Labour Uncut

UNCUT: Unfortunately for Labour, the voters are never wrong

10/05/2011, 12:00:41 PM

by Tom Harris

The late Jimmy Allison, legendary Scottish organiser of the Labour party, addressed the Scottish reception at annual conference in 1990, just a couple of weeks after I had started work as a press officer. “We won 50 seats at the last election, despite the fact that, unlike England, we have a four-party system,” he proudly told approving and slightly drunk delegates.

That claim jarred with me at the time, and I contemplated it for some months afterwards. There was an error in Jimmy’s logic that, as a new arrival at Keir Hardie House, I didn’t have the confidence or the authority to challenge. Our landslide victory north of the border in 1987 was despite a four-way split in the vote? Or because of it?

Last week settled the argument conclusively. While a dominant party could win seats thanks to the three-way split of the opposition vote, that no longer holds when the multi-party system the proportional voting system for Holyrood was designed to enshrine gives way to a traditional two-party system.

And Labour found itself the victim of a huge tactical vote against it, as former LibDem voters, still reeling from the guilt of putting David Cameron into Number 10 last time, switched entirely en masse to Labour’s main challengers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 31 Comments »

UNCUT: How many times must we lose for the same reason?

10/05/2011, 07:00:49 AM

by Dan Hodges

RIP the progressive majority. “There never was any progressive majority strategy”, a member of Ed Miliband’s inner circle told me yesterday. “People have misunderstood the game plan. We’re not going to be making some desperate appeal to the Lib Dems. We’re going to be saying to them, ‘you’ve been duped, wouldn’t you be better off on board with us'”?

The claim that Labour’s leader never envisaged marching up Downing Street with a crowd of exultant liberal progressives is a touch disingenuous. “I want to see Labour become home to a new progressive majority”, Ed said in August. Labour must “earn the right to be the standard-bearer for the progressive majority in this country”, he repeated in January. “A yes vote would, above all, reflect confidence that there is a genuine progressive majority in this country”, he urged in May.

But ultimately, it doesn’t matter. One of the hallmarks of good leadership is the speed with which you learn from your mistakes, and if Ed Miliband’s immediate reaction to last Thursday is to extricate himself from his liberal progressive cul de sac, it’s a positive sign.

One of the few. “We just can’t believe it”, an exultant Tory MP told me, “We actually gained seats. It’s incredible”. Many Labour insiders reflect that view. “Don’t be fooled”, said one shadow cabinet source, “These results were dire. Much worse than people realise”.

The line from those around the leader is that while the solidity of the Tory vote was troubling, they still secured an important tactical victory. “We’ve torn away the shield”, said one. “The Lib Dems were giving the Tories cover, and we’ve smashed them. Cameron’s peachy pink arse is exposed now”.

Whether the prime minister has indeed been debagged is an open question. But what is not in dispute is that this was the voters’ first opportunity to pass judgment on the coalition since the election, in particular the cuts and higher taxes that constitute their deficit reduction strategy. And in the case of the Tories, they gave a reluctant but clear thumbs up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 51 Comments »

UNBOUND: Tuesday News Review

10/05/2011, 06:58:39 AM

It’s not about your A levels…

Wealthy parents could be allowed to ‘buy’ their children places at top universities by paying higher fees under plans being put together by the government. Extra places would be provided at the leading universities and could be filled by undergraduates rich enough, or whose parents were wealthy enough, to pay fees up front. The idea, which is expected to be contained in a white paper, is part of a package of suggestions designed to create extra places at universities without increasing costs to the taxpayer. David Willetts, the Universities Minister, is keen for businesses and even charities to sponsor more undergraduates and by enabling them to be counted as extra places – or “off-quota” places – they would allow more students to attend their first choice university. At present when businesses sponsor students they are counted as part of a university’s normal quota of places. However, he wants the forthcoming White Paper on universities to consider a whole range of options and as such he is also willing to consider allowing the wealthy to pay enhanced fees of at least £12,000 per year and in some cases more than £28,000. – the Independent

The proposals would allow universities to charge willing British students the same full–price fees as overseas undergraduates to ensure them a place. Teenagers who take up the places would not be eligible for publicly funded loans to help pay for tuition fees or any living costs, according to a report in The Guardian. It would mean that only students from the most privileged backgrounds would have the funds to take advantage of the scheme. Annual fees for overseas students range from £12,000 to £18,000 for arts and science courses respectively, rising to more than £28,000 for medicine at the best universities. The places would fall outside of the current government–dictated quotas of undergraduate places each English university is allowed to offer each year. – Daily Telegraph

Some policy at last

A demand for a return to a “responsibility society” has emerged as the dominant theme from submissions to Labour‘s policy review, the review’s co-ordinator Liam Byrne is due to reveal on Tuesday. Byrne’s speech can also be seen as a call for the party to respond to its failure to make a breakthrough against David Cameron in the south in last week’s elections. “Quite simply there is a sense that if we stop rewarding people for doing the wrong thing, we could do more to help the people doing the right thing,” Byrne will say. He will add that the public see “the renewal of the ‘responsibility society'” as the way through the challenges Labour now confronts. Summing up 20,000 submissions to the review, Byrne will say: “The public instinct is that we need a renewal of responsibility in the Treasury, in the City, in boardrooms, in parliament, on immigration and on welfare. “Labour is not ahead on trust on welfare reform right now,” he is expected to say, adding: “We can’t win back trust by simply sitting back and letting the government get it wrong. We have to be the party that stands for restoring a sense of a ‘something for something’ deal at the heart of the welfare state.” – the Guardian

How long has Lansley got?

Tory MPs last night urged David Cameron to refuse demands from the ‘double-dealing’ Nick Clegg to radically water down controversial NHS reforms. They are furious the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have been given free rein to trash the flagship health bill, to shore up his battered reputation with the Liberal Democrat grassroots. As speculation swirled about his future in the Cabinet, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley fought back – insisting critics must say who should be in charge of the NHS if not doctors, nurses and patients. Under legislation that has already been passed by the Commons, with Lib Dem support, power for commissioning NHS care will pass from bureaucrats to groups led by GPs. Mr Clegg suggested at the weekend that slamming the brakes on the plan was the price of continuing in coalition with the Conservatives. Both Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Transport Secretary Philip Hammond have been tipped as replacements for Mr Lansley if he refuses to make major concessions to his reforms, though Downing Street insists he is ‘going nowhere’. – Daily Mail

Mr Clegg is insisting that any changes to the health service should be evolutionary, a sentiment that resonates with many Tories as well as Lib-Dems. But criticisms of the reforms from doctors could still risk doing the Bill, and ministers, serious damage. The Royal College of General Practitioners is today just the latest body to express serious doubts about the direction of change. It is worried that “we are moving towards an insurance-type model of the NHS” and wants to re-examine those parts of the Health Bill that relate to increasing competition. Other critics, including the King’s Fund and the BMA, have voiced their own concerns. Many of us accept that reforms to the NHS are overdue; most people would also accept that the NHS must cut costs. But beyond that there is little agreement about the nature and pace of change. Indeed there are concerns that in the short term, restructuring of the health service will not cut costs but will increase them. The one-man enthusiast for the Bill, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, may yet fall victim to Coalition in-fighting. What is needed is a salvage operation for those parts of the Bill that are useful and a period of reflection for the rest. Many GPs do not want the additional administrative burden that would fall on them if, as the Bill proposes, they were responsible for all healthcare commissioning. – Evening Standard

Any excuse

A Home Office minister reported to have had a ‘difficult’ relationship with her boss, Theresa May, resigned last night. Baroness Neville-Jones quit the post of Security and Counter-Terrorism Minister, which she had held since the Coalition was formed. She gave no reasons in her resignation letter to David Cameron. Downing Street said she had stepped down ‘at her own request’. The Security minister is said to have ‘had her fair share of fallings-out with the Home Secretary’, according to a Whitehall source. But sources suggested she had argued repeatedly with both Home Secretary Mrs May and Liberal Democrat ministers. ‘She was concerned about the influence of the Liberal Democrats,’ a source said. ‘It’s not great timing to lose a security minister given that Al Qaeda are threatening revenge attacks for the death of Bin Laden.’ Baroness Neville-Jones, 71, will take up a newly-created role in the Government as Special Representative to Business on Cyber Security. – Daily Mail

Posted in Unbound | 1 Comment »

UNCUT: In reality, the Lansley “reforms” have not been paused

09/05/2011, 05:00:40 PM

by Jonathan Todd

“Pause, listen, reflect and improve”. That’s what David Cameron and Nick Clegg said they were going to do on the NHS bill. Most people know what these words mean. Cameron and Clegg don’t seem to, though.

The only thing that Clegg now reflects upon is how he can shore up his position as Liberal Democrat leader. With Chris Huhne and Tim Farron, two would-be assassins, both playing to his party’s gallery, he has reason to be worried. He sees the NHS as he now sees everything else: through the prism of his anxiety. For the NHS to relieve this, he needs to come to be seen as the man who saved it. The restorer of sanity subsequent to the Andrew Lansley-induced madness.

He wants “substantial, significant changes” to Lansley’s proposals. But the extraction of compromises is the least of the barriers standing in the way of him being re-born as Mr. NHS. He needs to explain away no Liberal Democrat MP voting against the bill at either first or second reading. Perhaps his MPs followed their whip because they thought the whole thing a Liberal Democrat idea. After all, that’s what Clegg argued not so long ago and, as John Redwood reminded Today listeners, the proposals are consistent with the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

Having broken promises on tuition fees and the depth and speed of cuts, Clegg’s attempt to reposition himself on the NHS bill is supremely opportunistic. Labour needs to expose this manoeuvre for the shallow gesture that it is. Only we have consistently opposed this bill and advocated workable reform in the NHS. The Liberal Democrats must not be allowed to steal our clothes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 2 Comments »

UNCUT: It’s Lib Dem MPs, not Labour ones, that Cameron is really trying to cull

09/05/2011, 02:00:45 PM

by John Underwood

So there we have it. Vince Cable is surprised to discover that the Conservatives are “ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal”. That’s a bit like being surprised that the Pope is a Catholic, that fish swim and that this year Christmas Day will fall on the 25 December. The word “naïve” doesn’t come close.

A man who is surprised that the Conservatives are ruthless would probably be surprised that a couple of young, female “constituents” asking sharp questions at a constituency surgery turned out to be a pair of reporters from the Daily Telegraph.

For years, of course, the Liberal Democrats have been the very embodiment of ruthless calculation, by pretending to be different things to different people in different parts of the country – the “only” alternative to Labour in the north of England and the “only” alternative to the Conservatives in the south.

Last week, they reaped a whirlwind of rewards for years of political duplicity. In the north, they lost votes to Labour because they were seen to be part of a Conservative-led government that is cutting public services; and in the staunch Tory heartlands they lost votes to the Conservatives because die-hard Conservative voters rather like the idea of cutting public services.

Labour supporters can be forgiven a few days of schadenfreude as they reflect on the mire the Liberal Democrats find themselves in. But before long they will need to turn their attention to the Conservatives.

As for the Lib Dems, the question is whether they will learn their lesson and wise up to the need to get tough with their coalition partners.

It won’t be enough to posture and strut over Andrew Lansley’s health service changes and to threaten a “veto”. The current proposals have, in effect, already been vetoed by Conservative back benchers like Charles Walker MP, who is currently leading a particularly vociferous campaign to save an urgent care centre in his Broxbourne constituency. There will be changes to the health and social care bill, but it’s no thanks to the likes of Nick Clegg.

Having been stitched up by the Conservatives on the AV referendum, the question is whether the Liberal Democrats will get tough with their coalition partners in other areas.

Reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 has largely been reported as a barely disguised ruse for reducing the number of Labour MPs. In fact, it could be more accurately described as a ruse for maximising David Cameron’s chances of achieving what he failed to achieve at the last election – an overall majority. Reducing the number of MPs is as much about getting rid of his Liberal Democrat “partners” as it is about hurting Labour.

If, in the aftermath of the AV referendum, the Liberal Democrats really want to prove to their supporters that haven’t been taken for patsies, they could do worse than consider a serious “go slow” on this part of the coalition agreement.

John Underwood is a former director of communications of the Labour party.

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

UNCUT: The Labour and Unionist party

09/05/2011, 11:15:36 AM

by Michael Dugher

On Friday afternoon I was sat in traffic on the M1, driving down from Barnsley to the elections count in Leicester. The news broke at about three o’clock that Labour had picked up five seats in Ipswich – including three from the Tories – to take control of the council. It was in Ipswich that Labour’s Chris Mole had been defeated in the general election last year, giving the Conservatives the seat for the first time in nearly 20 years. Despite some very good results for Labour across the country, particularly in the big northern cities and towns, as well as in battleground contests in the midlands and in the south of England, the news on the car radio was bad. We had been heavily defeated in the Scottish parliament elections. Labour had even lost Kirkcaldy, in Gordon Brown’s own backyard, a result that meant Alex Salmond was on course to a majority at Holyrood. The “story” on Friday afternoon was already moving on to include interviews with talking heads about what the SNP win meant, what the constitutional ramifications were, and when the referendum on Scottish independence might be held.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 18 Comments »

UNBOUND: Monday News Review

09/05/2011, 06:50:59 AM

GPs urge NHS reform rethink

The leaders of Britain’s 42,000 family doctors are warning David Cameron to radically overhaul the government’s unpopular health plans or risk them wrecking the NHS. The Royal College of General Practitioners has written to the prime minister demanding major changes are made to the health and social care bill. It is undergoing a two-month “pause” while Cameron, his deputy, Nick Clegg, health secretary Andrew Lansley and a panel of health experts undertake a listening exercise designed to improve Lansley’s plans, which have drawn much criticism. In a strongly worded submission – the first by a major health organisation during the renewed consultation – the college urges Cameron to remove or substantially amend many of the bill’s central proposals to radically reorganise the health service in England. Without a major rethink, the NHS will cease to be a truly national service, postcode lotteries in care will be exacerbated and foreign firms will use EU competition laws to take control of hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, it says. – the Guardian

Clegg fakes fury over NHS

The Deputy Prime Minister said in January that he was behind the plans to “put patients right at the centre of the NHS”, but now claims he will not ask his party to back a “revolution” of the health service. David Cameron is allowing him to rip up the Health Bill as part of a deal to shore up the Coalition, risking a Cabinet split with Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, who last night looked a likely scapegoat. The Conservatives believe they have engineered a deal with Mr Clegg that saves his face with his party after devastating election results last week, but which also solves the Prime Minister’s problem with the NHS reforms. Mr Cameron was resigned to changing key parts of the Health Bill, announcing a “pause” last month. Allowing Mr Clegg to claim some credit is part of a Downing Street strategy to help Mr Cameron’s poorly performing deputy. Mr Lansley may find his own position difficult if Mr Clegg gets his way in delaying the timetable for changes in the way GPs operate. He could find himself the victim of a reshuffle next year, although Mr Cameron has so far remained fiercely loyal. – the Telegraph

Let’s make no mistake. The Tory leadership is allowing Nick Clegg to claim the credit for the NHS u-turn but there is no great unhappiness in Number 10 at the policy switch. George Osborne, in particular, has been worried for some time that the Lansley reforms could become deeply unpopular and imperil the Conservative party’s chances of re-election. But it’s just as likely that the NHS will imperil Tory election chances if it isn’ t reformed… This doesn’t mean that the Lansley reforms are the right reforms (I don’t feel qualified to make that judgment) but there are no easy options for the government on the NHS. No reform or half-hearted reform certainly doesn’t tackle the NHS’ fundamental efficiency problems. – Conservative Home

Labour looks for answers on Scotland

Ed Miliband was facing growing questions last night from Labour’s Blairite faction over his leadership after the party’s mixed performance in last week’s elections. The Labour leader first has to oversee the inquest into the party’s catastrophic results in the contests for the Scottish Parliament. He is also being urged to spell out more clearly his strategy for reaching out to middle-class voters in the South of England after Labour’s failure to make headway in the Home Counties. Mr Miliband yesterday argued that the party had reached a “staging post” in its recovery, while Shadow Cabinet members insisted the English results showed the party was making progress, after Labour gained more than 800 council seats in England. But figures on the right of the party believe it should have had a greater impact given the grim economic backdrop to the elections. One leading Blairite said: “Strategically, Labour is completely lost. Ed won the leadership as an insurgent but, now he’s there, he doesn’t know what to do next. It’s all looking very reminiscent of Gordon in 2007 when he finally toppled Tony. They have grabbed control, but now do not know what to do with it.” – the Independent

Cameron and Salmond row over referendum

David Cameron and Alex Salmond were at loggerheads last night after the Scottish National Party leader claimed to have free rein to dictate the terms of a referendum on the break-up of Britain. Mr Salmond said the Prime Minister has promised not to interfere in the vote on ending the 304-year-old Union between England and Scotland, giving him total control over its timing and the question on the ballot paper. Government ministers confirmed Mr Cameron promised not to deliberately erect “obstacles” to the referendum, during a telephone conversation following Mr Salmond’s landslide victory in last week’s Scottish Parliament elections. However, they made clear that Mr Cameron at no point gave the Scottish First Minister “carte blanche” over the vote and it was “inevitable” the Westminster Government will have a say. The Daily Telegraph revealed on Saturday that Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, a former Tory Scottish Secretary, has urged Mr Cameron to call a snap referendum now rather than let Mr Salmond decide the most politically advantageous time. – the Telegraph

Posted in Unbound | No Comments »

HOME: The week Uncut

08/05/2011, 05:23:44 PM

In case you missed them, these were the best read pieces on Uncut in the last seven days:

Atul Hatwal find the clouds in Labour’s local election silver lining

Dan Hodges on AV and the mythical progressive majority

John Woodcock thinks Cameron is a closet Uncut reader

Uncut gets to know the shadow defence secretary

Peter Watt says some people still believe in democracy

Sunder Katwala makes his bid to organise Ed’s stag do

…and Tom Harris says he hopes that is the end of AV

Posted in Home | No Comments »

UNCUT: The Sunday Review: Triumph of the City, by Ed Glaeser.

08/05/2011, 03:00:30 PM

by Anthony Painter

The royal family is bad for growth. It was nice of them to have a wedding to showcase London and the UK. It undid some of the bad that they may have done. It is not the institution of the monarchy that is the problem. It’s the personage. In fact, it’s one individual – Prince Charles.

It is the heir to throne’s misguided interventions in protecting sight-lines and the like that have contributed to London’s failure to sufficiently grow upwards to facilitate growth, argues Ed Glaeser in Triumph of the City. The worst thing an economy can do is make successful cities unaffordable and constrained. That is the impact of the types of argument that the Prince of Wales deploys. Instead, we should celebrate, promote, invest in, enjoy, and believe in the city. Glaeser loves cities; he sees them as fundamental to the future of civilisation. Their story has barely even begun.

Triumph of the City achieves something exceedingly radical. It not only develops a powerful case for the city per se, it asks us to challenge our entire notion of what a city is. In Glaeser’s world, the city is not the physical structures of the built environment, but rather the human networks that create culture, value, love, ideas and opportunity. In this, he echoes the social urbanist, Jane Jacobs, though sees her as ultimately too small-scale and conservative.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncut | 1 Comment »

UNCUT: George Lansbury: the unsung father of blue Labour

08/05/2011, 09:57:43 AM

Below we reproduce Jon Cruddas’ speech at George Lansbury’s recent plaque unveiling, with Angela Lansbury, in Bow.

by Jon Cruddas

Thank you very much. It is great to be with you all this afternoon. We are here to celebrate the life of one of the true heroes of the Labour party: George Lansbury. A man who was – to quote the great historian AJP Taylor – “the most lovable figure in British politics”.

We as a party are really only beginning to understand the true significance of the man and of his leadership of the party; a process of rehabilitation is underway yet is far from complete.

I think of Lansbury as arguably the greatest ever Labour leader. Not in an empirical sense in terms of elections won – he never faced the electorate in a general election as our leader.

Raymond Postgate wrote after George had resigned – and two weeks later an election was called – that “now they had lost their only popular leader, it was enough to wreck the labour men’s hopes of a victory”.

Irrespective of this, to have a third Labour government in 1945, or Wilson’s and Callaghan’s governments of the 60s and 70s – or Blair and Brown’s of more recent years – you had to have a party for them to inherit and subsequently lead; indeed from which to govern.

This is part of Lansbury’s legacy – to quote George Thomas