In case you missed them, these were the best read pieces on Uncut in the last seven days:
Peter Watt says it’s time to stop calling Dave posh
Atul Hatwal looks at Labour’s London problem
Kevin Meagher calls time on gesture politics
Dan Hodges on a party scared of its own shadow
John Woodcock warns of the Lib Dem threat
Sunder Katwala on the make up of the green benches
Jonathan Todd says Labour needs to realign with ordinary people
Campaigners warn council soup ran ban human rights breach
A proposal to outlaw soup runs for homeless people in one of the country’s most affluent areas would breach human rights laws, campaigners have warned. Westminster council has become embroiled in the row after threatening the crackdown on the service around Westminster Cathedral Piazza, central London, in an effort to discourage rough sleeping. The Conservative-run council is considering criminalising free food for the homeless amid claims it causes litter problems and creates disturbance to local residents throughout the area, one of the capital’s most affluent. Officials claim up to seven soup runs feed about 150 homeless people outside the cathedral each night, giving out hot drinks and making it a “no-go area” for residents and businesses. But human rights campaigners them as “wholly unacceptable in a civilised society”. Volunteers have also accused the council of being anti-Christian. The claim is denied by officials. – the Telegraph
Cameron backs plans to protect children from sexualised imagery
David Cameron is to back a plan to stop retailers selling inappropriate clothes for pre-teens and shield children from sexualised imagery across all media, including selling “lads magazines” in brown covers and making the watchdog Ofcom more answerable to the views of parents. Retailers would be required to sign up to a new code preventing the sale of items for pre-teens with suggestive slogans, which the prime minister has repeatedly criticised. The proposals come in a long-awaited report, leaked to the Guardian, on the commercialisation of childhood. It was commissioned by Cameron and is due to be published on Monday with strong support from Downing Street. The report, which was prepared by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers’ Union, finds “sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents and many non-commercial organisations”. In response to his recommendations on clothing, it is expected that the British Retail Consortium, following consultation with Mumsnet, the web-based parents’ forum, will announce a new code next week. – the Guardian
Shops should have to display “lads’ mags” in plain covers and stop selling suggestive clothes to pre-teens under a range of measures backed by David Cameron to protect children from sexualised imagery. Music videos should carry cinema-style certificates, advertisers should be discouraged from putting up raunchy posters near schools and broadcasting regulators should be instructed to clamp down on explicit programmes before the 9pm watershed. The plans will be set out next week in a report commissioned by the Prime Minister on combating the sexualisation of young children. The report, Let Children Be Children, was drawn up by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers’ Union. It warns: “Sexualised and gender-stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents.” – the Independent
Vocational training should start earlier
At least 40 per cent of pupils should take high-quality vocational training that leads directly to a job to cut the youth unemployment rate and boost economic competitiveness, according to Tim Oates, director of research at the Cambridge Assessment exam board. He suggested the Government should also consider giving children more job-based tuition at the age of 14 or even as young as 11. The recommendations are likely to form part of a wide-ranging review of the National Curriculum to be published later this year. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Oates said England risks being left behind other developed nations because the country fails to offer students the chance to go down a “rigorous vocational route” at the end of secondary education. – the Telegraph
Crack down on high earning council tenants
Tenants who earn more than £100,000 a year could be removed from their council houses under plans being examined by the Government. Housing Minister Grant Shapps complained that some wealthy people were living in properties that should be kept for the least well off. “With so many people in housing need languishing on the waiting lists which doubled under Labour, it’s right to consider whether people on £100,000-plus salaries should get their rent subsidised by the taxpayer,” he told the Daily Telegraph. “Social housing is an expensive and scarce resource which should be targeted on supporting those in real need.” Up to 6,000 people could be affected, according to figures prepared by officials, and ministers are ready to change the law if necessary to ensure local councils and social landlords can evict those who refuse to leave, the newspaper reported. The lower rents charged by social housing meant people in some parts of London could save as much as £70,000 a year compared with the price of a similar property in the private-rented sector, it said. – the Independent
by Atul Hatwal
Can you hear it? That creaking, grinding metallic sound, emanating from the capital.
Even faintly in the background?
No? Well, it will get louder in the coming months till it’s deafening.
It is the sound of the clock being turned back twenty years to a time when London was a Tory town.
Labour might have lost the 2010 general election, but London remained a last redoubt in the south. Despite all the troubles, Labour was still the dominant party, winning 36.6% compared to the Tories on 34.5% and the Lib Dems on 22.1%.
In terms of seats, the result was even better with Labour taking 38 seats, the Tories 28 seats and the Lib Dems just 7 seats.
But that was then and a year is an eternity in politics.
2011 could go down as the year in which the Tories turned back a generation of Labour ascendancy in London and pulled decisively ahead.
A new Uncut analysis of YouGov polling shows how a Labour lead of 2% in January had become a deficit of 4% by the start of June.
Polls can be deceptive and there is always a debate to be had about the extent to which they really reflect voting intentions, but two factors make these figures particularly worrying for Labour.
Government fails to get to grip on immigration
Labour have hit out at the Government over its failure to clear a backlog of asylum applications. Shadow Immigration Minister Gerry Sutcliffe told BBC News: “This Government came into power saying they were going to deal with immigration but they’ve cut the resources, cut the budget… The rhetoric doesn’t fit the reality.” Immigration minister Damian Green denied there was an “amnesty” on asylum seekers, saying: “There’s absolutely no amnesty. There’s been no change in policy – we look at each case on its merits and indeed the number of people applying for asylum is at a 20-year low at the moment.” The Home Affairs Select Committee said so many people had been granted leave to remain in the UK that it “amounts to an amnesty”. Figures show that only 9% of the 403,500 cases processed by the UK Border Agency resulted in removal, with 40% given leave to stay. – Politics Home
Government criticised over arts funding
The former Poet Laureate Sir Andrew Motion accused ministers of adopting a “shoot first, aim later” policy towards cutting the arts, singling out Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Arts minister Ed Vaizey. “Jeremy Hunt… from the word go has seemed more determined to get into George Osborne’s good books as a macho money saver and quango-burner than to serve his sector well,” he said in the annual Romanes lecture at Oxford’s Sheldonian Theatre. “Ed Vaizey… does seem to have a genuine love of the arts but no ideas about how to defend them in difficult times.” He added that he could not recall “a single remark has ever been uttered about the arts and humanities by our Prime Minister and his deputy”. The result was wholesale closure of libraries, the axeing of bodies like the Film Council and the museum, Libraries and Archives Council and the slashing of funds to the Arts Council (£118 million had been cut from its budget). In addition, music services to schools had been cut by local authorities and Education Secretary Michael Gove was introducing a new English Baccalaureate certificate for which a\n arts GCSE would not qualify. – the Independent
Time for Labour to rethink aid policy
Little has emerged from the Labour party on international development in its first year of opposition, which is understandable given the priorities it is facing and the fact the shadow team has only been in place for six months. What we have heard has centred on a campaign to keep to the0.7% pledge, and a focus on women’s rights. All good, but perhaps a little conservative for a party expected to lead the agenda on poverty and international development. The world has changed beyond recognition, and the Labour opposition’s international development policy needs to change too. It will be reviewed as part of Ed Miliband’s comprehensive rethink of Labour policy. During his leadership bid, Miliband said the biggest question for Britain for the next decade is “whether we head towards an increasingly US-style capitalism – more unequal, more brutish, more unjust – or whether we can build a different model, a capitalism that works for people and not the other way around”. That’s a good question, but not just for Britain, for the rest of the world as well. Unfortunately, attempts to set out a distinctive Labour vision for international development are hampered by the desire of the main parties to project unity on major issues of development. – the Guardian Read the rest of this entry »
by Jonathan Todd
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?
Tony Benn wants these questions to be put to any powerful person. If Sepp Blatter retains any self-awareness whatsoever, which is doubtful, then he must cringe to have these questions applied to him.
He has great power as the president of football’s global governing body, FIFA. Following the “temporary exclusion” by FIFA’s ethics committee from football posts of Mohamed Bin Hammam, who was challenging Blatter for this post, he was yesterday re-elected, unopposed, for another four year term. The coronation of Blatter came from a body that has seen nine of its 24 executive committee members accused of corruption in recent months. While FIFA’s motto is “for the game, for the world”, the power bestowed in Blatter may not always further such high-minded ends. He seems accountable only to the executive committee, who exclusively appear able to remove the man in charge of a game loved with passion by billions.
by Peter Watt
To paraphrase Sun Tzu in The Art of War, you need to know your enemy. But does Labour know who David William Donald Cameron is? Understanding him, his relationship with voters and his party is an important part of Labour’s preparation for the tough elections to come.
I suspect that while we think that we understand him, we are deluded. Instead we are judging him through our own partisan prism, which is in contrast to much of the electorate. Ask most Labour party folk what they think of Cameron and they will emphasise his class. They will talk of Eton and the Bullingdon club, of the baronets in his lineage and the millions he has in the bank. This all adds up, so the theory goes, to one seriously out of touch (and obviously posh) politician.
But this emphasis on his “poshness” is currently cold comfort. Let us start with first principles: he is likeable and popular with voters. According to the latest You Gov poll for the Sunday Times, his approval ratings are at +2, with 48% saying he is doing very well or fairly well. Nearly one in five Labour 2010 voters agree. And popular leaders tend to win elections more often than not. As importantly, according to a Populus poll, in early May, Cameron is comfortably beating the other party leaders on leadership attributes like “standing up for Britain”, “determination” and “competence”. It is true that Ed does have a lead on “shares my values” and “on my side”, but these leads are small.
Lansley is a beaten man
In his first comments since the end of the Government’s NHS ‘listening exercise’ this week, the Health Secretary said he was willing to accept ‘substantial and significant’ changes to his controversial reform plans. But Mr Lansley, who is engaged in a struggle with Nick Clegg over the future of his plans, insisted major reforms were needed to prevent a £20billion funding shortfall within four years. In an article for the Daily Telegraph he dismissed Liberal Democrat claims that he wants to ‘privatise’ the NHS. But he also issued a stark warning that the basic principles of the NHS could not survive unless major changes were brought in. – Daily Mail
This month, we will receive the NHS Future Forum’s report, following an intensive period of listening and engagement. We will respond to the forum once we have considered its report, which will be informed by the broad and expert feedback it has received. We have always been clear that we are ready to accept any changes – substantial and significant – if they help us improve care for patients. When the Health and Social Care Bill comes back to Parliament, people should have every confidence that we will make the changes necessary to ensure the NHS is protected for our future generations. We will never privatise our NHS. But if we choose to ignore the pressures on it. the health service will face a financial crisis within a matter of years that will threaten the very values we hold so dear – of a comprehensive health service, available to all, free at the point of use and based on need and not the ability to pay. I will not allow that to happen. – Andrew Lansley, Daily Telegraph
NHS reforms highlight Coalition cracks
The personal spin doctor and attack dog for the embattled Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, has been muzzled, after senior Liberal Democrats objected to her alleged rubbishing of Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and other Liberal Democrat ministers. The silencing of Jenny Jackson, who was barred from briefing journalists after being caught sending emails that undermined Mr Clegg, is another setback for Mr Lansley in his uphill struggle to win public support for plans to overhaul the NHS. The row is more evidence of tension within the Coalition over the radical plans put forward by Mr Lansley, which include scrapping primary care trusts and handing over to GP consortiums the responsibility for managing budgets and commissioning healthcare and opening up NHS trusts to competition. – the Independent
Jenny Jackson, who was special advisor to Andrew Lansley with responsibility for talking to the media, was stripped of her role after sending an email highlighting contradictions in the Deputy Prime Minister’s position. The email followed an interview on the Andrew Marr programme in which Mr Clegg spoke for the first time about the need for “substantive” changes in the bill. The Liberal Democrats were incensed to discover that following the programme, Ms Jackson emailed senior journalists quotes from previous interviews conducted by Mr Clegg in which he was supportive of the bill. The email suggested these earlier quotes were inconsistent with his more recently stated position. – Sky News
MPs condemn asylum amnesty
An “amnesty” has been quietly granted to more than 160,000 asylum seekers over the past five years by a UK Border Agency that MPs have concluded is still “not fit for purpose”, in a damning report published on Thursday. The Commons home affairs select committee report says it is indefensible that officials have been unable to trace a further 74,500 asylum seekers, among a total of 450,000 unresolved “legacy” cases. The agency has been working through these cases since it was first declared not fit for purpose by then home secretary John Reid in 2006. The cross-party committee regards what it describes as an “amnesty policy”, alongside renewed delays to the much heralded e-borders system to count people in and out of the country, as further evidence that the agency is still not proving effective. – the Guardian
More than 160,000 asylum seekers have been allowed to stay in Britain in an effective “amnesty”, MPs have revealed in a damning report. The immigrants were given “leave to remain” in the country as officials battled to clear a backlog of 450,000 cases. Up to 181,000 people who should have returned home over the last four years are still living here. Officials have now dealt with 403,500 cases, which built up during the 90s and early 2000s, and given 161,000 people permission to stay in Britain. The MPs’ report said that it was “such a large proportion that it amounts in effect to an amnesty”. Committee chairman Keith Vaz added the agency was “not fit for purpose”. The verdict is embarrassing for David Cameron, who made tightening up on immigration a priority after being elected last year. – Daily Mirror
Leading to disaster
Ed Miliband is leading his party to ‘disaster’, it was claimed last night as an opinion poll revealed that Labour had lost its lead over the Tories for the first time in seven months. The Labour leader has been accused of ‘creating a monster’ by instigating 25 separate policy reviews. Titles included: ‘X Factor for the many, not the few’, ‘Family life. What helps?’ and ‘Supporting the sustainable empowerment of women and girls in the developing world’, according to an article by Labour blogger and insider Dan Hodges in the Left-wing New Statesman magazine. One Shadow Cabinet minister said Mr Miliband had ‘created a monster’ with the reviews. The insider told the magazine: ‘It’s going to be a disaster. When [David] Cameron set up a similar consultation he was careful to keep it at arm’s length. ‘That way when someone like Zac Goldsmith popped up and started banging on about boycotting Sainsbury’s, Cameron could contain it. ‘Our consultation may be separated from the leader, but it’s still lashed to the party. We’ve created a monster.’ – Daily Mail
“To be honest,” said one shadow cabinet source, “I’m not really sure how this process is supposed to be working or what it’s meant to achieve. Is it outreach, where we show the country we’re listening? Is it to give us some basic policy touch-points so we can get through Any Questions? Are we using it to rebrand the party? Or are we using it to develop a policy agenda that can [help us] win back power?” Another Labour insider said: “Want to know how it’s working? Phone up the party and ask how many policy reviews are under way. It won’t be able to tell you.” I did; it couldn’t. Sources close to the Labour leader are alive to these concerns but resolute in their determination to bring about a more inclusive way of evolving policy. “Ed is serious about opening up the party,” I was told. “Remember, he saw first-hand how things worked under Tony and Gordon. It was surreal. Any new thinking was seen as a threat; that anyone was seen to be thinking at all was seen as a threat.” – New Statesman
by Sunder Katwala
Should Labour in Parliament look more like the country it seeks to represent? And how would it go about it? David Miliband is reported answering those questions at the Hay festival.
“Mr Miliband told the Hay festival: ‘If you look at the Parliamentary Tory party and the Lib Dems, they have got some strengths over us.
They have got more doctors in Parliament than we have.
They have more military officers. The Tories are trying to open up’.
Suggesting Labour should follow suit, he added: ‘We have to make sure we look like the country we represent, not just our supporters'”.
There are a whole range of practical and philosophical problems with seeking to make the PLP “look like the country we represent”, other than in the most broad brush and impressionistic terms. The goal of fair chances and no unfair barriers for candidates, whatever their background, is a better one. Over time, that would generate a group which was very broadly representative. But it is extremely difficult
by Kevin Meagher
Labour’s history is pockmarked with prolonged periods of opposition following ejection from office; none more so than during those 18 wasted years in the 80s and 90s.
The explanation for that generation in the wilderness is familiar enough: the party’s pitch to the country was tone deaf. On the economy, law and order, defence and a hundred other issues Labour had nothing to say that chimed with what people wanted to hear.
The party was more bothered with pleasing its own fissiparous cliques; the wannabe Dave Sparts, the bedsit revolutionaries, the local government crackpots who refused to set a rate, the headbangers of Militant.
The “loony left” were responsible for torpedoing Labour’s reputation and sinking the party’s chances with their puerile antics in Labour councils up and down the country and through their reckless control of the party’s policy-making machinery.
Fringe causes were put before mainstream concerns, with many in the party seriously accepting the flawed logic that stapling together a collection of special interest groups would create a counterweight to Thatcher’s electoral coalition of aspirational voters.
No prizes for guessing how successful that idea was.
Another inquiry for Huhne
Chris Huhne is facing a second potentially damaging inquiry after the elections watchdog announced it was reviewing all his expenses from the general election in response to allegations he broke the rules. The electoral commission has launched a case review into the energy secretary’s election expenses after receiving detailed claims that he failed to declare all his spending. The matter, which could be referred to the police, comes as Essex police prepares to conclude its inquiry into allegations that Huhne broke the law by asking his wife to take points he incurred for speeding. Last week, the electoral commission rejected a complaint due to insufficient evidence from two Liberal Democrat councillors in Huhne’s Eastleigh constituency that he made false declarations in his election expenses. But on Tuesday an official case review was launched after more detailed allegations were made by the Sunlight Centre for Open Democracy, which is run by Paul Staines and Harry Cole, who also writes for the rightwing Guido Fawkes blog. – the Guardian
Beleaguered Energy Secretary Chris Huhne was under fresh pressure last night after an investigation was launched into allegations that he broke strict spending rules in last year’s general election. The Electoral Commission said it was beginning an inquiry into claims that the Lib Dem Cabinet minister failed to declare spending on leaflets that would have taken him over the limit allowed for candidates in a general election. The complaint is also likely to be referred to the police. The Sunlight Centre for Open Politics, which lodged the complaint, said it had found evidence of a potential overspend. The Electoral Commission said an initial examination of the complaint suggested the ‘possibility of an offence under Representation of the People Act 1983’. It will now hold a full case review. – Daily Mail
The allegation, which refers to hundreds of pounds in printing and staffing costs and the development of a website, will be reviewed before the commission decides whether to undertake a full inquiry. It is separate from a complaint made about the Energy Secretary’s election expenses by two Liberal Democrat councillors, which was rejected on Friday. A spokesman for the commission said: “The commission received an allegation regarding Chris Huhne MP’s 2010 general election expenses on 25 May. “Following an initial assessment of the information, we have now started a case review into the matter. The review will look to establish the facts of the case, firstly for the purposes of transparency and also for possible future guidance.” Last night, Mr Huhne said: “I have full confidence that my agent has declared my election expenses correctly and I look forward to this complaint being rejected as roundly as the last one.” – Daily Telegraph
What happened to defending the NHS Dave?
Hundreds of hospital beds are being axed, despite David Cameron’s vow to defend the National Health Service. A leaked memo from a health trust boss revealed some of England’s biggest hospitals are cutting up to 10% of beds as they make £20billion of savings. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust is to shed about 200, while Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust loses 80. In London, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust expects to cut up to 160 – or 10% – of beds as it saves £70million. The dramatic scale of the cuts was revealed in a memo from Trust boss Claire Perry. Christina McAnea, of Unison, said: “The myth that the NHS is protected from cuts needs to be exposed.” Two weeks ago the PM said there were no cuts. – Daily Mirror
Peers prepare for the long haul
Four-fifths of peers are opposed to a wholly or mainly elected upper House, a poll has suggested. Deep-seated opposition to the reforms, seen as a key objective for the Liberal Democrats, will worry senior figures in the coalition government as they assess the difficulties of pushing change through parliament. The research was carried out by the Times newspaper. Only 310 of the Lords’ 789 members responded but the newspaper said the proportions were roughly accurate with the political make-up of the second chamber. Eighty-one per cent of peers are happy with the Lords as it is at present. Lib Dem peers are divided on the issue. Nearly two-thirds believe the Lords functions effectively in its current form, but a majority support a large elected element. The government could use the Parliament Act to override a rejection of the reforms in the Lords – but nearly three-quarters of peers believe taking this step would be unconstitutional. – politics.co.uk
Labour loses it’s lead for the first time in seven months
Labour has lost its lead over the Tories for the first time in seven months as Ed Miliband struggles to make an impact with the public, according to ComRes’s poll for The Independent. It shows the parties running neck and neck following a turbulent political month in which Labour was trounced in elections to the Scottish Parliament and recorded a mixed performance in contests for English councils. The poll finds that Labour support has dropped two points since the last ComRes survey to 37 per cent, putting the party level with the Tories, whose support has fallen by one point. Liberal Democrats will be relieved that their recent dramatic collapse in popularity appears to have ended, with their party’s backing recovering by one point to 12 per cent. Support for other parties, including the SNP, Ukip and the Greens, is up by two points to 14 per cent. Labour’s lead rose to a high of nine points after the Chancellor, George Osborne, set out plans for spending cuts in the autumn, but has dropped away since then. Its continuing failure to break through will dismay party strategists and could raise questions about Mr Miliband’s leadership. – the Independent
