UNCUT: This shoddy reshuffle is just a distraction, understanding aspiration is the key to the next election

05/09/2012, 07:00:15 AM

by Rob Marchant

Who’d be David Cameron right now? Mired in political treacle, this week he is trying to divert attention away from his problems with a reshuffle, and wrest back the initiative by lots of serious-sounding pronouncements about economic growth which is proving highly elusive. The public doesn’t seem to be very impressed by him or his coalition at the moment but, then again, neither does his increasingly restive party.

David Cameron’s first problem is that, although he tries to entice his backbenchers with some right-wing soundbites and a few reshuffle sops such as the promotions of Chris Grayling and Owen Patterson, he is forced to tread a line between the centrist husky-hugger and the Thatcherite Brussels-basher, with the result that he is believed by neither side. And, as Iain Martin points out, his hardline economic approach is not necessarily even shared by the Tory right.

Next, it is also useful to note that that Tory right is not what it used to be, either: the “squires from the shires” of yore are a lot less representative of the average backbencher than the self-made businessman or the corporate exec who worked his way up. The hinterland of this new breed is meritocratic, not noblesse oblige; and they do not necessarily think that this Etonian deserves his place in history, after a few years in public affairs and a lot more as a Westminster insider.

Indeed, talking of the right: on observing the US elections, the Daily Express’ sharp political correspondent, Patrick O´Flynn, last week reflected what Cameron could learn from them: that the “first UK party to choose as leader a decent, self-made, down-to-earth, pro-striver leader will get massive momentum”.

He’s right, but the observation is not just for right-wingers. There’s a universal lesson, in that the British electorate is clearly fed up with career politicians, and would like to elect people who they see as appreciating their aspirations.

A simple fact seems to lie unaddressed by politicians: people still want to get on in life, just as they always have done. And they want politicians who understand that. It’s called aspiration, and in Labour we used to understand it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: Calm down Westminster, the reshuffle will change absolutely nothing

04/09/2012, 07:00:16 AM

by Atul Hatwal

It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. For all the chatter over the reshuffle, it will achieve nothing. No great new sense of direction will be imbued in the government, no re-vitalised mission.

There are three fundamental reasons that nothing will change, regardless of all of the hyperventilated twittering in Westminster, certainly not at this point in the electoral cycle: Cameron and Osborne’s relationship, the limited room for manoeuvre in making cabinet changes and the government’s inability to manage the media.

First, Cameron and Osborne both know they are bound together to the end of time. It rules out the one change that could have a profound impact the government: moving the chancellor.

Cameron and Osborne might recently have demonstrated bewildering political and economic incompetence, however, these two politicians have had the importance of unity between Number 10 and 11 indelibly impressed on them by visceral personal experience.

Through the 1990s and 2000s they had ring-side seats to the aftermath of prime ministers and chancellors falling out.

In the early 1990s they watched Major vs. Lamont (with the chancellor advised, lest we forget, by a fresh faced David Cameron while George Osborne was a researcher at Conservative Central Office); and then a decade later, Blair vs. Brown. The former conflict destroyed the foundations of Major’s authority while the latter consumed Labour’s will to govern.

For Cameron and Osborne, the ruin of the last Conservative and Labour governments both lay in the recurring war between Number 10 and 11. It is, in a sense, the defining experience of their political lives.

Second, there’s little room at the inn. The need to maintain the balance in posts between Tories and Lib Dems, men and women and right and left means there is exceptionally limited room to upgrade, let alone seat extra guests for dinner.

There’s no moving the Lib Dems from either chief secretary to the treasury, BIS or energy and climate change. Given the constitutional reform element of the deputy prime minister’s remit, a sizeable chunk of the justice secretary’s portfolio is also Lib Dem territory.

The small number of women in the cabinet means that any cull that included Caroline Spelman, Cheryl Gillan or Sayeeda Warsi would require three female replacements. This would anger the not-so-orderly queue of men waiting to get into the cabinet; some of whom thought they actually had cabinet jobs until the coalition agreement was hammered out.

Then there’s the delicate balance of right and left. Cameron’s preferred lieutenants such as Nick Boles and Nick Herbert are regarded as lily-livered quasi-Lib Dems by the snarling right. The backbench right-wing caucus will demand a bone to be thrown, but Cameron must also be wary of surrounding himself with ministers temperamentally hostile to his flavour of Conservatism.

It’s all tricky; so tricky in fact, that the least harmful option is to leave as much the same at the top table as is possible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: How do we re-engage young people in the electoral process?

03/09/2012, 02:38:52 PM

by Amanda Ramsay

Being politically active should be exciting and challenging, something to relish and throw your energies into. But with voter turnout declining sharply and only about 1% of the British population currently card-holding members of political parties, engaging young people in politics and the electoral process has never been more important.

So how do we do it?

Reducing the voting age to 16 could be a good place to start. To rehearse the well-worn argument, if you’re old enough to pay tax, marry, have children and fight and die for your country in the armed forces, surely you are old enough to vote about who runs the country?

Studies have shown that online and text voting would increase voter engagement in young people. Fraud is a huge concern with this route, but something has to change with the times. Would Saturday voting instead of the traditional Thursday help?

Raising turnout in UK elections amongst young people, maybe helped by having more young candidates to choose from. Bristol Labour party is fielding a range of young candidates at the next round of local government elections in May, including Mhari Threlfall, new student enterprise advisor at UWE (University of West of England), who tells me:

“I feel a duty to support young people. It is a bleak picture for younger people, with the average age of a councillor being 60 and rising, now more than ever it is important that young people have a voice, especially at a local level.”

Participation from younger voters might be enhanced with electronic voting options but to really improve engagement, better local and national voter registration is critical.

Traditionally, most first time voters are registered to vote by their parents or guardians, when they register the household. The Electoral Registration and Administration Bill will change all that, introducing individual electoral registration (IER). However, without direct action to encourage the young to register, apathy may be the biggest vote winner, if young people don’t bother to fill out the forms required by local councils.

The registration process for young people needs to be driven by enthusiastic young ambassadors, who can lead by example. An Operation Black Vote style campaign could galvanise a step-change in registration among young people.

Yet, on its own, a renewed registration drive will not be sufficient.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: Labour’s policy on banks shows how little politicians (and economists) understand the business

03/09/2012, 08:59:24 AM

by Paul Crowe

The summer break is over, the kids are headed back to school and in the business pages it’s as if nothing has changed: there’s another investigation into Barclays, this time over dubious “consultancy” payments to the Qatar fund that bailed them out in the crash; RBS is under fire over pay, this time a £3.2m golden hello to their new head of retail banking and Libor investigations continue to cast a shadow over all of our banks.

The banks need to be taught a lesson. It’s almost a self-evident truth in the current political debate. The Tories are too hamstrung by their donors and innate conservatism to take the radical action needed and Labour seems to have grasped the nettle.

In July, the two Ed’s launched Labour’s blueprint for banking. At the heart of the proposals for the retail market is a commitment to force our five biggest banks to divest some of their branches so that another competitor can be created.

It’s an extension of what the European Commission has forced Lloyd’s to do as the price for allowing their takeover of HBOS. In this case, 600 Lloyds’ branches have been spun off. They will be taken over by the Co-op bank to create a new institution that is large enough to compete with the big players.

This approach was also championed by the panjandrums of the Vickers commission and in theory Labour is onto something. Divesting branches in this way directly reduces the market power of the existing banks, increases competition and should improve services for customers.

Except that the real world does not quite operate by the simple rules of elementary economic theory.

If the Ed’s had looked a bit more closely at what has happened with Lloyds’ divestment, they might have arrived at a rather different conclusion.

Based on Lloyds’ experience, the real barrier to market entry for new suppliers will not be tackled by Labour’s proposal.

As the Co-op has discovered, the biggest stumbling block to competing in the big leagues is IT. Even though they are an established bank, they have found that their IT system cannot safely deal with the extra volume of customers from Lloyds’ 600 branches.

The result? They are likely to move all of their customers onto the same huge Lloyds system that is currently used by the 600 branches, a process that will cost them hundreds of millions of pounds and reflected in the low price that the tax-payer backed Lloyds received for their divested branches.

As financially strong as a potential entrant’s balance sheet might be, unless a supplier is able to build and run one of the biggest and most secure IT systems in the country, the regulator is quite rightly unlikely to allow them into the market – if this system goes down, so does the financial stability of millions of people who depend on automated direct debits, standing orders and bank transfers.

Just ask NatWest, RBS and Ulster Bank customers how they felt when an IT glitch meant their accounts were inaccessible for a few days earlier this year.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: The Sunday review: Joe Hayman “British Voices: the UK in its own words” and Daniel Trilling “Bloody Nasty People. The rise of Britain’s far right”

02/09/2012, 07:00:46 AM

by Anthony Painter

In Rhyl, a working-class pleasure resort, they have erected a new development between the esplanade and sea. It is called “New Drift Park”. The connection between the town and the sea has now been intruded upon. Concrete now sits where once the view was unencumbered. This barrier serves as a metaphor for modern Britain. There’s some blockage that wasn’t there before. New Drift Park is modernity grafted onto tradition. It has left us untethered. We are drifting.

The genius of Joe Hayman’s British Voices is that it allows Britons to speak for themselves. Hayman travelled across the land – an epic journey from Romford in Essex to the south-west, Shetlands, Midlands and Northern Ireland taking in Wales and Rhyl along the way – speaking to over a thousand people in the process. It is a beautiful work. The author – or perhaps interlocutor is more apt – steps back, puts his own voice on fade and lets people speak for themselves. Their voices are resonant and recognisable.

Anyone who has spent any time looking at polls, speaking with people on the doorstep, listening at family weddings and the like will appreciate the authenticity of these voices. Hayman helps us to understand Britain’s modern predicament as a result- a nation of uncertainty, anxiety and, yes, drift.

Different political perspectives have different ways of interpreting and understanding this reality. The left tends to emphasise inequality and class division. The right looks to culture, morality and the decay of traditional values. Sometimes the narrative switches over as in blue Labour and red Tory but the starting point is the most instructive aspect of those philosophies. However, the only constant is change and this is experienced through the prisms of class, cultural identity, religious conviction, and community belonging.

Just say that tomorrow Canterbury cathedral vanished. What would be the consequence of that? As a nation we’d feel a sense of bewilderment and severance. A piece of who we are, our history would vanish. The loss would be cultural. For the people of Canterbury, their very understanding of their place in the world, a stability of identity and local pride would be forsaken. The local economy would suffer considerably as tourism to the town dried up. So it has been in communities such as Longbridge in Birmingham, Stoke in Staffordshire, Glasgow, Dagenham and Burnley. Their industrial prowess was their cathedral: the loss is economic and cultural. Both the right and the left have a point.

Change both empowers and disempowers. Hayman’s book tracks the upwardly mobile – the wired-up millennials, entrepreneurial immigrant communities, and the formerly downtrodden Catholic population of Northern Ireland. And he tracks the losers from change – the white working-class of Glasgow with almost a despair of life manifested in a life-decaying diet of saturated fat and alcohol, loyalist working-class communities in Belfast, and those for whom the 1960s was moral nightmare despite their relative affluence.

Often the voices plead victimhood. Compassion shines through everywhere nonetheless. So many desire an anchor to stop the drift. The less human and social capital at your disposal, the more likely you are to be swallowed by the ocean’s currents. In that sense class absolutely matters. But it’s much more complex than that: it’s about ethnicity, nationhood, religion, sexuality, urban, town, country, technological adaptability, community and values too. Guardian columnist, Simon Jenkins, is as change adverse as the trade unionist, Bob Crowe. Yet their class-consciousness could hardly be further apart.

And actually we can choose to find a way of coping with change and division – keeping calm and carrying on. Eric Noi, who runs a boxing and personal development centre in Oldham gets it about right:

“If we don’t understand something, we fear it; we’re hardwired that way from when we lived in caves. And that has been exploited by extremists on both sides.”

And when there is vacuum of leadership then extremists are able to exploit divides, separating people and communities even further. There’s always a charlatan ready to step into void – George Galloway with his populism of the outsider in one direction and Nick Griffin with his radicalisation of the alienated in the other.

Hayman spots the disdain in which mainstream politics is held. Daniel Trilling’s Bloody Nasty People looks at how Nick Griffin and the BNP were able to exploit disdain and anxiety – with violence silhouetting his every footstep.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

HOME: Time for policy in the pub, Southwark style

01/09/2012, 08:00:37 AM

Hear ye, hear ye, good people of the London Borough of Southwark. What are you doing this afternoon?

Finish the shopping early, forget about the football results (it’s barely September, you know it means nothing) and get yourself along to the Roebuck pub (upstairs) on Great Dover street SE1 at 4pm for a world premiere.

Yes, it’s the first local government policy in the pub.

You know the format:- 90 seconds for folk to present a policy idea, in this case for the glorious Borough of Southwark, followed by 3 minutes Q&A. After all the ideas have been aired and discussed, you get to vote on the best.

But here’s the twist.

The event will be chaired by mayor Althea Smith and council leader Peter John will be on hand to respond to the best ideas.

You read  right. You’ll be able to speak the truth to power. Shake the hand of power. Maybe even hear a reasoned and cogent response from power to your ideas.

So what are you waiting for? Make the arrangements, sort the kids and get down to Roebuck  at 4.

And you can have a fully justified early pint into the bargain.

What’s not to like? See you in the pub.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: The two Ed’s don’t get on? Good.

31/08/2012, 03:31:10 PM

by David Talbot

The psychodrama returns. A brooding, man of Brown, the shadow chancellor has taken against the young upstart Labour leader. Beadily eyeing what should be his, he uses secrecy, intellect and sheer aggression to domineer over his colleagues and undermine the leader he so clearly has scant respect for. Tentatively reported at the weekend, but now repeated as fact, the hierarchy of the Labour party is once again locked in a totemic struggle. Ed Miliband and Balls are said to be in the early skirmishes of something the Labour party has historically excelled at: vicious internal warfare.

We have, of course, been here before. Comparisons with the machinations that so undermined Labour’s thirteen years are inevitable. That the new cast are the support acts from the previous scene make the comparisons that much easier. Ed Balls displays a startling resemblance to the man he once so slavishly served. He is Gordon Brown’s man and Gordon is his man. Much of the words used by those oft-quoted “senior Labour party figures” are scarily similar to Brown; “high maintenance”, “secretive” and “domineering” to name just a few of the more praiseworthy adjectives.

It is, though, easy to admire his intellect, his work load, his ability to once organise a famously disorganised chancellor and, most recently, his uncanny knack of visibly infuriating the prime minister. But most of all he is a direct and influential. He has taken the eminently sensible step of vetoing shadow cabinet members committing to future spending plans.

For once the Brownite trait of an iron grip is to be praised wholeheartedly – Balls knows that the public retain a deep suspicion that the Labour party only knows how to govern by spending a grotesque level of money that simply isn’t there.

Not unsurprisingly, though, he is struggling to come to terms with the arrangements that now find him bequeathing his position to a man he long regarded as his junior.

But he is not stupid; he knows that to destabilise Miliband to such an extent that outright election victory is jeopardised will destroy him and deny him the position he so craves – to be a Labour chancellor.

His ambition can surely soar no higher. He tested his leadership credentials in 2010 and was roundly routed.

The accusations laid so heavily at Ed Balls’ door are the exact opposite directed to Miliband. Meek, insecure, deferential – it could be suggested that Miliband needs some balls.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: Self-interest not the national interest is driving each party’s economic policy

31/08/2012, 07:00:13 AM

by Peter Watt

For three successive quarters our economy has contracted.  And this week there is yet another report painting a gloomy picture for the foreseeable future.  This time it’s the CBI reporting that they expect the economy to contract by 0.3% this year.  The CBI’s director general, John Cridland, said:

“At present I believe the economy is flat rather than falling but, nonetheless, momentum seems to have weakened and the latest official figures put the UK in recession for the second quarter of this year.”

And so it goes on; it’s hard to remember when the economy was doing anything else other than struggling or worse.  Behind the headline numbers jobs are under threat, family budgets are squeezed and uncertainty stalks the land.  And on top of an economic contraction we have public finances that are in a pretty dire state.  No party expects an end to the current public sector budget squeeze until 2017 at the earliest.  In fact, after the most recent government borrowing figures even that looks optimistic.  In July 2011 the chancellor had a surplus of £2.8 billion and in July 2012 he had to borrow £600 million!

Some experts are saying that he may end up borrowing £30 billion more this year than last when the OBR had been predicting a significant drop in the amount needing to be borrowed.  Not quite the progress that George intended.

So now is the time for strong and bold leadership and honesty with the public about what our increasingly dire economic position means.  And yet none of the parties seem capable of either.

Firstly the government is increasingly wrapped up in its own navel gazing and appears rudderless.  For months now it has seemed bereft of any sense of purpose other than deficit reduction.  But now that this seems to be failing the lack of a vision is telling.  You would really struggle to say exactly what the government is for and what it wants to do.  There are exceptions; you might not agree with Michael Gove or Iain Duncan Smith but you at least know what they intend to do in their departments.

But beyond that, what are the government trying to do?  They chop, change and squabble giving the impression of being all over the place.  Policy is announced and then reversed and the briefings and counter briefings are now endemic.  Who’d be a government whip right now?!

Most importantly there aren’t many government MPs left who really believe that George Osborne is the man to save the country’s economic, and their political, bacon.  David Cameron appears bemused but is caught in the contradictions of the coalition.  But the one thing that still binds the coalition is the central plank of their coalition, their stated core purpose, deficit reduction.

To challenge their hitherto agreed approach right now maybe sound economics but risks exposing the schisms within and between the parties.  It risks further damage to that which keeps them all in government – their shared parliamentary majority.

Yet that doesn’t stop the deputy PM announcing wild and ill thought emergency taxes on the rich.  He might have thought that it would make him look in tune with the concerns of those who once voted Lib Dem but everyone else just laughed!

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: Re-engaging young people is central to Refounding Labour

30/08/2012, 04:37:16 PM

by Amanda Ramsay

By starting the process of Refounding Labour, Ed Miliband has made much of rebuilding the party, making it more open to new members and to a broader section of society; welcome news then of the launch this month of Bristol Young Labour.

While experience of life and party politics is invaluable from older members, it is encouraging that enough young people in the city want to give their time and energy in outreach work and political engagement.

They offer the party the opportunity to refresh our politics in an age of disaffection and apathy

Young Labour is open to 14 to 26 year olds and brings voting privileges and access to events and activities that being an armchair supporter will never offer.

“Timings have worked out well for us,” explained Stephen Fulham, who chaired the launch event.

“Setting-up Young Labour alongside a mayoral election provides motivation and opportunities for members that would not otherwise be possible.

The mayoral election in Bristol on 15 November has regional and national significance and we’re networking with Young Labour groups around the country who want to help support Marvin Rees, Labour’s candidate to be the first directly elected mayor.”

Bristol Young Labour aims to engage young people across Bristol in the work of the Labour party and to reflect the diversity of young people within society.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: The fact is, Labour leaders and their chancellors always fall out

29/08/2012, 01:19:27 PM

by Kevin Meagher

We all know the tale. An ambitious chancellor plotting with cabinet colleagues to unseat a sitting prime minister who was responsible for an historic election victory.

Blair and Brown? It could equally apply to Sir Stafford Cripps’ attempts to oust Clement Attlee in the late 1940s. Labour history has a habit of repeating itself like that.

Right up to the present day, it seems. The Independent on Sunday’s John Rentoul has stirred a hornet’s nest by reporting supposed tensions at the top of the party.  “Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been getting on particularly badly recently, although each has long found the other trying” he wrote the other day.

Clashing styles and disagreements over banking reform are cited by those following up the story.

A similar pattern (psychodrama?) has been played out down the decades. The relationship between Hugh Gaitskell and Harold Wilson, respectively leader and shadow chancellor in the late 50s, was such that Wilson even stood for the leadership against Gaitskell in 1960. That would be the equivalent of Ed Balls launching a bid to replace Ed Miliband right now. Let that then be the marker for talk of splits at the top today.

When he was eventually in the prime ministerial driving seat, Wilson fared little better. He didn’t get on with his chancellors, Callaghan, Jenkins and Healy. Mind you, as an expert economist himself, who served as Sir William Beveridge’s researcher when the great man was drawing up his famous report on the welfare state, it’s perhaps not surprising he thought he knew more than the occupants of Number 11. He did.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon