Labour Uncut

UNCUT: Labour history uncut: Labour’s first clause four moment

21/02/2013, 08:18:08 PM

by Pete Goddard and Atul Hatwal

September 1917 was a new beginning for the Labour party. A month earlier, Arthur Henderson had experienced an unceremonious ejection from the wartime cabinet.

Free from having to toe the government line and support the latest innovations in war strategy aka new and efficient ways to squander human life (the battle of Passchendale was days away), Henderson was able to devote his time to the Labour party.

It provided an opportunity to bridge the gulf at the heart of the party which had pitted Arthur Henderson, master of the party machine and supporter of the war, against Ramsay Macdonald’s anti-war alliance of radicals and socialists.

Henderson and Macdonald make their way to the 1917 Tin Tin convention

Henderson was determined to make changes. In September 1917, he set up two sub-committees of the NEC. One was tasked with developing Labour’s alternative approach to ending the war and the other was established to reorganise the Labour party so that it was fit to fight the next election.

Yes, even in 1917 the modernisers were at work, creating the new Labour. Or Old New Labour. Or New Old Labour. Or something.

Both sub-committees included seats for the perennial favourites including Arthur Henderson, Ramsay Macdonald and the Fabians’ Beatrice and Sidney Webb. So basically it was just the same people, but every now and then they’d change the sign on the door. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 2 Comments »

UNCUT: Naming our streets after fallen heroes is a meaningful mark of respect

21/02/2013, 11:08:28 AM

by Jim Murphy

The armed forces are based on individual acts of courage working in skilled unity for the sake of national security. Each sacrifice is an individual lost, a family mourning and a nation wounded by the personal patriotism of those that serve. It is not only right but essential that we meaningfully recognise and commemorate those who lose their lives in the line of duty. That is why today my colleague Hilary Benn and I are writing to every council leader in Britain to urge that they offer families the chance to name local streets after their fallen loved ones.

On a recent visit to Barking and Dagenham I was told of a scheme where the council offers families the opportunity to choose a street or local location to be named in memory of a loved one lost while serving. In consultation with the family and local residents the location and precise name of a road or street is decided upon. The council also offers to organise an official opening ceremony, to which members of the community, family and friends as well as service charities could be invited. Two locations in the Borough have been named in this way and a third family has recently also chosen to do so.

A lasting personal memorial of this kind can demonstrate the value we place on those who have been lost in the defence of our country. They will of course always be remembered by their families, but changing a community’s physical environment would be a chance for their names to live publicly and forever. While this is a personal issue it is also right, should the families choose it, that we enable communities to show sensitive solidarity and sympathy to those who lose their lives in service.

Rather than wait until Labour is in government, we wanted to urge councils to take this step now. The forthcoming end of combat operations in Afghanistan does not mean an end to our forces being asked to act upon the responsibilities we have beyond our borders – Libya and Mali are testament to that. Their role will be enduring, as should our efforts to seek meaningful commemorations. Labour is out of office, but not without power, and we hope this move could spur a collective, cross-party resolve in favour of street naming.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 6 Comments »

UNCUT: Our political parties need to be honest about NHS rationing

21/02/2013, 07:00:40 AM

by Peter Watt

Yesterday saw the publication by NICE of their latest guidance on the use of IVF by the NHS. It said that women should be able to access IVF quicker (ie younger) and also that the upper range of women able to access the treatment rises from 39-42 in England and Wales. This has to be seen as a good thing, a reflection of the continued advances in medical treatment. What was in the past impossible becomes possible.

Except read the small print. What NICE are doing is providing advice to NHS Trusts as to what they can do if they choose to. As Dr Sue Avery from the British Fertility Society told the BBC:

“It’s good that there’s the possibility there, but the funding does not match. I can’t see any prospect of it happening immediately. Our biggest concern is hanging on to the funding we’ve got.”

Now quick declaration of interest here; my wife Vilma and I underwent IVF. Initially we had treatment on the NHS and then went privately. We were successful and have a beautiful daughter as a result. But at the time we were incredibly lucky that where we lived was still offering treatment on the NHS. Plenty of others no longer did or offered a much more limited service. Because the reality of the NHS is that on a whole variety of fronts it rations treatment.

On Tuesday there was a story about a man who had had a gastric band on the NHS but who was left with large amounts of excessive abdominal skin. His local health service had refused to pay for his apronectomy and he was facing a bill of some £15-20,000.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »

UNCUT: Isn’t it time Labour stopped facing both ways on Islamist extremism?

20/02/2013, 11:33:32 AM

by Rob Marchant

In the Labour party, we have, last week, been shocked at how one of our members of Parliament, Sadiq Khan, can receive death threats from freaks who believe they are licensed to make him vote against gay marriage by force including, apparently, murder. And Khan is apparently not the only one: Labour List reports that “Rushanara Ali, Shabana Mahmood, Anas Sarwar…are all believed to have been similarly targeted”. Bravely, none of them wavered in their commitment to their own values, of equality for all under the law.

Yet, at the same time, we have other MPs, who invite a preacher who laughs about taunting his Jewish high school teacher with a swastika, who thinks being gay is a “great crime” that signals “the start of the collapse of every society, and who is convicted of funding a terrorist organisation, to speak at the mother of all parliaments.

In the Labour party, we are shocked to read in the Observer at how supporters of extremist group Jamaat-e-Islami throw stones at a crowd of people in London’s East End, demonstrating against the theocracy which is killing their homeland, Bangladesh. They stone a crowd containing old people and children. Many of those demonstrating are Muslim women, who rightly reject this misogynistic cabal who would happily bring Sharia to the East End.

Yet, at the same time, we last year campaigned to re-elect a candidate who, as former Mayor, in 2004 welcomed to London a particularly vile preacher. A preacher who, apart from his views on rape and wife-beating, feels entirely comfortable with the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

UNCUT: Time for a fully funded plan for jobs and growth

19/02/2013, 10:55:49 AM

Last week Phil McCauley won the Top Of The Policies for economic growth vote at the latest Pragmatic Radicalism event, chaired by Toby Perkins MP the shadow minister for small business.

Financial credibility is the most important facet required for Labour to be trusted at the 2015 general election. We cannot call for tax incentives without saying how they can be paid for otherwise we will not make our case.

With this in mind, I approached the Pragmatic Radicalism event on 12th of February with a view to presenting my suggestions for how this can be achieved without adding to the deficit. Toby Perkins MP was in the Chair and many excellent ideas were presented in the 90 second pitch format with 2 minutes of questions followed by the vote.

I suggest we change the covenant and fiduciary duties on pension trustees to invest 10% of our 2.5tn in pension assets in UK business. At present there is a requirement to invest for the best return irrespective of our national interests or ethics.

I am not merely suggesting the ownership of publicly traded stock, but direct equity investment in Labour’s proposed British investment bank. With over £200 bn to invest we could transform the UK economy within the next parliament. And what’s more, not add to the deficit in the process. This money can be invested for much better returns in housing and infrastructure and UK manufacturing and export. It’s immoral to think that our pension funds are invested in pay-day loan sharks and manufacturers of land mines.

Indeed, the entire pensions industry needs even more reform than the banking system. They are inextricably linked of course and the pension industry needs to align its duties with One Nation principles. It cannot be right that we are investing UK earnings in foreign competitors which destroy our job and growth at home. We have a national interest first.

One Nation investment will focus our finances upon the extraordinary entrepreneurial abilities within our country. It’s time for a fully funded plan for jobs and growth.

Cllr Phil McCauley serves on Gedling Council and is a member of LFIG (Labour Finance and Industry Group) Executive Board, serial and social entrepreneur

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

UNCUT: William Hague moves to lift sanctions on Zimbabwe and rehabilitate Robert Mugabe

18/02/2013, 04:29:44 PM

by Pete Bowyer

The EU Foreign Affairs Council has just announced its decision on Zimbabwean sanctions in a press communique from Brussels this afternoon. It is worse than campaigners could possibly have feared.

Not only have EU foreign ministers agreed to suspend the majority of all remaining sanctions on Mugabe and his regime following a “peaceful and credible constitutional referendum” next month, they have also agreed “to suspend immediately the travel ban imposed on 6 Members of the government of Zimbabwe. The EU has also agreed to delist 21 persons and one entity subject to restrictive measures.”

International NGOs such as Global Witness, Human Rights Watch and Justice Zimbabwe who have been campaigning for those in Zimbabwe who have been complicit in human rights abuses to be added to the sanctions list and for measures to be deferred until after free and fair elections in the summer have been snubbed.

In practice, the decision means EU sanctions have immediately been lifted on almost a quarter of Mugabe’s cronies currently effected by the measures on little more than vague promises, and no real change on the ground in terms of human rights abuses and respect for the rule of law. Ironically, it comes on the very same day as the EU Foreign Affairs Council reaffirmed its support for the “promotion and protection of human rights around the world” in a separate communiqué.

The decision, agreed unanimously by EU Foreign Secretaries, including British Foreign Secretary William Hague, represents a major victory for President Mugabe and a significant success for the Belgian government who had been pushing a softer EU line towards Zimbabwe.

It is a stunning volte face from Hague who had previously advocated a more principled and robust approach to Mugabe. Britain now appears to have derogated its influence over geo-politics in southern Africa to the diamond traders of Antwerp.

It should come as no surprise that the Foreign Secretary has yet to comment publicly on the ignominy. But the left should take no comfort from this decision either. Whilst once Mugabe was the focal point of campaigns against a despotic regime which murdered thousands of its own citizens and impoverished a nation, anger has diminished in recent years despite little noticeable improvements on the ground.

Today is a milestone. A milestone in the rehabilitation of Mugabe by the West who has been rewarded for the failure of a nation.

Pete Bowyer is a Labour activist and spokesman for JusticeZimbabwe

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

UNCUT: The British left has forgotten Zimbabwe and as a result, today, Mugabe will profit

18/02/2013, 01:29:36 PM

by Pete Bowyer

Later today, William Hague will acquiesce in an EU decision to ease sanctions against Zimbabwe. It will be reflective of Britain’s waning influence in Europe, as much as a lack of concern for continuing human rights abuses in the country.

This decision should concern us greatly. Zimbabwe has become one of the forgotten stories of southern Africa now the horrors of the political violence around the last elections in 2008 have dimmed.

But the truth is little has changed on the ground. The country, once known as the bread basket of Africa, is now reliant of foreign food aid, and Mugabe’s grip on power remains as tight as ever.

Take the case of opposition MDC politician, Roy Bennett. In 2009, he was designated Deputy Minister for Agriculture by Morgan Tsvangirai, but Robert Mugabe refused to swear him in. Bennett was later arrested on trumped up charges of treason.

When a magistrate ordered Bennett to be released on remand, the magistrate himself was arrested because “he passed a judgment that is not popular with the state.” This is the state of justice in Zimbabwe today.

The EU attempts to justify its decision on the grounds that Zimbabwe is due to hold a constitutional referendum on 16 March, and this is a sign of progress. A carrot and stick approach is all very well, but the EU should be erring on the side of the stick, not the carrot.

Rather than caving in to Mugabe, we should be standing up to him. For Zimbabwe to have a bright future, it needs serious and strictly implemented reforms. EU policy should be determined on the basis of concrete actions, not Mugabe’s empty promises.

So, a precautionary approach should have been taken, based on three conditions being met.

Firstly, the decision to review EU sanctions should have been taken only after free and fair elections without violence had been held. True, the constitutional referendum is an important benchmark, but it’s the forthcoming elections that will really determine the future for the people of Zimbabwe.

These are due in the summer, and the EU will end up with egg on its face if it decides to ease sanctions now only having to re-introduce them a couple of months later if the elections descend into chaos like they have done so often in the past.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | No Comments »

UNCUT: Ed needs to be clearer about what one nation Labour is not

18/02/2013, 07:57:43 AM

by Jonathan Todd

“‘You know something? It’s really quite satisfying when you help people to fulfil their dreams like that.’ ‘Christ, you fucking fascist,’ Tim said.”

This exchange between Malcolm Glover, a 1980s building society manager, and his son, Tim, features in Philip Hensher’s sweeping The Northern Clemency and comes after Malcolm helps a couple buy their council house. The formalities of this sale conclude thus:

“‘Goodbye, Mr Glover,’ the husband said, shaking his hand, ‘and thank you.’ He let go and, turning, took his wife’s beloved hand, and together they walked down the stairs. Malcolm watched them go with pleasure.”

The positive content of new Labour sought to appeal to voters like the grateful couple: attentive to their aspirations and eager to serve them. Notwithstanding this positive content, new Labour was immediately vivid because it clear about what it was not: the old Labour, the no-compromise-with-the-electorate vehemence of Tim.

New Labour connected with aspirant voters by relentlessly showing itself to be different from a Labour party that would deem it “fascist” to sell a council house to its tenants. It was new Labour because it was not old Labour.

Of course, this old Labour was always a caricature. The Labour party of Clement Attlee, Barbara Castle and Neil Kinnock was never as indulgent and disconnected as Tim Glover. The right to buy, for one thing, was a Labour policy before it was a Tory policy.

The sense, however, that Tony Blair’s election as party leader marked a year zero was reinforced early in his leadership by painting the past as an old Labour wasteland. Blair was the change that the country needed because he had the strength to move his party beyond the likes of Tim Glover.

The longer Blair was leader the less well this crude and simplistic contrast served him. What had cast him in broad strokes as a new leader came to motivate suspicion about him in the party later in his premiership.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

UNCUT: Revealed: How the Tories watered down their original Leveson proposals under pressure from the press barons

15/02/2013, 09:54:43 AM

by Atul Hatwal

It’s taken an age. The Tories’ proposals for establishing a press regulator through a royal charter have been mooted for months but were only published earlier this week. After David Cameron’s commitment to swift action in the Commons debate, following the publication of the Leveson report last November, they had been expected at the start of January. But weeks passed and nothing emerged. Why the delay? What took so long?

Uncut can exclusively reveal that the Conservatives were in fact ready to publish proposals several weeks ago. A team operating under cabinet office minister Oliver Letwin prepared a draft setting out how the royal charter would operate, in December. This draft was personally authorised by Letwin and cleared at the highest levels in Number 10. It represented the Conservatives’ view of what was needed to establish an effective regulator without statute.

But even this proved to be too much for the press barons and under private pressure from the industry, the Tories have further watered down their proposals. The result has left the cross-party negotiations on Leveson in chaos.

Two changes have been made to the Tories original proposal, weakening regulation beyond the levels even David Cameron and Oliver Letwin felt necessary.

In the December draft of the proposals, seen by Uncut, Letwin’s team enshrined the independence of the recognition body that underpins the press regulator, to protect it from interference by government.

The body could only have its terms of reference altered if backed by a two-thirds “super-majority” in the House of Commons and it could only be dissolved by an act of parliament. A whole section of the draft document was devoted to this topic:

The Recognition Panel

(1) (An amendment of the Recognition Panel’s Charter has no effect until each House of Parliament has by resolution by the required majority directed that the amendment is to have effect.

(2) The Recognition Panel may not be dissolved otherwise than by way of Act of Parliament.

(3) The reference to an amendment of the Recognition Panel’s Charter is a reference to —

(a) the addition of a provision to the Charter,

(b) the variation of a provision in the Charter, or

(c) the omission of the whole or part of a provision from the Charter.

(4) A resolution under this section is to be regarded as being by the required majority if at least two-thirds of the members of the House in question who vote on the motion for the resolution do so in support of it.

(5) A motion for a resolution under this section may be made by any member of the House in question.

(6) “The Recognition Panel’s Charter” means the Royal Charter dated [ ] 2013 under which the Recognition Panel was incorporated.

Sources within the newspaper industry have suggested that publishers were panicked about safeguarding the remit of the recognition body in this way because it effectively removed their ability to pressure future governments to amend the terms of reference.

The feedback to the Tories from the press camp was robust and unequivocal: preserving the independence of the recognition panel with these protections was unacceptable.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 1 Comment »

UNCUT: Today Ed Miliband started to re-frame the economic debate

14/02/2013, 05:22:58 PM

by Dan McCurry

Thank god Ed Miliband has finally got a handle on our economic offer. Today he laid out a new narrative built around a “living standards” message with some good policy detail in the 10p tax pledge. He previewed the new approach at PMQs on Wednesday where he said that come the 2015 election, people will be asking “Am I better off now than I was 5 years ago?”

It’s about time, we really need this new, sharper approach.

On Tuesday night, I was speaking at an event by Pragmatic Radicalism where a number of people presented ideas for Labour economic policy and the audience voted for their favourite. My pitch was this:

“Even though we are right and they are wrong, we acknowledge that the Conservative party have a far more coherent economic policy than Labour. I believe that an economic policy of massive intervention, with massive stimulus, through massive infrastructure spending, should be presented with massive confidence by a leadership who will then stand their ground and defend their policy.”

Whenever I get up to speak at these kinds of events, I naturally imagine that my thoughts will be received with the kind of rapturous joy they deserve. Ahead of this event, my fantasy included the image of Amanda Ramsay in full Grecian toga, sprinkling rose petals in my path, as I stepped down from the podium to a roar of applause.

In fact my pitch provoked the question, “how will we afford it?” I had to patiently explain to these ignoramus’ that the £400 billion of quantitative easing was wasted on government bonds when it could have been spent of building schools and hospitals. We should be campaigning that future QE be spent on tangible investments in the real economy rather than delivered as helicopter cash to the banks and pension funds.

This policy response is difficult because people don’t understand where money comes from. Conversely, the Tory policy response is simple. Reduce the debt.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 16 Comments »