Uncut « Labour Uncut

For Labour, the hard work on immigration starts now

11/03/2013, 08:12:28 AM

by Anthony Painter

Why is Labour obsessing about immigration? Try the fact that – according to a recent Lord Ashcroft poll – two of the top three most salient issues are welfare dependency and controlling immigration. 32% and 20% of Labour supporters respectively favour the Conservative positions on these issues. No party that seriously expects to compete for office can fail to respond to public anxiety on these issues. Welfare and immigration are tightly linked in concern about the failures of the modern state.

Reponses to this have fallen into two camps: there’s not really a problem and there is problem and it requires a response. Ed Miliband falls into the latter camp.

The mistake the former camp makes is that it thinks that it can win the argument with numbers when this is an instinctive, cultural and emotional set of issues. So the fact that there is a net contribution by migrants to the public purse or that few migrants come here with the purpose of claiming benefits or free-riding on the NHS simply doesn’t cut through. Nor will it. The issue is not the quantum of free-riding but that the system allows it. There is also a broader sense that welfare has become simultaneously marginal so it benefits the few, out of control in terms of cost and fosters dependency. It is about fundamental institutional logic and many people see the welfare state – with the exception of child benefit and pensions – as something for other people at an exorbitant cost which we collectively shoulder.

More specifically on immigration, trust has broken down in our ability to control the flow of migration – particularly at the lower skill level. The fact that this may be to our broad economic benefit, improve public services, or better finance an ageing society or the national debt do not seem to counter-balance the anxiety over loss of control.

If your immigration and welfare systems do not have wide public legitimacy then you have a problem. That is the situation.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

Clegg says the Lib Dems are a party of government, so let’s judge them on their record

10/03/2013, 01:00:12 PM

by Michael Dugher

This weekend, Nick Clegg has declared that the Liberal Democrats are no longer “a party of protest” but are instead “a party of government”. Clegg is keen to stress their record in government and to present the Lib Dems as somehow the custodians of fairness in the Tory-led government. Indeed, Clegg recently asked people to judge the Lib Dems specifically on their “record of action” in government. So it is their actions, and not their words, that Lib Dems must be judged on this weekend.

Partly Clegg’s plea to be judged on what they have done is a desperate acknowledgement that no one believes a single word the Lib Dems say anymore. As I said to the Progress conference in Stoke Rochford on Saturday, in an era of unprecedented cynicism about politics, Nick Clegg has become the poster boy for a politician who routinely breaks his promises.

Before the election he warned about the dangers of a “VAT bombshell” – he then introduced one in government. The Lib Dems pledged not to increase tuition fees – but then they voted to treble them after the election. On Tuesday, Labour MPs will vote in the Commons in support of a ‘mansion tax’ – but now the Lib Dems are refusing to support the idea of a mansion tax on homes worth over £2 million, despite having previously said they would bring in such a tax.

And it’s not just Nick Clegg. Vince Cable has his own particular brand of duplicity. For Cable, being in government seems to be a sort of a out-of-body experience. He gives interviews to the New Statesman and makes speeches to Lib Dem fringe meetings about what the government should be doing to bring back growth to the economy, whilst seeming to forget that he is in fact a member of the government. Presumably Cable remembers that he is the Secretary of State for Business at the end of every month when his ministerial salary drops into his bank account. But Cable looks increasingly like a joke figure. As with his after the event claim to have been “sceptical” about the tuition fees policy (legislation that he himself pushed through Parliament), he cannot escape his own record.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

Labour must not be smug about bad economic news

07/03/2013, 07:00:54 AM

by Peter Watt

This time in two weeks we will all be chewing over the chancellor’s budget. If the mood music is to be believed then we will not be reviewing a dramatic budget replete with economic flourish. Rather it will basically be a restatement of the deficit reduction plan outlined in the coalition agreement.

There will in all likelihood be the addition of a few targeted tax breaks, some nod to infrastructure spending and some extension of the state backed business bank. But basically no real change in approach. However Osborne is no fool, so we can safely say that he will have something up his sleeve that will be the measure that he hopes will define his budget.

Presumably he and his team will do a better job of politically sense checking his budget this year than last! Team Osborne is under pressure from their own side as MPs can see the possibility of winning the next election slowly becoming less likely.

But Labour will also be under pressure. Whilst Labour’s economic numbers are improving they are still blamed by much of the electorate for causing the economic woes facing Osborne and the country. And that is why the tone of their response will really matter.

Generally speaking, if you are held responsible for causing a problem it is not a good idea to appear really pleased that someone who is trying to sort out your mess is struggling! It certainly won’t convince anyone that you didn’t actually cause the problem in the first place. It is unlikely to make you look clever; in fact it will probably simply reinforce the idea that the whole thing was your fault anyway, and that you had failed to learn the lessons and were in fact in denial.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 12 Comments »

One Nation Labour has to be tough on immigration and tough on its causes

06/03/2013, 11:21:34 AM

by Kevin Meagher

Tonight Ed Miliband will use a party election broadcast to set out a subtly new approach on immigration after apparently being stung by how resonant the issue has now become following Labour’s poor showing at the Eastleigh by-election.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper will follow up with a speech tomorrow setting out how Labour will get tough on so-called gangmasters, ending their practice of cramming immigrant workers into unsuitable accommodation while forcing them to pay extortionate rents for the privilege. There will also be a symbolic shift towards the police rather than HM Revenue and Customs taking the lead on enforcement of the national minimum wage.

“There must be a level playing field so domestic workers are not disadvantaged and employers shouldn’t be allowed to use migration in the wrong way,” says a Labour source.

This is all to the good. To be sure, Ed is making this intervention from the safe distance of critiquing labour market abuses rather than engaging, it seems, in the bigger discussion about culture, population and national identity. That may come another day, but at least the issue of immigration is now framed by an acceptance that it comes with costs for many people, particularly those at the bottom of the pile who are effectively priced out of jobs by migrant workers.

I’ve written before that Labour politicians – and many on the left – can’t seem to bring themselves to discuss downsides to immigration. (Indeed, the term ‘inward migration’ has crept into popular usage, as if eschewing the very mention of ‘immigration’ will nullify public concern). Like actors refusing to refer to “the Scottish play”, the subject is deemed to be taboo, inherently right-wing and the precursor to a more toxic discussion about race.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 16 Comments »

Labour history uncut: a little bit of Sankey pankey with the miners

05/03/2013, 08:19:13 PM

by Pete Goddard and Atul Hatwal

At the start of 1919 Labour sat in an unfamiliar position. Its MPs lounged comfortably on the front row of green leather benches directly opposite the government as the official opposition.

Unfortunately, the reason they were so comfortable was that there was lots of elbow room on the opposition benches. On the other side, the government with its massive majority of over 200 members were crammed in tighter than a ballerina’s buttocks

Labour had made it to become the second party of British politics, but only just. The previous December’s election had seen the Liberals implode and Labour, whilst slightly growing in numbers, robbed of almost all of its leading figures at the time when it needed them most.

Only the capable JR Clynes and tough railway union leader Jimmy Thomas had hung onto their seats. Their colleagues were predominantly older union men from the right of the party. This included the new leader, William Adamson, a man described by Roy Hattersley as “a dour and little-remembered Scottish miner.” A bit like Jimmy Krankee then.

William Adamson models the then-fashionable "Ventriloquist’s" dummy’ look

In post-war Britain, the situation was volatile. Industrial unrest was increasing and on the 31^st January there was a 48 hour strike in Glasgow over working hours. This culminated in 100,000 angry Glaswegians protesting in St George’s square, which terrified the government. Fair enough, a mass of angry Glaswegians would terrify anyone.

A bit twitchy after the Russian revolution, the government immediately reached for the folder marked ‘huge overreaction’. They mobilised 12,000 troops and, the ideal accessory for calming tense situations, six tanks.

The troops and tanks arrived and, several baton charges later, the day was christened Bloody Friday – which is really saying something when you consider the reputation of a regular Friday night in Glasgow.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

The Chávez tragedy turns to farce

05/03/2013, 12:20:19 PM

by Rob Marchant

While the elusive state of health of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez seems to have been delicate since at least 2011, it is finally starting to be recognised that he really is not very likely to return as leader, any more than Fidel Castro is ever likely to retake the reins in Cuba. But there is a great deal more to this tortuous tale.

The trouble is, accurate information is so difficult to come by, local media being highly polarised either for or against the man, that no-one can really quite work out the truth; even as to such a simple fact as whether or not the president is still alive.

The evidence that he might not be is circumstantial, yet substantial: he has not been seen in public since his cancer surgery on 11 December, and failed to turn up for his inauguration one month later, leading to severe constitutional speculation as to whether he could legally continue as president in such circumstances.

Things came to a head last week, when a former Panamanian ambassador, Guillermo Cochéz, gave a surprisingly detailed report. It claimed that Chávez had been in a vegetative state since 30 December and had finally had his life-support switched off two weeks ago, at the request of his family. While Cochéz certainly has an axe to grind against Chávez, as a public figure he has also staked his reputation on the claim, one that one simple public appearance by the Venezuelan president would obviously destroy. And, there has been no hard evidence from the administration to the contrary.

Something very odd is going on. The report also tallies with one from 2 January by Spanish newspaper ABC, quoting Cuban sources, that he was in a coma, on life support and a switch-off could happen “at any moment”. Demonstrators outside the presidential palace are now chaining themselves together, rightly demanding to know who is running their country, and under what authority.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

The public’s fear of the future will frame George Osborne’s budget

04/03/2013, 04:10:05 PM

by Jonathan Todd

It is not only Charlie Brooker who thinks the future is broken. Businesses and households do too. This is why businesses are sitting on billions of pounds. They don’t think there is a future worth investing in. This is massively economically significant, but perhaps more politically significant is the resignation of the public to their grim economic fate.

Some of the public are drowning, few are waving, and most are shrugging their shoulders. George Osborne’s biographer, Janan Ganesh, recently noted in the Financial Times: “The regular focus groups that are conducted by Downing Street paint a picture of an electorate that is bleak about the economy, yes, but so bleak that they don’t believe things would much improve under an alternative policy.”

Those that aren’t drowning, waving or shrugging their shoulders, are getting angry, which increasingly means voting for UKIP. Not as a principled stand against the EU but, as Michael Ashcroft’s polling attests, an anguished cry against the established parties. UKIP recoils, as Matthew d’Ancona accurately puts it, not from Europe specifically but from change generally.

UKIP is an emotional spasm against the political class and the inadequate modernity that they represent, as well as an insatiable longing for an unrecoverable past. While a growing minority of the electorate fall for this spasm, most are bleakly indifferent.

Allister Heath on the right would sacrifice short-term deficit reduction for a dramatic cut in corporation tax and Will Straw on the left for increased public investment. There is, though, scant evidence that the public believe that the methods of either the left or the right will make much difference. And the public might have a point.

Given the piles of cash on which businesses currently sit, Heath’s policy may only deepen these piles. Straw is right to see the cuts to public investment as the most economically damaging of those inflicted by Osborne but only rapidly “shovel-ready” projects are likely to make a difference to GDP in the near-term.

While both left and right urge upon Osborne a focus on recovering growth, not short-term deficit reduction, there are reasons to be sceptical about the capacity of the policies of the left and right to secure their shared objective. And sceptical is certainly what the public feel about the ability of politicians to improve things.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | No Comments »

Clegg has survived, but his party might not

04/03/2013, 07:57:39 AM

by David Talbot

It would be cruel to deny the Liberal Democrats some light relief from the two years of relentless drudgery they have had endured. Holding a seat they have held for some twenty years is seemingly a cause for wild celebration in today’s Liberal Democratic rump. Overly-excited, and optimistic, Lib Dem officials even audaciously briefed the Guardian that the party would now extend their sights to gaining Conservative seats at the next general election. The bravado is breathtaking, but one has to question the extent that the officials even believed it themselves. Still, it is a poke in the eye to their comrades in the coalition and a reminder to the electorate at large that they mostly still exist.

Let Nick Clegg enjoy his moment. Once lauded to the skies as another Churchill he surely must know that this is as good as it gets. Leading a party on the ascendance merely two and a half years ago he gives the appearance of a man horribly tormented by the reality in which he now finds himself. His party’s paradox ever since it was usurped by the Labour party over a century ago is that is has strove for influence in a hung parliament. Yet the moment they entered it, it hung them.

The Conservative’s masterstroke, having inexplicably failed to win an outright majority, was to in effect buy themselves a comfortable one with Liberal Democrat lobby fodder. The much-heralded Programme for Government, released all too beautifully in the Downing Street rose garden, was short term glory for the Liberal Democrats, but a longer-term suicide note.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 8 Comments »

Yes, Eastleigh was bad for Cameron but it wasn’t much better for Ed

01/03/2013, 07:00:56 AM

by Atul Hatwal

There’s spin, and then there’s self-delusion. This morning, Labour needs to remember the difference.

Publicly the party will be busy deflecting blame and attention from its result throughout the day. The spin cycle was already in overdrive last night: “Eastleigh wasn’t even close to being on our key seat list”, “constituency boundary changes moved Labour wards out of Eastleigh,” and “the real losers are the Tories.”

Presenting a positive front is a necessary part of the political process. Fair enough.

But, away from the cameras and microphones, Labour needs to reflect on reality. Forget the lines to take and just think for a moment: fourth. Over half-way through this parliament, we finished fourth.

A win would have been unbelievable. Literally. So this was never an expectation.

Second would have been the actual win. It would have shown that the one nation narrative had resonance with voters and Labour could compete anywhere in the country.

A close third would still have been a good performance and, given Labour’s lack of historical presence in the seat, provided a strong indication that Labour will be competitive in its 30 southern target seats in 2015.

A distant third would have been poor, but just about could have been explained away on the basis of past performance.

But fourth?

Two immediate lessons emerge from this result.

First, Labour fought the wrong campaign. Last week John O’Farrell said, “I’m surprised how much of the literature from the Conservatives and Liberals has been about local authority issues…I’m not standing for the council. I’m standing for Westminster.”

Unfortunately, the voter is never wrong, and it was obvious from the first week of the campaign that Eastleigh’s electors were focused on local issues. Nothing Labour did could shift this.

That the Labour party campaign did not pick this up and pivot to fighting on issues that matter to voters echoes the disaster of Bradford West: a pre-packed campaign, running on auto-pilot, oblivious to voters’ views on the ground.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 29 Comments »

In praise of…the hardy souls that fight these by-elections

28/02/2013, 07:00:52 AM

by Peter Watt

Early this morning there will have been alarm clocks (or more likely alarms on mobile phones) going off in hotels and guest houses in Eastleigh and beyond. Activists will have woken from their slumbers in order to do the polling morning delivery. Ideally they’ll be delivered before the polls open at 7 but in many cases it will still be being delivered later. Committee rooms will be being set up members and supporters houses as the culmination of a few weeks frantic campaigning is reached.

The parliamentary by-election is a very special event for all dedicated political activists. It’s where you often learn your trade and hone new skills. It’s where war stories are shared from previous electoral battles and new scars are earned.

My first by-election was the south east staffordshire by-election held in April 1996. I was nursing in Dorset at the time but politics was my true love. I used up four days of annual leave and pootled on up to Tamworth. Angela Wilkins was the running the committee room that I was allocated to and Fiona Gordon was running the show. I delivered leaflets, knocked on doors and glared at the odd Tory I saw on the streets. And on my final day there I went to a local pub on my own to support Liverpool against Aston Villa in the FA cup semi. I hadn’t realised until I walked in it was Villa country!

Every by-election that I have been involved in has had a core team of staff and volunteers who become a little community. They share a space and share an experience that bonds them. The early days are the best when like pioneers you arrive and need to learn about the alien environment that you have moved into. You print the maps and find a campaign HQ. Wards are allocated and the leafleting and door knocking begins. Maybe you get the odd frontbencher turning up and perhaps even a few local members get involved. But it’s you against the Party HQ and the hours are long. And then others start arriving and you pretend to be pleased but secretly it’s irritating that others are intruding. Experts start arriving to help with press and writing copy. The campaign HQ fills up with the great and the good whilst the real work is still going on from the campaign centres dotted across the constituency.

Then there are the by-election characters, every by-election has them. There are the geeky students who turn up on day three and stay right until the end. They somehow always find somewhere to stay and people always buy them drinks. They are incredibly enthusiastic and will do whatever is asked. There is the local member (or whole groups of members) who hates the whole by-election team as outsiders who ‘don’t what it’s like around here’. They have never needed all of this fancy nonsense before and they certainly don’t need it now! They probably wanted to be the candidate but were blocked by the NEC. Then there is the local member who simply can’t do enough for the campaign. They open up their house and put people up; they share local intelligence and translate the local political spats.

There is always at least one romance, and generally more, the campaign pub and everyone’s favourite Indian restaurant. The campaign stories develop as they are retold; the dog that nearly bashed down the door when leafleting, the Tory who was persuaded to switch and the government minister that was lost in the labyrinthine estate.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »