Labour Uncut

UNCUT: We need to diversify our funding base

09/06/2011, 07:00:50 AM

by Peter Watt

We recently saw the publication by the electoral commission of the list of donations by all political parties in the first quarter of 2011 (Q1). The Labour party received £2,882,765 of which £2,507,372 was from trade unions. This means that almost 90% of Labour’s donations in Q1 came from affiliated trade unions. Now whichever way you cut that, it cannot be a good thing. There are two aspects that are specifically worthy of scrutiny. One is political and the other is financial.

Politically, it is a mixed picture. We share history, and over the years the trade unions have proved that they are more than fair weather friends. The affiliated trade unions are members of the party in their own right. Their membership (affiliation) fees mean that trade union members are in theory a constituency of millions of working people with a stake in the party. These members should act as a constant reminder of life in the real world. And, of course, their organisations and ours are enshrined in our constitution with ties at every level of the party.

Over the years, our opponents have unfairly characterised the relationship as one of master and servant, with Labour’s union paymasters demanding and getting their policies. The reality has been somewhat different. In fact, as one union general secretary said to me recently, “if that really was the case then the pound for pound return has been pretty fucking poor”. No. Affiliated trade unions are members of the party because they continue to believe that a Labour government will, on balance, always be better for their members than the alternative.

But we need to be honest. The relationship between the party and the unions has not been right for some time. It isn’t really a direct relationship between the party and millions of trade union members. The relationship is mediated by a small group of senior figures. While for many in the party, the trade union link is just a source of patronage and funds when they are seeking selection. Which comfortable status quo means that millions of trade union members are mainly represented by the millions of votes cast on their behalf by trade union general secretaries at party conference.

With 90% of all donations now coming from trade unions, it is simply not credible to claim that they are not in a stronger position to demand greater compromise on party reform and on policy. If they pushed hard enough, it would be all but impossible for Ed to refuse. And if Ed wanted to do something that they really they didn’t want him to do then could he just ignore them? No.

Meanwhile, our opponents have done a very good job in the minds of the public of painting us as a party of the trade union vested interest. And they have linked this to notions of political extremism and economic excess. Whether this is fair or not is one thing. Another is why are we not capable of attracting a broader base of financial support in the first place? Why are successful companies and individuals not beginning to support us again? Because while it is great news that 70,000 new members have joined leading to an extra £1 million or so into the coffers, that is simply not enough to arrest the long term decline in our income. Particularly when you think that the party costs roughly £25 million per year to run.

Which leads to the second issue worthy of scrutiny – the financial implications of the party receiving 90% of its donations from the trade unions. The first thing to say is that it is simply not sustainable.

Remember that we are committed to paying off £2 million a year in debt before we pay anything else. Of the £2.8 million received between January and March this year, £1 million came from Unite, £500,000 from GMB and £400,000 from Unison. In other words, it would only take a decision by one of their conferences to withhold or reduce funds and the impact would be pretty serious. Any organisation with the levels of debt that the party has, and that is so reliant on a single source of funding, can only be described as vulnerable.

Second, the overall reduction in the amount we have available to spend each year because of our narrow funding base is being masked. It is being masked by the tax payers’ money that we now receive because we are in opposition. A combination of Short, Cranborne and Scottish Parliamentary money took our income from £2.9 million to £4.6 million in the first quarter of this year, meaning that we will be in receipt of the best part of £7 million this year from the taxpayer. So while our income this year is likely to be about £23 – £24 million in cash terms, without the taxpayer we would be looking at income of about £17 million. In other words, we can barely afford to fight an election and we almost certainly can’t afford to win one.

Finally, and most seriously, there is the threat of party funding reform. Quite simply, if the government decides to implement its proposed cap of £50,000 on all donations to political parties, then the Labour party is in dire trouble. The money received from trade unions would go from £8 – £10 million per year to a maximum of £750,000. And yet there is every sign that that is exactly what the government is going to do. And I’m not sure that another “defend the link” campaign is going to be enough on this occasion.

So all in all, 90% of donations to the party coming from the trade unions exposes some pretty serious political and financial weaknesses that we need take seriously. If it’s not happening already, I hope that we are talking to the other parties about agreeing some sort of consensus on party funding reform. I hope that we are looking at why we don’t appear to have been able to diversify our income and attract back large numbers of successful wealthy individuals and companies. And I hope that we are looking at how we can further increase the amount that our members give.

If not, then we may well have a bit more to worry about than Refounding Labour and poor attendance at local party meetings.

Peter Watt is a GMB member and former general secretary of the Labour party.

Posted in Uncut | 21 Comments »

UNBOUND: Thursday News Review

09/06/2011, 06:46:46 AM

U-turn after U-turn

Dithering David Cameron was ridiculed yesterday after performing yet another spectacular backflip over Government policy. He ordered a rethink on controversial plans to halve jail sentences for violent criminals – shelving proposals put forward by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. It came just two days he was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on sweeping health reforms. And it showed that, unlike one of his predecessors, Margaret Thatcher, this Tory PM definitely IS for turning. The hapless leader’s latest about-face is seen as a humiliating blow for Mr Clarke. – Daily Mirror

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke faced embarrassment yesterday after David Cameron vetoed his proposal to cut by up to half the prison terms for rapists and other violent offenders who make early guilty pleas. It was the Prime Minister’s second major policy U-turn in less than 24 hours following his concessions on NHS reform. Mr Clarke’s plans to cut up to 50 per cent from sentences of offenders who plead guilty early (an increase from 33 per cent) faced savage criticism from Tory right-wingers. The Independent understands that ministers are considering a two-tier scheme, under which a maximum 33 per cent discount will be retained for the most severe crimes such as rape, assault and armed robbery but 50 per cent could be introduced for less serious offences. The latter option is being backed by Mr Clarke and Liberal Democrat ministers, while many Tories are pressing for the 50 per cent proposal to be scrapped outright. – the Independent

Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke has been forced by Number 10 to abandon a plan to give rapists, and other serious offenders, a 50% sentence discount in return for early guilty pleas, but he is fiercely resisting Treasury demands to make his justice ministry bear the multi-million pound cost. Clarke had proposed to increase the discount from 33% to 50% for all offenders, so saving £130m from a departmental budget being slashed by a quarter. Following talks with David Cameron over the past 48 hours, Clarke accepted rapists will now be excluded, but he is battling to retain the extra discount for less serious offences, a policy that would free up badly needed prison places. In difficult talks yesterday with the Treasury chief secretary, Danny Alexander, Clarke pointed out he had last year won Treasury agreement that if the government’s so-called rehabilitation revolution did not deliver a lower jail population, then the Treasury would bear the costs from the reserve. – the Guardian

Another U-turn on pensions possible

Senior Liberal Democrats are understood to be determined to reverse the plans. Jenny Willott, the Lib Dem backbench spokeswoman on pensions, has also called for the proposals to be reconsidered. But the Treasury is likely to fiercely resist attempts to unpick the state pension age changes, which will save the taxpayer billions in the years ahead, unless they can be made to pay for themselves. Former Lib Dem party leader Charles Kennedy, John Hemming and Annette Brooke are among those who have opposed the changes. While Tory MPs Peter Bottomley, James Gray and Chloe Smith have asked for the rules to be amended. She told the Commons: ‘Women currently in their late 50s are getting a very bad deal. No men will see their state pension age increase by more than a year but half a million women will.’ – Daily Mail

Tory and Lib Dem rebels sided with Labour in raising concerns about the impact a decision to raise it to 66 by 2018 will have on around 300,000 women born in 1953 and 1954. They have been given just seven years notice. David Cameron was challenged over it by Lib Dem Annette Brook at PM’s Questions. She urged him to review it, saying: “The women affected will be asked to work up to two extra years over and above what they had planned for, whereas men will be asked to work only an extra year. The discrimination concerns me.” Mr Cameron said he “understood” but argued pensioners would be better off in increased pension payments agreed by the Coalition. – Daily Express

Politicians pay tribute to Prince Philip at 90

Taking time out after Prime Minister’s Questions to propose a “humble address” to be presented to the Queen to mark the occasion, Mr Cameron described the Duke as “a source of rock solid strength” during his record-breaking 59 years as consort. Ed Miliband, the leader of the Opposition, was equally effusive, saying the Duke “embodies qualities of duty, loyalty public service and good humour – great British qualities”. But it was the two leaders’ frequent references to the Duke’s famed sense of mischief that drew the biggest response from the House. Mr Cameron promised to keep his speech short, quoting the Duke’s observation that “the mind cannot absorb what the backside cannot endure”, and shared his favourite blunt comment by the Duke, when he was once asked how his flight had been. “Have you ever been on a plane?” the Duke had told a dignitary. “Well, you know how it goes up in the air and comes down again – it was like that.” – Daily Telegraph

Its up to you Carwyn

Labour leader Ed Miliband has said that policies taken forward by Carwyn Jones’ Welsh Government would shape his party’s next UK manifesto – and he gave the First Minister a free hand to negotiate coalition deals with either Plaid Cymru or the Liberal Democrats. Speaking in a London press conference yesterday, Mr Miliband made it clear he would not oppose Assembly link-ups with Plaid or the Lib Dems if the Welsh Labour leader considered these necessary. He said: “These are decisions for him. He’s an excellent First Minister. “He’s done a brilliant job since he’s taken over from Rhodri Morgan. Those kind of decisions are for him.” – Western Mail

Encouraging for Labour, but worrying figures for Ed

Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are struggling to improve their image with voters while David Cameron remains almost twice as popular as his two rival leaders. After a mini-revival early this year, the Liberal Democrats are back at the 11 per cent rating to which they slumped last year after their tuition fees U-turn. Labour (40 per cent) enjoys a four-point advantage over the Tories (36 per cent). Mr Cameron, dubbed “Teflon Man” by Tory aides, appears to float above the political fray. Mr Clegg seems to be the fall guy for ministers’ unpopular decisions while Mr Miliband makes little impact on voters. Mr Clegg’s personal ratings have hit a new low. ComRes found only 21 per cent believe he is a good leader. Professor Curtice said: “There must now be question marks about Clegg’s ability to recover from his unpopularity, which is beginning to be on a par with that endured by Gordon Brown. Leaders rarely recover popularity once most of the public have decided to write them off.” There is little either for Mr Miliband to celebrate. ComRes found only 22 per cent deem him a good leader, compared with Mr Cameron’s 39 per cent. Ominously for Labour, none of the last three opposition leaders with a negative satisfaction rating after eight months in the post – William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Howard – went on to become prime minister. – the Independent

Posted in Unbound | No Comments »

UNCUT: Labour needs relentless focus on private sector growth

08/06/2011, 07:00:36 AM

by John Denham

Over the last few months, Ed Miliband has set out three key challenges facing the country:

The problems faced by the “squeezed middle”, on low and middle incomes, who feel that the rewards of working hard are too little compared to those whose stellar salaries are not matched by results.

The threat to the British promise; our expectation that our children will enjoy better lives than we have done, because we cannot now pay our way in the world and create opportunities for them.

And the need to strengthen our communities, recognising that in myriad ways, not least in the way workplaces and working lives have changed, our confidence in a society of strong social institutions is being eroded.

We cannot deliver for the squeezed middle, revive the British promise or deliver strong communities without building an economy which looks and feels very different, with more opportunities to get better jobs.

We have developed an economy that is dangerously dependent on too many low skilled jobs. We cannot promise a better future for the next generation unless we can pay our way and create the skilled, well paid jobs which make the most of, and properly reward, their skills and abilities.

In building a different and stronger economy, the growth and jobs we need will be private sector growth and private sector jobs. The next Labour government will need to have a relentless, single-minded focus in creating the conditions for private sector growth. That means creating the conditions in which companies compete within fair markets and make profit by being the best in those competitive markets.

The Tory-Lib Dem notion is that support for market-led growth means that the ideal state is one in which government does as little as possible. In truth, markets are inevitably and unavoidably shaped by what governments do, and by what government doesn’t do.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 13 Comments »

UNBOUND: Wednesday News Review

08/06/2011, 06:47:33 AM

Cameron’s concessions leave no-one happy

David Cameron tried to buy off critics of his hated health reforms by offering a string of concessions yesterday. The Prime Minister promised hospital medics a say on how NHS cash is spent and put a limit on competition with the regulator made to “support integration” as well as encouraging the NHS and private firms to fight for business. He even ditched the 2013 deadline for medics to take control in a move that will enrage Tories who fear reforms will never happen. But Labour leader Ed Miliband still dismissed the U-turn saying: “They should go back to the drawing board on the NHS. These are botched policies.” And Tory MP Karl McCartney raged at the Lib Dems for helping force the concessions, condemning “political posturing by our flip-flopping coalition partners”. – Daily Mirror

The bartering between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg over health reforms as the Government prepares to unveil a revised package next week risks deepening coalition tensions. There is mounting anger on the Conservative benches at the stance of the Lib Dems, who have demanded a series of changes despite initially backing the legislation. Tory MP Nick de Bois, who sat on the committee examining the Bill, said sticking to the original time-table was crucial. ‘One of the fundamentals – one of the pillars – of the Bill is… that we can remove the vast swathes of democracy from primary care trusts and returning power to GPs by April 2013,’ he said. ‘Let me be clear, these pillars have to remain. I hope they do. I understand there can be changes, but I don’t want to be in a position when I can’t support this Bill because we have lost those essential pillars.’ – Daily Mail

David Cameron is facing a battle to reassure anxious Conservative MPs after he announced a series of changes to the government’s NHSreforms to win over the Liberal Democrats and members of the medical profession. As Nick Clegg told his parliamentary party last night that the time was fast approaching for the Liberal Democrats to swing behind the reforms after securing major concessions, Tories voiced concerns that the prime minister had abandoned key elements of Andrew Lansley‘s original blueprint. Cameron alarmed his backbenchers after he moved to meet the demands laid down by the Lib Dems at their spring conference in March by announcing the shelving of Lansley’s 2013 deadline, changes to the role of the health regulator, Monitor, and the opening up of GP-led consortiums. A senior Tory MP who warned last month that core “red lines” must not be crossed, warned shelving the 2013 deadline could threaten £5bn of spending on frontline health services. – the Guardian

Oxford Dons have no confidence in Willetts

Dons at Oxford University have delivered a decisive “no confidence” vote in the Universities minister, David Willetts. There were cheers last night when the vote was announced in Oxford’s Sheldonian Theatre – the first time a “no confidence” motion had ever been issued in a government minister by the university’s Senate. It was carried by the massive margin of 283 votes to five. During the debate, Abdel Takriti, a tutor at St Edmund Hall, called the Government’s plans for further education – under which student fees would rise to up to £9,000 a year – “ill-articulated and incoherent”. Robert Gildea, professor of modern history at the university, proposing the motion, said proposals to introduce “off-quota places” outside the proposed £9,000 fee cap risked introducing a two-tier system. – the Independent

Oxford University has formally declared it has “no confidence” in the policies of the universities minister, David Willetts, in the first sign of a concerted academic backlash against the government’s higher educationreforms. Lecturers passed a motion opposing the coalition’s policies by 283 votes to five at a meeting of the congregation, Oxford’s legislative body. The university is the first to take a public stand against the raising of tuition fees and slashing of the teaching grant, but the rebellion is spreading. Cambridge is expected to announce a date for a “no confidence” vote, while a petition against the government is gathering force at Warwick University. It is the first time a vote of no confidence in a minister has been passed by an English university, and follows a no- confidence vote by the Royal College of Nursing in the health secretary Andrew Lansley’s handling of NHS reforms. The message of “no confidence” will be transmitted to the government by Oxford University’s council, its governing body. – the Guardian

May talks tough about preventing terrorism

Its new counter-radicalisation strategy, Prevent, warned that some people who are supportive of terrorist groups and ideologies have “sought and sometimes gained positions in schools or in groups which work closely with young people.” It said that new standards to be enforced by Ofsted should enable schools to take action against staff who demonstrate unacceptable views. The Education Bill will also include a stronger focus on pupils’ “spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.” A “preventing extremism unit,” which will include experts in counter-terrorism, has been established at the Department of Education to stop unsuitable providers setting up Free Schools – a key part of the government’s new education strategy. Applicants will need to demonstrate that they would support UK democratic values including support for individual liberties within the law, equality, mutual tolerance and respect. – Daily Telegraph

Not a great first day back from his honeymoon

Ed Miliband returned to work today a married man – and, judging by his animated expressions, it looked as if he was reliving every single emotion he has felt over the last few weeks in the space of a few minutes. The Labour leader tackled the sensitive subject of social care at a press conference this afternoon – but all attention was focused on the sheer number of faces he pulled during his speech. Speaking at the Royal Festival Hall on London’s South Bank, Mr Miliband described marriage as ‘an important institution’ but insisted that parents did not need to be married to bring up children well. – Daily Mail

At his first press conference since his wedding on May 27, the Labour leader faced questions over his personal popularity and the party’s failure to gain a big poll lead given the economic gloom. “We have succeeded in winning back a section of voters who left us at the last general election,” he stressed. But he admitted that Labour faced a “long task”. “You have got to recognise that we are coming from a long way back,” he said. “We got 29 per cent at the last election, the second lowest share for Labour since 1918.” The party had to address “anger” over decisions made by the last Labour government and lay out a vision for the country’s future. On his personal ratings, he argued that Opposition leaders “early in their time in office” were still building a relationship with the public. – Evening Standard

Posted in Unbound | No Comments »

UNCUT: Only nationalisation and CCTV can stop abuse in care homes

07/06/2011, 01:00:56 PM

by Dennis Kavanagh

Satan and the sociology professor sat perched on a roof in Srebrenica watching a man with a Kalashnikov taking pot shots at the people running away from him. The professor explained the complex causes of the conflict and the culture of brutalisation that had transformed the once peaceful farmer into a cold blooded killer. In the pause that followed, Satan turned to the sociology professor and remarked, “But that doesn’t quite explain the glint in his eye though, does it”?

That was Radio 4’s superlative Harry’s Game, but had Satan taken up in one of the dilapidated office chairs in Winterbourne View care home I wonder if the same observation would occur to him. In a week that saw Jon Ronson argue in his book How to spot a psychopath that sadists are practically everywhere; we needed only to tune into last week’s Panorama to spot a number of them. The most vulnerable people in our community had been warehoused on an industrial estate in Bristol; though “warehoused” implies some care over the goods stored. This was an oubliette, a forgotten place in a land that wanted to forget about these people. Secret filming by Joe Casey gave these forgotten people eyes and ears and voices, and last week we heard their screams, their pleas for mercy and their howls of pain.

On the left, we often bury unfashionable impulses that would have protected these people. Go on, give into your inner socialists, you know this was about the market. Give into your inner authoritarian; you know secret filming was the only way to tell the truth about what happened.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 7 Comments »

UNCUT: Time for Labour’s flat earthers to get real

07/06/2011, 07:00:37 AM

by Dan Hodges

The world is round. It’s a shame, I know. Personally, I’d love a flat world. Think of the excitement of being able to go on “Edge of the World” tours. Sneak up to the boundary; take a peak into infinity.

But alas, it’s not to be. We’re just so mundane. Too damn spherical.

Once upon a time, people thought the world was flat. It had to be. What else could it be? Then, all of a sudden, everyone knew the earth was round. Of course it was. How could anyone have ever though otherwise.

But in between there must have been a transition period. A time when views gradually shifted:

“I was chatting to my mate Ampelius the other day. About this round world stuff”.

“Yeah”?

“Yep. You know what? I think there may be something in it”.

“Get away…”.

And then there would have been the hold outs. The diehards who clung to the earth in all its glorious flatness right till the very end: “I don’t care what they say. It’s flat, and that’s all there is to it”.

What happened to those people? The “circumference deniers”. Were they mocked? Oppressed? Or did they just fade away?

I’ll tell you what they did. They upped sticks and joined the Labour party.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 49 Comments »

UNBOUND: Tuesday News Review

07/06/2011, 06:48:09 AM

Where have I heard that before?

The Prime Minister’s “five guarantees” on the NHS will prove as worthless as his “cast-iron guarantee” on Europe. He went back on the promise of a referendum and David Cameron’s already broken, by our count, three of his health promises. The PM’s come up with a handful of guarantees because he needs a short-term fix to a problem called Andrew Lansley. We haven’t forgotten his enthusiastic, 100% backing for the Health Secretary’s scheme to turn the NHS into a giant market. Mr Cameron’s five guarantees are as worthless as that discarded referendum pledge. – Daily Mirror

Making a passionate case for reform, the Prime Minister will reassure people that the NHS is safe in his Government’s hands – and he will claim the proposals are gaining support. He will offer to be “personally accountable” for five “guarantees” – that the NHS will remain universal, that “efficient and integrated care” will be improved, not broken up, that the Government will keep waiting times low and funding will increase, not fall. A survey by PoliticsHome.com and YouGov today finds widespread backing from voters, including Labour supporters, for the reforms – but 59 per cent agree that “deep down, Conservatives want to fully privatise the NHS”. – Daily Express

The Prime Minister is fighting to rescue the Coalition’s Health Bill and will use a major speech to try to convince his critics that he wants the best for the NHS. He will point to reports showing that the standard of care in some hospitals is severely lacking, reports which show “elderly patients left unfed and unwashed”. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, dismissed Mr Cameron’s five pledges. He said: “David Cameron is the first Prime Minister in history to be forced to set out five pledges to protect the NHS from his own policies. Yet, he has already broken two of those pledges. The number of people waiting 18 weeks for treatment has gone up and he has not protected the health service budget. – Daily Telegraph

Salmond’s double independence blow

Alex Salmond’s hopes of a smooth transfer of powers to an independentScotland have been dealt a blow after a cabinet minister said a second referendum would be needed on independence. Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, said there was a “strong likelihood” that if the nationalists won the first referendum, then the British government would have to hold a further plebiscite to allow Scotland the chance to vote on the precise terms of any independence deal agreed by both countries. His remarks deeply irritated Salmond, the first minister, who has repeatedly insisted there is no legal requirement for a second referendum, since the first vote – likely to be in 2015 – would be based on a detailed proposal from the Scottish government. – the Guardian

Unions have held a mini-summit over their fears for the Scottish ship building industry being undermined by the threat of Scottish independence. Representatives of GMB, Unite and Ucatt – the unions that represent thousands of workers on the Clyde and Rosyth – yesterday warned MPs that even the possibility of independence could see contracts awarded to yards in England. The issue is set to be raised today when Defence Secretary Liam Fox answers questions from the Scottish affairs select committee. Under EU rules, defence contracts do not have to go out to open tender, which means governments usually award them to home yards. – the Scotsman

The GMB flexes its muscles

The Business Secretary was heckled, booed and jeered by angry delegates at the GMB conference in Brighton. One unfurled a banner saying: “Vince Cable not welcome – stop attacking workers’ rights.” The LibDem Cabinet minister’s comments were branded inflammatory. And one union boss warned that the grass-roots reaction to his threats would be: “Bring it on.” Paul Kenny, general secretary of the 700,000-member GMB, accused him of showing “a remarkable lack of understanding” about the impact of the cuts on ordinary people. He described Dr Cable’s remarks about strike laws as “ill-judged” – and claimed his speech may even have increased the chance of widespread disruption. He said: “The GMB and other unions are still in negotiation. My view is that his speech has been very unhelpful. And I think people’s reaction on the ground is going to be, ‘if you’re going to threaten us, bring it on’.” – Daily Mirror

Vince Cable was licking his wounds last night after a miscalculated speech ended in union activists subjecting him to a torrent of heckles and catcalls. The Business Secretary intended to deliver a friendly warning to the GMB conference that a summer of industrial militancy could play into the hands of right-wing Tories agitating for fresh anti-strike legislation. Instead, to the dismay of senior Liberal Democrats, he was cast in the role of union-bashing hard man telling them to act responsibly or rue the consequences. Union leaders accused him of threatening human rights and protested that his intervention had soured the atmosphere ahead of talks with ministers over resolving a dispute over cuts to public-sector pensions. It was the fourth time in a fortnight that ill-considered words by the Business Secretary have angered colleagues. – the Independent

Posted in Unbound | 1 Comment »

UNCUT: Knife crime: Cameron’s pre-election lies and subsequent betrayal

06/06/2011, 03:00:54 PM

by Matt Cavanagh

Five years ago, shortly after he became Conservative leader, David Cameron made a speech in which he called on politicians to “stop making incredible promises that the public do not believe they will keep”. He announced a “taskforce” that would help him sort out this problem. The man he asked to chair it was Ken Clarke.

Last week, Ken Clarke’s department released figures showing how he and Cameron are getting on with one particular promise Cameron made loudly and often while in opposition: that anyone caught carrying a knife would go to jail.

In fact, Clarke had already let slip back in December that this promise had been abandoned. But the latest figures show that, never mind everyone caught carrying a knife going to jail, in fact, a smaller proportion are going to jail now than under Labour. This was greeted with predictable outrage by the Sun, Telegraph and others who have campaigned for tougher sentences on knife crime.

Tory MPs have also reacted angrily, blaming either Clarke, the Liberal Democrats, or the judges. But on this issue, the blame must go to the top. Back in 2008, it was David Cameron who personally led the Conservatives’ attack on Labour’s response to the moral panic over knife crime then gripping the country. He encouraged the media and the public to believe it was the job not of judges but of politicians, and in particular the prime minister, to ensure that people caught carrying a knife were getting the punishment they deserved. He made his position clear in July 2008, in an exclusive interview with the Sun: “anyone caught carrying a knife will be jailed under a Tory Government, David Cameron vows today. The Conservative leader declares automatic jail terms for carrying a dangerous knife is the only way of smashing the current epidemic gripping broken Britain”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

UNCUT: Much obliged, m’lord Ashcroft

06/06/2011, 12:00:28 PM

by Rob Marchant

On discovering, via Tim Montgomerie’s Saturday piece, that Michael Ashcroft has commissioned a report into the future of the Labour party, one’s immediate reaction is that it was exceptionally kind of him. After all, as Montgomerie points out, the party is not exactly awash with cash at the moment to do its own polling. Really a very public-spirited action by the noble Lord.

All right, perhaps Ashcroft is not really bankrolling a report for our benefit. It is of great political value to the Tories to show Labour to be out of touch and polling poorly. But you know what the smart thing for us to do would be? It would be to read it very carefully anyway. And the article is a good starting point. It is uncomfortable reading, naturally, but it is always a position of strength to listen to adverse criticism, especially when it’s based on the opinion of ordinary people. And it is always a position of weakness to ignore it.

Wisdom from the Daily Mail, you say? Free your mind. Montgomerie is an intelligent Tory: strip out the partisan from the adverse criticisms made in the first half of the piece, and what’s left is a pretty objective, if ruthless, analysis.

At the very highest level, there are two things any politician needs to get right in order to attain or keep power: the policy thing; and the non-policy thing. It would be great if we were elected purely on our policies; but to think so is dangerously naïve. There is a range of other factors which can make a big difference. Aside from public perception of the leader, we have public perception of other key figures, historical context, current economic situation, expectations of the future and so on. And these things tend to apply irrespective of political stripe.

The policy thing you can never get much out of through a Tory prism. Montgomerie himself is a full-blooded Tory on touchstone issues such as Europe; therefore such issues, irrespective of whether the public is bothered about them, are talked up, as we would talk up ours. No, we can mostly skip the policy part.

However, on the non-policy areas, the piece makes for some interesting points. First it reinforces what the personal attack line will be: it characterises Ed Miliband, simply, as odd. Now, the Red Ed approach was always too glib and too visibly inappropriate to stick, but Odd Ed – well, it’s cleverer and more effective. Instead of angrily rejecting the personal attack – after all, a fact of political life – we should do what grown-ups do: calmly clock it; analyse it; and deal with it.

None of us can do much about the way we look or sound; but Ed does need to work on how he comes across on television. More personable bloke from the pub, if you like, and less policy wonk or visionary Martin Luther King. Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. all had one thing in common: they were people the American public felt they could have a beer with. There is something important in that attack line that needs to be neutralised.

Next, the low personal poll rating is brought up, as per last week’s poll. Again, this should be a concern, but it is not an insurmountable one: there is still time to change it. More importantly, he admonishes Labour for giving the impression of returning to being a party of protest, of student politics. That stings, but it’s also credible, if we review with realism the overall impression left by the March 26 demo (and, while there are undoubtedly other factors, it is at least an interesting coincidence that the month following the London demo was the month our poll lead there abruptly evaporated).

Not everything is accurate about the analysis. For example, Montgomerie adversely criticises Miliband’s failure to reform his party, and here he is wrong: it is simply not possible to reform a political party in eight months (although if he means challenge the party, that is a different matter). But one final adverse criticism is insightful:

“By the early stages of his leadership, David Cameron had been sending mega-watt messages to voters on issues such as the NHS, the environment and fighting poverty — whether you agreed with them or not, they all energetically suggested that he was a very different kind of Conservative”.

The vital subtext here is this: Cameron was prepared to bypass the conventional wisdom of his own party to tell the public what they needed to hear: that his party had changed.

And here is the crux of the matter. Cameron did it. Blair did it with clause four. Thatcher did it against the wets. Once done, all of their positions became secure. All of our leaders, in winning power from opposition, have to do it, usually shortly after becoming leader: it is difficult to argue that Ed should be an exception.

A message of change has been there, yes. But it has been muted, a little fuzzy and, most importantly, directed more at the party and core Labour supporters than at the wider public and swing voters. The public can’t see what’s changed and, if they see anything, they likely see a swing to the left, away from them.

All of this non-policy analysis by the Tories is interesting and useful, precisely because it is largely dispassionate: they have no reason to be nice. It may not all be right, but we could do much worse than to go through it carefully in search of learning points. Because sometimes your worst enemy will tell you the home truth that your best friend won’t.

So, thank you, Lord Ashcroft, for all your hard work on our behalf. You’ve whetted our appetite, now if you could just send the full report to Labour Uncut, we’d be much obliged. We’ll pay the postage.

Rob Marchant is an activist and former Labour Party manager who blogs at The Centre Left.

Posted in Uncut | 19 Comments »

UNCUT: The government’s NHS changes tell you everything you need to know about the Tories

06/06/2011, 08:29:05 AM

by Michael Dugher

When Parliament returns this week after the half-term recess, the spotlight will once again return to the battle over the government’s changes to the NHS. The so-called “listening period” is at an end and we will see if Andrew Lansley has really listened, or if the pause to the health and social care bill was merely a cynical, cosmetic exercise designed to shore up Nick Clegg’s position and maintain the coalition as a going concern. John Healey, Labour’s shadow health secretary, has done a brilliant job exposing the true nature of the government’s proposals for the NHS. He will table nearly 40 amendments once the bill comes back to the Commons to test the government’s willingness to listen and think again. But the government’s approach to the NHS tells us everything we need to know about the Tories and Labour’s attack might similarly apply to other areas of government policy too.

First, the changes to the NHS demonstrate that the Tories are reckless. Like in other areas – the so-called strategic defence and security review leaps to mind – the changes were rushed, careless and ill-thought through. The new bill is the largest legislative document in the history of the NHS. With its 136 clauses, the original text of the bill was so large that the chief executive of the NHS, David Nicholson, joked that it was “the only reorganisation you can see from space”. The coalition agreement stated that it was the government’s intention to “cut the bureaucracy at the heart of the NHS”. Yet the British medical association (BMA) claimed that the changes will “replace one bureaucracy with a perhaps even more dangerous one”. As John Healey has highlighted, the usual process for sound public policy, namely that of consultation-legislation-implementation, has been reversed.

David Cameron has tried desperately to “detoxify” the Conservative brand. He knew that central to the old image of the Tories as the “nasty party” was consistently polling so badly in the “who do you most trust to protect the NHS” question. Cameron has also read Tony Blair’s book. Blair once famously said: “Every time I’ve ever introduced a reform, I wish in retrospect I had gone further”. But when it comes to the proposed changes to the NHS, the Conservatives are guilty of seriously over-reaching themselves. They simply do not understand that the national health service is a cherished institution for the British people. We all want to see improvements – big ones – but all governments must proceed with care.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »