members of her own party are among the most vocal of opponents.

Chief whip Sir George Young stated that Dorries would have to “explain herself” on her return which makes David Cameron sound like a head teacher in charge of a bunch of naughty school children rather than professional MP’s, and is yet another blow for the party’s already damaged reputation.

The question is, will gentle Sir George allow her back into the party when she returns from her Australian jaunt?

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon