We’ve had dissent and discipline, it’s time for debate and dialogue

05/11/2010, 03:00:08 PM

by Jessica Asato

This week I did something 99.9% of the population didn’t. I took part in a Labour party branch discussion about reform of partnership in power (PiP) – the party’s policy-making process introduced in 1997.

Liam Byrne has been put in charge of leading the review process which will conclude in June next year and changes to policy arrangements will be agreed by party conference. As Pat McFadden states at the start of the consultation document, “now, in opposition, the time is right to have a fundamental review of our policy making process”. Actually, I don’t quite agree with that. We should have reviewed and improved policy making when we knew the top of the party was failing to communicate with the membership and nipped it in the bud. If your footsoldiers are unhappy about the direction of the top brass they will be less willing to do their best in the fight on the ground.

In fact, a number of things about the document don’t quite make the grade. It states “Partnership in Power has in most people’s eyes been considered a success”. What, seriously? No one at my branch meeting seemed to think it had. Even its assertion that PiP helped to “deliver election winning manifestos in 2001 and 2005” is pushing it a bit far when a) most of the new policy in those manifestos were formulated in the Downing St policy unit and b) PiP also helped to procure an election losing manifesto in 2010. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Never underestimate the Lib Dems’ capacity for survival

05/11/2010, 12:00:56 PM

by Paul Richards

THERE’S Labour jubilation at the news that the Liberal Democrats have slumped to single figures in the latest opinion polls. Their current nine per cent standing would give them just 11 seats in the Commons – a return to the old jokes about taxicabs and telephone boxes. It reflects the proper sense of outrage at the behaviour of Nick Clegg and his colleagues – ditching any policy necessary to stay in the government, and revelling in the perks and trappings. It reflects too Cameron’s Saddam-like use of the Lib Dems as human shields (‘after you, Danny…’), fronting up every piece of Tory thuggery and vandalism. The unknown perpetrator of what the Wandsworth Guardian calls a ‘campaign of hate’ against the Putney offices of the Liberal Democrats, daubing ‘whores’, ‘fakes’ and latterly ‘Tory Fags’ (no sniggering at the back) on their windows, speaks for tens of thousands of people who voted Lib Dem.

All those students, or well-meaning people in the voluntary sector, or teachers, who voted for the Liberal Democrats have watched their cherished policies torn into little pieces by Huhne, Clegg, Cable, Alexander and the rest. People in independent-minded Lewes, who believed they were voting for a radical maverick, ended up with a junior minister in a government prosecuting a war in Afghanistan, cutting local voluntary groups, and putting rail fares up. Yes, even Norman Baker, the man who believes Dr Kelly was murdered, has swapped his high horse for a ministerial car. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Phil Woolas is our fall guy

05/11/2010, 09:00:44 AM

by Dan Hodges

JUDGMENT day for Phil Woolas. Though not for his accusers in the liberal mob – their verdict was passed long ago. “He is guilty. Those leaflets pandered to prejudice. They have no place in the new politics”.

Save your breath. Woolas was never anything more  than a patsy. The fall guy. Ritual sacrifice to our conscience.

His campaign was “toxic” according to the Telegraph. Made him “unfit to sit on the front bench” said Liberal Conspiracy. Even Trevor Philips found himself moved to describe the leaflets as “unhelpful”.

In the eyes of the law, Woolas stood charged with misrepresentation, not inflaming racial tensions. Sharp political practice. Not racism. But that was always a detail.

Yes, we can take our positions. Swap stories from Oldham with similar tales of electoral skulduggery in marginal seats the length and breadth of the land. Debate the constitutional implications of the judiciary imposing their judgment over that of the electorate.

It would be an exercise in irrelevance. This case was not about clumsy photo shopping mixed with a few equally crude allegations. It was about the politics of immigration, religion and race. Or more accurately, about the Labour party’s shameful failure to adopt a coherent, let alone moral, stance on any of these issues. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The real battle for the future of the English regions is just beginning

04/11/2010, 03:00:36 PM

by Kevin Meagher

THIS time of year, as the bonfires blaze and the fireworks bang, many keen regional devolutionists will commemorate waking up to find a different political revolution (albeit one with more modest aims) had bitten the dust. Tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the ill-fated referendum on an elected regional assembly for the north-east of England.

As you may recall, back in 2004, Labour promised referendums would be held in the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humber regions about whether each should have an elected assembly.

The powers on offer were not vast. At that stage, frankly, neither should they have been. This was never a call for mini-parliaments. Or regional prime ministers. Or declarations of UDI. It was about creating small, strategic bodies to democratise decisions taken by unaccountable public officials and act as all purpose galvanisers, instigators and cajolers for northern interests.

In the end, just the north-east, long thought to be the likeliest harbinger of regional devolution, was given the go-ahead. The government had got cold feet, fearing the message about “creating another tier of bureaucracy” was too potent. So it cancelled the other two votes.  The entreaties of campaigners in those regions counted for little. For a government hooked on winning things, the prospect of a triple whammy defeat was too much to bear, so they sought to minimise the political fallout. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour is wrong on housing benefit

04/11/2010, 09:00:20 AM

by Peter Watt

The proposed changes to housing benefit have certainly got people fired up.  “Rightly so”, you may say. It certainly feeds our preferred narrative: a heartless government unfairly slashing that which benefits the most vulnerable. There is also no doubt that thousands of families will suffer from a loss in income and in some cases even be forced to move. The full scale and impact of the changes is unknown, but Crisis has powerfully set out the full range of the government proposals:

  • Local housing allowance (LHA) rates to be recalculated meaning 774,970 households will lose on average £468 per year;
  • 25 to 35 year-olds to be moved down to a share room rate from a one bed flat rate affecting 88,000 people;
  • Cutting housing benefit by 10% after a year on job seekers’ allowance affecting 200,000 people;
  • Index linking of LHA affecting 939,220 households to the consumer prices index;
  • LHA caps for 21,060 households will ensure that no one-bedroom property receives more than £250 in LHA, rising to £400 for a four-bedroom property or larger;
  • Non-dependent deductions will be increased from2011;
  • Limiting working age housing benefit to reflect household size;
  • Limiting total benefit claim by household to £500.

A hard hitting and tough list; so it should be an open goal for Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. Same old Tories, supported by their new supplicant mates the Lib Dems, doing what Tories do best – screwing the poor. And we are certainly putting the boot in with gusto. Ed Milliband has led with it at PMQs and the Labour blogs have been full of technically correct and eloquent arguments that the government is wrong. It is so obviously unfair, the Liberals are split on the issue and even Mayor Boris is worried about the impact. We can’t fail to miss. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

CSR analysis: the government’s green boasts were vain and idle

03/11/2010, 03:00:12 PM

by ffinlo Costain

Announcements leading up to the comprehensive spending review (CSR) and the review itself were the first opportunity to really test the Tory-Lib Dem government’s sincerity about tackling climate change. As the dust settles we can assess the result.

Labour’s warm front scheme, which provided grants for homeowners to insulate their lofts and cavity walls, is to be killed off. Thousands have benefited from reduced insulation costs, with grants worth around £300 delivered at council level. The result was widespread energy savings. The government’s green deal will replace this scheme. Instead of grants, homeowners will be offered loans to buy goods and services from businesses like B&Q and Tesco to make their homes more energy efficient.

But if many of those living in fuel poverty failed to take the opportunity to insulate their houses when most of the cost was paid for, it seems unlikely they’ll chose to insulate when they have to fund the full cost themselves. The measure also fails to help those living in un-insulated short-term rented accommodation. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Retired and extremely dangerous

03/11/2010, 11:00:16 AM

by Tom Watson

I WENT to see RED at the cinema the other night. It wasn’t, on this occasion, a fly on the wall documentary about our new leader, though it is only a matter of time before that satire is penned.

It was a rather impressive Hollywood action movie with a comic theme: old people can do stuff that we expect young good-looking heroes to be doing. So Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Morgan Freeman beat the bad guys in the CIA to uncover the plot. RED turns out to be a comedy acronym for “retired and extremely dangerous”.

The film gave me comfort. Being a gnarled up, 43 year old twice-ex-minister takes some getting used to, after all. It is hard for the likes of Tom Harris and me to come to terms with having a leader who is younger than us. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

CSR analysis: cuts and confusion are the reality behind the Tories’ tough talk on defence

02/11/2010, 03:18:56 PM

by Andy Bagnall

The strategic defence and security review was cleverly timed. By publishing it the day before the comprehensive spending review, one day of bad headlines about defence cuts was quickly eclipsed by reports of the wider savagery being unleashed against our public services.

Casual observers might remember little more than the Tory-Lib Dem government’s perverse plans to build new aircraft carriers but retire the Harrier planes that fly from them, ten years before buying replacements. More interested analysts might even have been musing on the last time a Tory government decided to dispense with carrier strike capability, in 1981. (A year later, Argentina invaded the Falklands and the policy evaporated). But then we were deluged with the news of welfare cuts, arts cuts, housing cuts, any-kind-of-cut-you-can-think-of cuts. And the plane-less carriers disappeared from the horizon. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Can it be right to have a transparent public sector while private companies grow rich off people’s personal information?

02/11/2010, 12:30:17 PM

by Ian Lucas

ONE of the focuses of civil liberties campaigners in recent years has been on the growth of information held about individuals by the state.

Yet while these concerns have grown, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to the amounts of data held on individuals by private companies. The area is slowly coming under scrutiny – and is creating a difficult area for the government to regulate.

The pitfalls and problems were laid out in a recent debate in Westminster Hall – notable for several reasons, not least the number of Tory MPs, in a government pledged to cutting red tape, calling for fresh regulation.

In some ways, the shock at recent stories – such as Google’s capturing of personal data from the roadside as its cars compiled pictures for its street view application – is not surprising. One of the side effects of civil liberties campaigns focussing on the role of the state has been, as I said during the debate, that we have paid too little attention to the increase in the collection of information by private organisations.

Some of this information is given by a direct choice – the Facebook status update, the tweet about plans for the evening – even when those using such sites may not have considered all the implications of their actions.

But what happens where information is being gathered in other ways – such as the use of cookies to monitor people’s activities online and target products at them? The passing of internet activity logs by ISPs? Or even those events, such as the street view row, where personal information is taken without consent? These are diverse issues relating to personal; privacy and the real question here for any government is – how do you enforce any system you set up?

Much was made during the debate of a system of self-regulation. I have some concerns about this. Looking at the recent data security issues involving mobile phones and the News of the World, and the response of the press complaints commission, it is clear that some self-regulatory bodies can be less than robust in dealing with complaints. While we should recognise the strengths of self-regulation, such as the possibilities it poses for international agreement, we should also be aware of the dangers a weak system poses.

And I believe there is a wider problem than simply internet regulation which also needs consideration – which is the entire manner in which information about individuals is collected and used by third party organisations.

But how do we tackle this? First, by raising the profile of the issue with the general public. A greater amount of information would help people make an informed decision about their actions. People need to know much more about the scale of the information companies keep, and why it is being kept.

Second, we – in Parliament and in the country at large – need to have a very wide discussion about our next steps. I would be interested to hear people’s views on how we proceed. But I think we must recognise that private organisations should be scrutinised in exactly the same way and to the same extent as governmental organisations.

Can it be right to have a transparent public sector while private companies grow rich off people’s personal information?

Ian Lucas is Labour MP for Wrexham and a shadow business minister.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Ed Miliband is not Sarah Palin

02/11/2010, 09:00:21 AM

by Dan Hodges

The tea party. Not a party as such, but a movement. A reaction. Forged in response to a seismic defeat.

They look mainly inward. Purists. Believers. Compromise is dangerous. It led to electoral catastrophe. Their politics is confident. Aggressive. Its practitioners alert to betrayal.

They eschew centralisation. They are well organised, yes. But their structures are pluralistic. They believe in grassroots ownership. Distributed leadership.

This creates problems. Indiscipline. Extremists have infiltrated the organisation. Mainstream politicians who do not fully embrace their ideology have been challenged. Members of the same party have, for reasons of personal expediency, turned on their own. The old political hierarchies are unwilling, or unable, to intervene.

They do not have opponents, but enemies, who must be destroyed. Their enemy is not just pursuing a different political agenda. He is laying waste to the country they love. They must rally others to its defence. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon