Ben Folley

Helen Goodman takes on Maurice Glasman on Blue Labour

2011-06-21T13:10:00.004+01:00

I missed watching it, and most of the tweets last night, but I've just watched Helen Goodman MP take on Maurice Glasman on the politics of Blue Labour on Newsnight last night.

I think Goodman comprehensively takes his ideas apart...but watch for yourself.

Watch: Blue Labour debate on Newsnight

Paxman to Glasman
"How would you describe it?"

Glasman
"It's traditional Labour. It puts friendship, neighbourliness, hard work, a real commitment to the care of your family at the heart of the political agenda."

Paxman to Goodman
"What's your problem with it?"

Goodman
"I think it's ok as far as it goes, but I think we know we need a lot more than neighbourliness and a commitment between our family. And I think the rejection of 1945 is a really big mistake. I'll give you one example..."

Paxman
"Well we'd better explain the rejection of 1945. You're saying the fact that the 1945 Labour government, which many in the movement consider to be the greatest Labour government of all time, actually wasn't a Blue Labour thing at all?"

Goodman
"No. That's Maurice's point. Maurice is going right back to the beginning, to the 1890s. And I'm saying well, the 1890s, there were some valuable things, the co-op movement for example very strong, but I think there was a lot that was really positive in 1945 and I think that most people in Britain that have family stories that reinforce that."

Paxman to Glasman
"What was wrong with 1945?"

Glasman
"There were great things about 1945 and I haven't said another thing, but the problem with 1945 was in the nationalisation model. Was that workers were completely subordinate, there was no role for trade unions, there was no role for workers in the nationalised industries. So very scientific, administrative, technocratic..."

Paxman
"This is the NHS. Was that a mistake?"

Glasman
"No, the NHS was the decommodification of medicine. It was a wonderful thing. I'm saying that moving to the state exclusively as the provider, very central things about responsibility, about the movement, and particularly about the role of workers and work in the economy were neglected and we need to reinstate that."

Paxman to Goodman
"You suggest it is anti-women?"

Goodman
"It is quite anti-women, there are essays in The Politics of Paradox that blame the breakdown in social order on the independence of women. I think most women are quite pleased we've got an equal pay act."

Paxman
"You also suggest it is jingoistic."

Goodman
"It is jingoistic, not Maurice but one of the other authors, there's a sentence that says the social disorder has been caused by the loss of men's entitlement, as if white men were entitled to the fruits of black people in the colonies and the exploitation that went on in the colonies. I mean this is an extraordinary document."

Glasman
"Well I think this is all a little ungenerous. There are a variety of voices in the book. I think the idea that this is anti-women is just wrong."

Paxman to Glasman
"You will, I'm sure you will agree, it is sometimes quite hard to understand precisely what it is. This interview that you gave to this Italian magazine..."

Glasman
"Which I wrote in Italian..."

Paxman
"You wrote it in Italian - well maybe that explains something. [Quotes] 'There is a sense of bravery and tragedy in our position and that is one meaning of the word blue that links Miles Davis with Picass and Aristotle.' I mean what is this about?"

Glasman
"So, there's many meanings to the word blue and one is 'the blues' which you may or may not have listened to. Another one is Miles Davis 'Kind of Blue'. It's to get away from this naive optimism that things can only get better. That all you have to do is vote Labour and the world becomes a better place. People have to take some responsibility. There will be struggles ahead. There will be defeats as well. I mean you have to have a really durable concept of the good, we really have to build trust with each other in order to have a transformative Labour government that we all want."

Paxman
"Would it be a good idea for Labour to go into the next government election saying things can only get worse?"

Glasman
"Well that's the sort of dualistic idiocy that the media thrives on but I don't think you should characterise the Labour conversation. Things can get worse, they can get better.

Goodman
"Well I would say things have got better with Labour governments. Maurice has criticised nationalisation. My mother-in-law came from a mining village, when she was a child she'd frequently she'd go to the pit when there was an accident. How many people were being killed in the pits? Horrible things were happening. Once you've got nationalisation you've got massive improvements in health and safety standards, massive improvements in people's standards of living. Or my own grandmother, between the wars she was collecting subs for a voluntary ambulance scheme and great in terms of community building which is what Maurice is talking about, but actually people prefer to dial 999."

Glasman
"Yeah but if you look at the German social market which didn't go to nationalisation but co-determination. That is workers representatives on the board, a strong commitment to vocational training and apprenticeship, and the representation of workers in the actual management of firms, they developed a far more durable model, far less inequality, and really a higher modern economy, so really i'm not talking about nationalisation, i'm talking about the sovereignty of people who did PPE at Oxford who would govern the Treasury, pull the right levers, but we've got to get democratic governance in the economy."

Paxman
"Well we'll leave aside that reference to Ed Miliband. In the Blue Labour world, would the state be smaller?"

Glasman
"The state wouldn't be smaller but it would be embedded in a set of relationships. What I'm arguing for example is there should be split for example in schools, that there should be a split between parents, teachers and the state in the governance of schools and that should also characterise the economy."

Paxman to Goodman
"You also have an anxiety about immigration?"

Goodman
"About what he says? Yes I do. I have an anxiety that the white working class somehow is privileged in Maurice's picture of British history and that seems to me actually to misunderstand British history, because British history is about empire. We're a multicultural country because we had a big empire and actually one of the very successful things we've done, much more successfully than other European countries, is build those multicultural communities so we have much higher levels of tolerance in our country."

Glasman
"Well I would argue the great beneficiaries of imperialism were the City of London, were the owners, and the movement was a massive struggle to get recognition for local workers who were themselves dispossessed through the enclosure movement and had to fight to get recognition in the political system, the right to vote, democratic entitlements. So this idea that there is a privilege for that is not so. We've lived through an unprecedented period of immigration, I work with London Citizens on the living wage and I saw where the race to the bottom took effect. There was competition between local workers and new workers and its necessary to re-engage with the common good, the politics of the common good, that can do what the labour movement always did, bring together immigrants and locals, working class and middle class, and engage in a genuine politics that can make the country better."

Paxman to Goodman
"Whats your anxiety if Blue Labour continues to gain ground in the leadership of the party?"

Goodman
"I've got two anxieties. One is that it ignores the internationalisation agenda and the world. So it's all very well to have the things that Maurice talks about, co-ops and industrial democracy, and I'm in favour of those things, but we've got to attract foreign investment from abroad, so you've got to have government taking a role on that. And then I come back to the issue about the welfare state. The welfare state may be inefficient, maybe we may need to address the bureaucracy, but on the other hand, it gives people security and equal opportunities."

Next Generation Labour launched...

2011-06-21T12:59:00.003+01:00

Libya mission creep - time to recall Parliament

2011-04-20T10:21:00.001+01:00

Below is my article that was published on LabourList yesterday.

As efforts to establish a ceasefire foundered in August 2006, over 100 Labour MPs demanded a recall of Parliament to discuss the government’s strategy regarding the Israeli attack on southern Lebanon. Whilst no British forces were engaged, Labour members were sufficiently concerned about the government’s disastrous record in the Middle East, not only its standing amongst the people of the region but also at home, following mass opposition to the Iraq war and the punishment meted out to the party by the electorate a year previously.

Now we are starting to hear demands for a recall of Parliament during the Easter recess to discuss military action in Libya. UN resolution 1973 was agreed to establish a no-fly zone but in an article last week, Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama made clear ‘it is unthinkable [that Gaddafi] can play a part in Libya’s future government’. To help achieve that goal of regime change, we hear today that the government is sending a 'military liaison advisory team' to Libya to assist the opposition in Benghazi, the Guardian reports the EU is considering the deployment of 1500 troops to Libya and France is considering sending in commandos.

The existing – and growing – engagement of British forces makes it even more urgent than in 2006 to fully scrutinise the government’s decisions. It is the often repeated phrase of ‘mission creep’, or ‘mission gallop’, as one campaigner described it, that needs discussing. On the 21st March, when MPs discussed and voted upon military action, they did not vote for regime change - that authorisation was not sought. Many of those voting with the government expressed their concern about the risks of mission creep – concerns that are now being realized. It is worth reflecting on the debate.

To both Emily Thornberry and Dennis Skinner, David Cameron said explicitly, ‘This is not going into a country and knocking over its Government.’

Madeleine Moon, a Labour member of the Commons Defence Committee said, ‘there is no clear indication of whether regime change is an objective. No one today has clarified that exit strategy,’ whilst Dai Havard, the Vice-Chair of the same committee, also asked of the government’s legal advice, ‘Is there clarity about having no troops on the ground in Libya?’ Katy Clark, who did vote against the government, echoed many concerns at the wording of both the UN and Commons resolution, saying, ‘The wording of the UN resolution is very wide, and the reference to "all necessary measures" in some ways gives a blank cheque to the powers taking action.

But what of the front bench? Clearly the Labour leadership backed the government decision, but not without some qualification. Ed Miliband said, ‘This is not a power play or an attempt to install a new Government by force. This is the ‘last resort’ to protect the Libyan people,’ whilst Douglas Alexander was even more categoric, saying that Cameron was not asking for ‘and would not be entitled to a mandate to pursue armed regime change.’

In the context of the demands for a recall of parliament this Easter, Fiona Mactaggart’s contribution is relevant, when she asked that ‘the House is given constant opportunities to review the situation, so that we can be assured that mission creep is not taking place and that we are not going beyond what is necessary, and so that we can make the right decision at the appropriate time?’

What could be more reasonable to ask? Surely that time is now. I hope some of those who backed the call in 2006 will support it now. Then it included not only MPs who had voted against the war, but also members of the 2005 intake who had fought for their seats based on their opposition to war. Now, with a new leader who has condemned the Iraq invasion, I hope he will also back it. Regardless of support or for opposition to the no-fly zone, the government must be held to account for its shifting strategy on Libya – it is time to recall Parliament.

Why we have resigned our positions in Compass

2011-03-11T14:58:00.004Z

Our statement is below (and on LabourList), I'm watching the tweets and I'll write more later...

We joined Compass as an organisation seeking to give a coherent voice to mainstream members of the Labour Party when the party leadership was becoming dangerously divisive. Not only was it disconnected from the membership, but it was increasingly oblivious to public opinion.

For many of us, it was Robin Cook's opposition to the catastrophic invasion of Iraq that initially drew us to Compass. But it was the way in which the organisation challenged thinking in the party, on the role of the market and the need for an active state, which galvanised new activists. The divisions over tuition fees and foundation hospitals helped bring Compass to life, but it established itself when tackling those in the party advocating public service reform in the shape of Post Office privatisation and trust schools.

With Ed Miliband as leader, we have a greater opportunity than ever to re-shape the direction of the party, but that debate still needs to be had. Unfortunately, Compass has recently chosen to allow members and elected representatives of parties that stand against Labour to become members of Compass and help set its direction. This will necessarily diminish the role that Compass is able to play in shaping Labour's future, estranging itself from many Labour supporters.

We feel it necessary to organise in support of the politics initially espoused by Compass as members of the party, within the party, rather than through a broader structure so that we can credibly have this debate. It is for this reason we have resigned from Compass. We would welcome all those who share our view of a changed Labour Party to continue this discussion on how we move forward.

Ben Folley, Compass Management Committee

Cat Smith, Chair, Compass Youth Organising Committee

Caroline Alabi, CYOC

Arthur Baker, CYOC

Heather Elliot, CYOC

Ben Furber, CYOC

Lucille Harvey, CYOC

Axel Landin, CYOC

Ben Soffa, CYOC

No to Western military intervention in Libya

2011-03-10T12:12:00.005Z

I have been concerned in recent days to see well-meaning people promote the idea that a 'no-fly zone' or 'arming the rebels' would be a progressive act in Libya. Political leaders suggesting they want to send bombers to Libya and pump a whole load more guns into the situation are not interested in peace and are clearly not interested in a political process and are not progressive. If they are, why are they not calling for a ceasefire, or willing to give space to the attempts that already exist for achieving a negotiated settlement?

For me, the best argument against such a no-fly zone was provided by US Secretary of State for Defence, Robert Gates when he said "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." A no-fly zone will require a major NATO military offensive against Libya and doubtless many more deaths in the country. It is scandalous that the UK is advising the opposition armed forces, has sent in the SAS, has the Black Watch regiment on 24-hours notice for deployment and is setting up a new forward joint taskforce headquarters in Malta.

What disappoints me further is that the Labour front-bench has yet to demonstrate it has learnt the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Jim Murphy belittled the strength of anti-war feeling when he talked of 'one and a half unpopular wars' - now Ed Miliband must demonstrate his commitment to a peaceful settlement.

Support the demonstration this Saturday.

No to western military intervention in Libya
2pm, Saturday 12th March at Downing Street
See facebook event here.

Need to at least try and re-start my blogging...

2011-03-10T12:12:00.001Z

The debate within Compass is a distraction from fighting the Tories

2011-02-08T09:53:00.005Z

Compass today asks its members to consider ending its role as a Labour Party orientated pressure group, and open its decision-making structures to members of other political parties, primarily Liberal Democrats. I think Compass members should overwhelmingly reject the proposals as they will limit its influence and ability to achieve change.

It is regrettable that when Labour was in government, so many progressive campaigners and organisations – campaigning NGOs, charities and trade unions – felt that their agenda was at odds with the frontbench. But in that situation, Compass became the organisation that civil society came to when they wanted to build support for their cause within the Labour Party and, in particularly, amongst Labour MPs.

The need for such alliance building will always exist but with Labour in opposition and membership growing, the electoral space to the left of Labour being squeezed, and those liberal progressives not anchored in the labour movement having their illusions in the Liberal Democrats crushed every day, the question is whether Compass wants to drive progressive change through the Labour Party or turn its focus outward to those in other parties.

That the changes will go through is not inevitable, in the 200 responses to the consultation, 40% opposed the idea of changing the structure and a further 30% recognised the centrality of the Labour Party in Compass’s future work.

Compass’s raison d’etre is to challenge the neo-liberal agenda within the party and advance a more social democratic one. It has sought to provide a rallying point for disillusioned members and a bridge to the thousands who left under Tony Blair’s leadership. Advocates for progressive causes will always need to win over sections of the Labour Party and ideally the party as a whole to achieve the changes that they seek.

It would therefore be strange for Compass to deprioritise seeking change in the Labour Party, just as Ed Miliband, the candidate it said ‘came closest to the new politics that Compass wants to see,’ starts to enact those changes.

Ed has said the party has got to move beyond New Labour, but many in the Parliamentary Labour Party would rather stay there. So whilst we campaign together against the Tories there will be a struggle around how best we do this. Compass should stick to its commitment to ‘work to help him fulfil his campaign promises and call him to account if he falls short.’

My major regret is that this debate within Compass is a distraction from tackling the Tories ideological attack on public services and the welfare state. The replacement of Alan Johnson with Ed Balls boosts the argument for investment not cuts, but there remains an argument as to how Labour tackles the cuts and engages with the growing civil society movement.

If Compass wants to expand and grow its influence, there is every opportunity already open to it. The cuts are reinvigorating politics and local campaigning, there are thousands of new activists prepared to take action themselves, but who also want to see a changed Labour Party speaking on their behalf. Many of them are in fact joining, such is the turn around in political views, 50,000 since the election. But the majority have not and probably will not. Compass should look first to these new activists to join in its work.

Compass members who want to build the largest alliances for progressive change must recognise the centrality of Labour to any such campaign and therefore reject the proposed membership changes.

Trident and Hillary Clinton's intervention into the defence spending row

2010-10-15T17:27:00.002+01:00

Once again, a long break from blogging, but i've put this on LabourList today:

News that Hilary Clinton has waded into the debate over budget cuts at the Ministry of Defence provides Ed Miliband with his first opportunity to meaningfully express his commitment to a foreign policy "based on values, not just alliances" - as stated in his first leader’s speech at party conference.

Whilst other departments face cuts of 20-30%, Liam Fox has successfully fought for a lower spending cut of just 10% and has been boosted by the US intervention. Clearly concerned about UK military capability, Clinton has issued a warning shot before next month’s NATO summit to shore up support as other NATO allies pull out of the disastrous occupation of Afghanistan. But in order to demonstrate UK commitment to the NATO alliance and US military adventures, this potentially puts greater pressure on other departments to achieve greater savings. We cannot let the US dictate where we allocate public spending.

In his immediate response, Jim Murphy has been right in condemning the rushed nature of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the speed of which the Commons Defence Committee itself has described as "quite startling" and due to which "mistakes will be made and some of them may be serious." But Ed Miliband should ensure Labour goes further.

We need also to condemn the exclusion of Trident from the review. The debate over whether the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence pays the capital costs of replacing the submarines has gained some column inches over the summer, but for a review that Liam Fox himself said was meant to ‘kiss goodbye to the Cold War’, the exclusion of the archetypal Cold War weapon, guaranteeing its future for decades to come, is scandalous.

Such a condemnation may not come easily to some former Labour ministers – Labour with Bob Ainsworth at Defence, had intended to exclude it from the review as well. But over the summer we have seen a demand that it be included, not only by Eric Joyce, who resigned as Ainsworth's PPS last year, but also by Des Browne, the Defence Secretary who steered the Trident replacement decision through the Commons.

Next week, Ed Miliband needs to assert a fresh Labour argument that in the face of spending cuts, and a US administration seeking to advance nuclear disarmament, Trident should be up for consideration.

Whilst he stated in the leadership election that he supported a ‘minimum deterrent’, he also asserted that in the face of the election loss, it was right "to look at the renewal of Trident, to look at the pace of the renewal of Trident and the necessity of the renewal of Trident" as part of the Defence Review.

What Ed Miliband should do next week is condemn the exclusion of Trident which has made it a partial and flawed review, particularly when military spending cuts are being considered, and he must make absolutely clear that the US has no place intervening into such a process.

Trident and the Strategic Defence and Security Review will be debated at a public meeting in Portcullis House, 6pm, Monday 18th October.

Jon Trickett responds to Jon Cruddas' decision to back David Miliband

2010-08-25T19:08:00.003+01:00

Below I re-post Jon Trickett's response to the decision of Jon Cruddas to back David Miliband as leader of the Labour Party. I agree that there will be many disappointed people in the party who have worked with Jon Cruddas but who will not agree that David Miliband is the progressive or unifying force for change that the Labour Party now needs.

"I was proud to have worked on the "Choose Change" campaign which argued for a renewed Labour Party at the time of Jon Cruddas's Deputy Leadership bid.

This movement was a collective endeavour to put the Party on an election-winning path after the Blair years.

Those who participated in the campaign seeking such progressive change will be very disappointed with Jon's unilateral decision to back the leadership candidate most clearly identified with the failed policies of the Blair era.

The progressive Labour left will continue to argue the case for Choosing Change set against the backdrop of an election defeat and a deepening economic crisis."

Nominations to the NEC show the centre and left ahead of the right

2010-08-24T09:18:00.007+01:00

Candidates nominated for the Labour Party's NEC are now listed on the membersnet section of the party website, including a list of the Constituency Labour Parties who had validly nominated each individual standing. 20 candidates are running for six CLP places and total nominations were up, according to one comment on Luke Akehurst's blog listing the nominations, from the 992 made for all candidates in 2008 to 1730 this time.

There are two complete slates of six candidates in the election, one being centre-left (Grassroots Labour), the other the right (Labour First). 1539 of the nominations are distributed between the 12 candidates backed by these two slates. The list shows there is greater support for the centre-left than the right.

The Grassroots Labour slate candidates, who are backed by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Compass Youth, received 973 CLP nominations between them, whilst Labour First's six candidates secured only 566 between them.

Of the eight other candidates not on either slate, the most successful individual was Johanna Baxter, a national officer from the Prospect union.

The nominations show there is significant support amongst the membership for candidates who want to move on from New Labour and who advocate policies which advance public service and collective ownership, and resist and reverse privatisation. Showing there is also an undoubted element of personal support, at the top of the list was the ever-popular party Chair, Ann Black, with 275 CLPs and long-standing NEC members Christine Shawcroft and Peter Willsman also did well, as was to be expected. Ellie Reeves was by far and away the most popular of the Labour First supported candidates with 182 CLPs.

Congratulations to Sam Tarry who, after becoming the first elected Young Labour Chair, has been nominated by 111 CLPs in his first election to the NEC and who has a serious chance of getting on.

However the most significant story must be the success of Ken Livingstone, who received the second highest number of nominations - 235 CLPs - in the first test of his support amongst the party nationally in over ten years. His time as London Mayor kept him in the national gaze and his running of a Labour administration with an alternative agenda to that of New Labour - investment in infrastructure, opposition to privatisation, celebrating multiculturalism and establishing new international links, his opposition to the war and his serious work on the environment, has proved popular amongst party members. Of course the other interesting aspect is that both he and Oona King, both seeking to be Labour's London Mayoral candidate, are both in the NEC race. And whilst one can only draw limited conclusions from the nominations process, the difference in their apparent support within the party nationally appears to be replicated at a London level.

Ken secured 235 CLPs nationwide whilst Oona received 62. Within the London region Ken was nominated by 36 CLPs and Oona 13.

Of course all is to be decided by an all-member ballot, and it may indicate their potential success in the NEC election, and also who will be Labour's next London Mayoral candidate.

1. Ann Black (GL) 275
2. Ken Livingstone (GL) 235
3. Ellie Reeves (LF) 182
4. Christine Shawcroft (GL) 160
5. Pete Willsman (GL) 137
6. Peter Wheeler (LF) 132
7. Sam Tarry (GL) 111
8. Luke Akehurst (LF) 83
9. Johanna Baxter 65
10. Oona King (LF) 62
11. Deborah Gardiner (LF) 55
12. Sofi Taylor (GL) 55
13. Shaukat Ali (LF) 52
14. Peter Kenyon 28
15. Susan Press 27
16. John Wiseman 27
17. Kevin Bennett 16
18. Rajwant Singh Sidhu 13
19. Julian Ware-Lane 11
20. Narinder Singh Matharoo 4

Freedom Pass: is someone fibbing?

2010-08-02T22:11:00.001+01:00

Oona King has today written an email entitled 'Freedom Pass Fibs' to London Labour councillors stating that 'People who should know better are claiming that I favour a means test for the Freedom Pass.'

Clearly she is referring to Ken's New Statesman piece defending universal provision which was published on the website last Thursday. She is also refering to Len Duvall's email to Ken's supporters, expressing outrage at the idea of means testing the Freedom Pass.

I also blogged about it on the same day, but I included a transcript of her statements from recent hustings in Brent and Croydon. In Brent she said, 'if you are the mayor and you have got less money coming in you need to ensure the average pensioner can have the same experience or better than those richer ones you need to accept means testing.’

So Oona may well have changed her mind since last Wednesday, and if so, that's a good thing. But it calls into question her judgment on matters of key principle. And it doesn't reverse the fact that last week she did state there was a case for means testing, and shouldn't she accept that?

Len Duvall has today written his own email to London Labour councillors, in response to Oona's, defending his views and asserting that Labour needs a tough negotiator who won't waver in front of a ConDem government seeking new avenues for cuts.

He said:

'We have to be clear in this debate. It simply does not help Labour to have arguments in favour of means testing the Freedom Pass being mobilised in this way. I welcome the fact that Oona now wishes to change the position she took in these hustings. But London Labour cannot afford to have ambiguity on such important issues when they come up.

Some press reports suggest that the Tory government may be considering a means test for the national pensioners’ travel concession. So we cannot afford to have arguments in London that help that case either. And if we are not going to do it, why make the case for means testing?

Ken’s position on the Freedom Pass is tried, tested and straightforward. For the right reasons, he will not entertain ideas about means testing it and he won’t concede the territory now that only makes it easier for our opponents in the future. He will work with the boroughs who administer and pay for the scheme to ensure it remains a success. And he will not support a two-tier Freedom Pass where some modes of transport are means-tested and others are not.

The reason I am supporting Ken is because he’s the right person to deal with the politics of the 21st Century, of how we campaign to stop the policies of the Conservatives and LibDems and how we protect Londoners in difficult times.

I’m backing Ken because London needs a tough negotiator, who knows clearly what position to take in London’s interests, who gets the detail and who can be relied on to stand up for Londoners.'

Seeking your vote in the Compass Management Committee elections

2010-07-31T10:45:00.005+01:00

I am standing for re-election to the Management Committee to help Compass play the necessary role in changing the Labour Party’s direction following the election loss this year - the culmination of falling support throughout the New Labour years.

The enthusiasm for our campaigning initiatives like the Windfall Tax and publications such as In Place of Cuts, show Compass has contributed to generating new ideas and activity within Labour and it should continue to do so.

The Management Committee needs to remain inclusive of a broad range of ideas. I believe, and argued at the time, that the decision by Compass to advocate tactical voting during the election was a mistake. It encouraged Labour supporters to vote Lib Dem when the likelihood was Clegg would assist the Tories to form a government. That coalition is unfortunately now in place, with the Lib Dems accepting cuts to housing benefit and schools building and the continuation of Trident replacement. Compass should strengthen its ties with those in society opposing the government’s regressive policies, any orientation towards the Blairites and Lib Dems just strengthens the New Labour agenda.

Labour lost by being sucked into the Tories framework of deficit-obsession and promising ‘cuts worse than Thatcher’.

Compass should continue to make clear the failings of the New Labour and champion a positive alternative, of a peaceful foreign policy, that defends immigration and civil liberties and champions high growth through investment not cuts.

I am also a Labour Party Ward Organiser, Political Education Officer for Islington North CLP, and Party of European Socialists activist.

I want to ask you to consider voting for me if you are a member. I would appreciate it if you could forward my statement to any friends who may also be members.

As an STV vote I hope you will vote for me as your first choice. If you are committed to supporting someone else, please consider voting for me as your second preference or as high as possible.

Feel free to contact me to ask any questions on benfolley@yahoo.com or follow me on twitter at @benfolley

Thanks for your support,

Ben

PS - Ballot papers have been being circulated by email. If you have not received your ballot paper you should contact Gavin Hayes at gavin@compassonline.org.uk

You should email your ballot paper to elections@compassonline.org.uk by Thursday 2 September 2010, 6pm.

Who would means test the Freedom Pass?

2010-07-29T11:55:00.010+01:00

In a worrying turn for older Londoners, Oona King stated at a lively Mayoral hustings in Brent last night there was a case for abandoning universal provision of the Freedom Pass and adopting means testing.

To cover what would be a backward step, Oona asserted we shouldn't be funding the bus pass of people like Prince Philip. But since any means testing qualification probably wouldn't be set at the Queen's estimated fortune of £400million, we have to ask where would it be set, and who would miss out?

For many it is so vital to their way of life that hustings after hustings have seen questions asked about the safeguarding of the pass. Defending it is a totemic issue. If a Labour candidate fails to defend the universal Freedom Pass and accepts it, even advocates it falling victim to Tory-imposed spending cuts then it will further erode trust in our party, creating further doubts amongst a section of the electorate most likely to cast a vote...

Oona's answers are listed below.

23rd July, Croydon hustings

Question: The Government is threatening to means test the Freedom Pass. Do you believe it should be means tested?

'Oona King - 'I don't want to, but if budgets are tight, money is short, you need to prioritise. I want to help the poorest. That’s why we are in politics, to help the poorest, like my bus policy.. If there is a choice, then I want the money to go to the poorest, not to pay for the richest.. like Prince Charles to go free. My priority is for bus fares to be cut if possible paid for by money from the western extension, congestion charge...'

29th July, Brent hustings

Question: There has been some talk that the Freedom Pass may be means tested. Are there any circumstances in which you would accept this?

Oona: ‘There are some circumstances that I would accept saying to someone like Prince Philip or other extremely rich pensioners in London that you can no longer have free travel in London, the average not the poorest pensioner. I think we should extend it onto train companies for example... We have to recognise priorities, for example, the childcare tax credit, I don’t get the same childcare tax credit as someone who earn less than me... I’m a progressive, I’m a socialist, you should be helped, I think you should pay according to your ability to pay and you should be helped according to your needs.

‘Ken and I support the freedom pass, he will tell you he never expected to get it... we need to recognise it is an equality issue – if you are rich you get about, if you are poor you don’t. We have to make sure pensioners can get around London and have that dignity in retirement, they need to enjoy life.'

‘We have to be more realistic, in this environment when everything is being cut by abolishing, through ideologically driven ways... I will fight tooth and nail against those cuts.'

‘But if you are the mayor and you have got less money coming in you need to ensure the average pensioner can have the same experience or better than those richer ones you need to accept means testing.’

[Oona King then returned to this point in her answer to the next question]

‘Look at working families tax credit, we couldn’t afford to give it to everyone, it was right we didn’t give it to everyone, we couldn't give it to Prince Philip or people like me. It was right to do that, no one says it was wrong to do that. Everyone says it was good to have lifted those half a million children out of poverty.'

‘Well you can only do that, we don’t have money growing on trees. You can only do that if you target money and people just need to recognise that is the real world. And I would always rather we got money to the people who need it most – and if we don’t we are betraying working people.’

Why i'm backing Diane Abbott for Labour leader

2010-07-26T10:00:00.001+01:00

On the morning of the 9th June the prospect of the leadership election did not fill me with any excitement. The idea of four New Labour ministers engaging in a turgid, managerial debate in public for a number of months, would not have offered the real debate the party needed, and filled me with dread. A few hours later and with Diane Abbott on the ballot paper, the race took on a new dimension, not only for party members - it also became much more relevant to the wider public.

Diane’s candidacy has been too easily dismissed or even ridiculed by supporters of her opponents. But in reality her views on many issues are much more in tune with the ordinary Labour member. Crucially, they are also much more in tune with the general public and those who identify with Labour but have not voted for us in recent years.

The party needs to assess its performance over our whole period in government and not just the failings of Brown and the past two years. It wasn’t just this year, or 2005 because of Iraq, that we lost votes, we started losing them soon after coming to power. New Labour’s method of triangulation to win over a decreasing number of marginal ‘Middle England’ seats was always a loser. We ignored for too long the millions of voters in working class seats who gradually drifted away, to give up on voting, and too easily discounted those outraged by our adherence to Bush’s neo-conservative foreign policy abroad and attacks on civil liberties at home.

That the Tories could not form a government themselves this year was because of the ongoing mistrust that they face but Labour’s loss is because it failed to clearly articulate an alternative agenda. Until September last year Labour’s narrative was to offer ‘investment not cuts’ but we capitulated to the Tory agenda and then offered ‘cuts worse than Thatcher’. Partly because we did not tackle the failings of Thatcherite economics we are now five million votes down since 1997.

My real concern was that by not having an inclusive leadership election, we would not face up to the harsh realities of why we lost this year and, indeed, why swathes of voters have been deserting us since 1997.

As we need a leader who can offer a vision of a fairer society and economy. Others, including Ed Miliband have hinted at it, but Diane has gone furthest in promising to address the failings of neo-liberal economics, left unchallenged since the 1980s. She has proposed major public investment in infrastructure, taking over failed and wasteful privatised industries and reforming the tax system. New council housing, rail renationalisation and more progressive taxation are realistic redistributive proposals that would reconnect with disillusioned voters, and only Diane has shown the commitment both now and over recent years to carry them through.

And she is the best candidate to win back those disgusted at Labour’s foreign policy record and the attacks on civil liberties at home. Whilst all of the other candidates backed 90 days and 42 days detention, Diane’s speech on the latter has been hailed as one of Parliament’s most impressive in recent years. And there is a mood of denial amongst some in Labour at the public anger over Iraq. I have heard David Miliband say Iraq is no longer an issue. But despite seeing the voters drift away or switch to the Lib Dems we have not dealt with the issue. At this election Labour’s vote continued to fall and the Liberal Democrats rose. Those voters have not returned. It would be criminal if we allowed the same issues to fester on until the next election. Electing Diane, as the only candidate to emphatically condemn the war at the time, would be the strongest call we can make to those lost voters.

I still find it remarkable to hear supporters of other candidates argue that Diane can only articulate traditional Labour policies that resonate with members but she cannot appeal more widely. When I speak to those outside the party it is those same policies that would win them over. Some criticise her performances on This Week but others I know, again outside the party, they think she displays a human side most politicians fail to show.

Now the nominations are in, she remains the underdog. She hasn’t had the business donors or electoral machine to win the CLP nominations. But she still has the strong message that reaches out to Labour members and Labour identifiers in the wider public. She is the candidate that offers a radical reforming zeal. Labour needs a leader who can inspire support - and Diane can do it.

Meeting with Die Linke's Andrej Hunko

2010-07-13T22:22:00.000+01:00

I was lucky to meet with Andrej Hunko, one of Die Linke's new Bundestag members today. Whilst he was on a delegationof the Bundestag European committee to its Commons counterpart, he stopped off at CND to talk about NATO, its Afghan occupation, the US nuclear weapons it still deploys in Europe. He also wanted to find out about Trident and political developments here in Britain.

For my part I asked him about the development of Die Linke and how it was becoming a fixture of German politics. The party is still developing its programme, but the differences between former PDS and WASG members is becoming less of an issue as membership grows. Coming from North-Rhine Westphalia, at the time of the merger the majority of his local members originally came from WASG and had previously been members of the SPD, but now over 50% of members in his state have joined since the original merger.

He also highlighted the weakness of the coalition government (Tories and Liberals also!) and the growing discussion within Die Linke about the possibility that it could form a government if it reached an agreement with the SPD and the Greens. Coming from the left of the party I was not surprised he thinks there are key policy areas cannot be compromised in such a negotiation. He is no doubt aware of the collapse of Communist Refoundation in Italy over troop deployments in Afghanistan but nor does he rule out such a coalition altogether.

It's always good to meet political activists from other countries, especially in Europe where there are so many similarities between political and party systems. It was a short meeting but we found we had plenty of links. He used to work with former MEP Tobias Pfluger, who CND has worked with opposing US bases in Europe, especially on the US Missile Defenee proposals, and Andrej has met Jeremy Corbyn a number of times.

I hope to meet him again in Lisbon this November - for the next No to NATO demonstration!

Oona on postal service privatisation

2010-07-13T10:44:00.006+01:00

I blogged last Friday after the Hackney hustings for London Labour's Mayoral candidate and highlighted the difference between Ken and Oona on the privatisation of postal services. The question came up again the following day in Clapham and both candidates stuck to their guns.

But Oona is not in tune with either public opinion or the views of the labour movement. The public agrees with Ken's argument that prices would go up under a private owner, as shown by an ICM poll for the CWU in May last year. The same poll showed that 75% of the public opposed the proposed privatisation.

Clearly Labour members and the unions are concerned about the coalition governments proposals. There has already been a battle within the party last year to defeat Peter Mandelson's privatisation plans. Although limited, Labour's 2010 manifesto at least talked about the future of Royal Mail being 'in the public sector'. As public spending is slashed further, more public sector 'reform' introduced and further privatisations planned, Labour members will expect this position to harden and for Labour in opposition to lead the fight against the coalition plans.

Given the CWU's anger at Mandelson's proposals last year (note they recently agreed to withdraw honorary membership from former general secretary Lord Tony Young for the support he gave to Labour's part-privatisation plan as a minister in Lord Mandelson's Business Department), it would be in Oona's interest to sound a little less like him.

But instead, see her answers below...

8th July hustings, Hackney.

Q) What’s you view of the privatisation of the postal services? Should the Labour Party oppose this move?

Oona King:

“I think, the Labour Party needs to be in favour of a sustainable postal system. We need the post.

‘Now the facts are, in the economy that we’ve had over the last ten years it hasn’t been sustainable, the post offices have not been able to provide, for instance, two deliveries a day, on the amount of money they get from stamps, in the information age when people use the internet, we have to understand that some of the business has to change ‘If we don’t understand that it’s kind of like, you know how, how we’re behaving, it’s like you know, the people that were on the canals in the 1880s saying I don’t know about these railways, they're not going to take off.

‘The fact is out life has changed, and the information age, the use of the internet, means you cannot make as much money as you used to make out of the post, that’s the fact.

‘What we need to do is help post offices be more able to have their customer base. I want to see post offices getting people inside their doors and I ran some campaigns to try and help post offices try and do that..

‘But I think just to say that we oppose any change in our Post Office style now is to condemn Postal workers out of their job because we will not keep the post competitive and we have to do that. We need it too much too much to let it just bite the bullet as other industries did when they didn’t actually change.”

9th July hustings, Clapham.

Oona King:

‘Frankly how many of you put letters in the post box compared to 10 or 20 years ago?

‘If you answer that question honestly, it’s actually on average by 90 or 95% down.

‘We have to live in the real world here...‘We have to have a service that is profitable but it has got to be subsidised service, but not subsidised to the extent that we are literally throwing money down the drain.’

Ken Livingstone:

‘The post office made a profit of £162 million in 2008, it doubled to £321m last year and the truth is where people talk about the need to change and you look at what happened in every privatisation. When companies are privatised what happens is jobs are savagely cut.

‘Think of all those white working class men who didn’t vote for us or ended up voting for the BNP because good quality jobs they had in Thames Water, in the electricity industry, all those utilities, they got rid of those jobs and what happened to the people at the top, they doubled or quadrupled their salaries, it is a scam and a lot of people at the top made a lot of money.

‘And in that book that Oona and I have both mentioned, the Spirit Level, in the final chapter, it is very interesting in America, about 15% of Americans still live in cities where there is a municipally-owned electricity service and on average it costs 11% less than those that have been privatised.

‘Everything with privatisation is a scam, it’s always based on the need to modernise and drive forward - if the post office is privatised there will be less post people employed and there will be even more obscene salaries for the people at the top .

‘And I know this because I dealt with the people at the top of the post office. I went to them and offered to exempt post vans from the congestion charge, but in exchange I said I want you to pay the £6 or £5 congestion charge. At the time that was the congestion charge, and it would have helped a lot of their workers who worked very early hours and were not terribly well paid and they said no. Even though it was basically it was worth ten times what it would have cost them.

‘That was a group of managers who hated their workers.'

Diane Abbott's new campaign website

2010-07-12T13:31:00.010+01:00

Great to see Diane Abbott's new leadership campaign website up and running, and standing out from the rest of the field. When you don't have the money of the Miliband's it's good to have Jon Worth helping out.

Alex Smith has given it a positive write-up at Labour List also - highlighting also the nomination she's secured from the TSSA rail union. At the weekend she highlighted the three main policies she would have put in the manifesto for the general election - rail renationalisation, a major council house building programme and scrapping the Trident nuclear weapon system.

Polls show all of these policies are popular with the electorate, let's hope we elect a leader willing to put them in the manifesto next time.

First Labour Mayoral hustings: Ken is up for the fight

2010-07-09T14:13:00.001+01:00

Last night's London Labour Party Mayoral hustings presented the first official opportunity for the candidates, Ken Livingstone and Oona King, to present to party members their vision for London in 2012. Questions were asked on transport fares, council housing, the Olympic legacy, and action for those with disabilities and there was significant discussion on what course of action a new Mayor might take, but what struck me was the message about taking on the Tory government and rallying Labour for the next general election.

Ken Livingstone stressed the economic agenda of the Cameron government, ideologically driven to cut the size of the state and public spending, will hurt ordinary Londoners. For Ken, a Labour Mayor could provide the leadership to build public opposition to the cuts agenda out of all proportion even with the position's formal powers whilst Oona seemed keen to focus on the constraints of the post and what 'the Mayor can actually do'. In response to that, Ken was keen to demonstrate that using the Mayor's powers to redistribute wealth, through the Freedom Pass and social housing targets he introduced when in power, went hand-in-hand with taking the fight to the Tory government and providing the catalyst the party needs to win the next general election.

On this agenda, the difference between the two of them was most clearly exposed on an issue of great importance to Londoners - the coalition commitment to revisiting Royal Mail privatisation. Whilst Oona refused to say she would campaign against it, repeating that the industry 'needs to change', Ken blasted the anti-union agenda of Royal Mail management and stated his belief that privatisation will lead to a more expensive, less comprehensive service to the public. In one anecdote he said he had offered to exempt Royal Mail vans from the congestion charge if the management had paid the charge for their staff driving into work, which they had refused to do. For him privatisation of other monopolies in the 1980s has led to a worsened service and Labour should champion the advantages of public ownership. Labour cannot win the mayoral race if it has a candidate who caves into the agenda of the government. We will be politically disarmed if our leading London Labour figure is someone who through their arguments assists Tory-LibDem arguments or refuses to side with those opposing privatisation. We need unity in the London labour movement and that includes unity with the trade union members who will be on the sharp end of the government’s agenda. Oona King’s answer on post office privatisation shows she cannot deliver that. If we want to win in 2012, Ken is the candidate who genuinely lead the opposition. In fact, Guardian blogger Dave Hill has already identified that Ken Livingstone is now positioning himself as the leader of London's opposition to the government's agenda. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/jul/08/ken-livingstone-oona-king-london-housing-policies

A clear difference of vision between Labour and the Tories that will win back Labour's vote in London is needed. Oona fails to attribute Labour's low level of support nationally for contributing to Ken's defeat in 2008 and says only she can reach beyond the core Labour vote to defeat Boris. Oona King's record actually shows she cannot deliver Labour’s core vote, losing a safe inner-London seat on a general election polling day where Labour won overall.
In fact it is only Ken who can demonstrably show he can reach beyond the Labour vote - exceeding its list vote in all wards in 2008, achieving an increase in both the numerical vote and the share of the vote, and delivering large swings to Labour in City and East London and the winning back of an Assembly seat in Brent and Harrow. It is a credit to the positive nature of his campaign that he did not seek to compare that record with his rival's last night.

No-one thinks Labour's vote will stand still at 2008's historically low levels, so there are limits to how much we can refer to it in determining the 2012 vote. Already this year we have taken back councils as Londoners feared an incoming Tory government. They are now seeing the cuts agenda being brought in with housing benefit cut and many boroughs losing the new schools Labour had planned. A campaign that challenges the Tories economic agenda is one that can rebuild Labour's vote in London, and Ken is up for the fight.

Ken's broad support

2010-07-01T14:06:00.004+01:00

Oona King's decision to use her own campaign launch to attack Ken Livingstone as 'stale' and 'grey-haired' would have depressed many Labour members eager for both Labour hopefuls to take the fight to Boris Johnson and the new ConDem government. But the positive campaign waged by Ken Livingstone, focusing on Boris's inflation-busting transport fares and abandonment of higher social housing targets has helped him draw on broad support from across the capital.

Despite Oona's focus on Ken's age at the outset, Young Labour members have been quick to declare their support for Ken. London Young Labour Chair Christine Quigley and national Young Labour Chair Sam Tarry, now a Barking and Dagenham councillor, appeared with Ken last week pledging their support whilst other new young councillors such as Thomas Gardiner and Charlynne Pullen have signed up.

London's black and minority ethnic MPs have also come out for Ken. Whilst Rushanara Ali, the MP for Oona's old Bethnal Green and Bow seat has sided with her predecessor, David Lammy, Virendra Sharma, Diane Abbott and London's youngest MP Chuka Umunna have all backed Ken. The enthusiastic response Ken has received on the streets of Tottenham and Ealing in recent weeks are evidence that David Lammy and Virendra Sharma enjoy their constituents backing.

But it is perhaps the local government base, the party's bedrock, that shows the enduring confidence in Ken to take on the Tories in 2012 - both in City Hall and Westminster. He has won the support of ten group leaders, six of whom are running the council, and who include all three of Labour's women council leaders in the capital, Ann John in Brent, Claire Kober in Haringey and Catherine West where I live in Islington. But that local government support stretches far and wide and whilst Oona's campaign has sought to portray Ken in the same way that Boris did, as an inner-Londoner only, it is telling that Labour group leaders from Barking and Dagenham, Croydon and Hounslow are putting their faith in Ken to win back City Hall.

Maximise the Labour vote

2010-05-05T10:51:00.003+01:00

The full list of signatories to the Guardian letter calling for a maximum Labour vote can be seen below.

Your editorial (1st May) about this week's general election makes clear that neither a Tory government nor a Tory - Lib Dem partnership would be considered by the Guardian as the best outcome.

We, however, strongly believe that your conclusion - vote Liberal Democrat - is deeply flawed and undermines the possibility of stopping the Tories coming to power. Given the current position of the main political parties in opinion polls, it is clear that the only way to guarantee Cameron does not form a government this week is to maximise the Labour vote. As senior Lib Dems have indicated, they may well support a Tory minority administration or even form a coalition with the Tories, where as Labour would do neither.

Labour's share of the vote may well be the determining issue on Friday, so it is essential that share is as high as is possible. For that reason, we urge everyone who wants to see a progressive reforming government to think carefully about what is at stake should the Tories come to power and vote Labour.

Colin Burgon
Tony Woodley, Joint-General Secretary of Unite
Paul Kenny, Gen Sec GMB
Billy Hayes, Gen Sec CWU
Bryon Taylor, National Officer, TULO
Steve Davison, Vice-Chair, Executive Council of Unite
Peter Willsman Labour NEC
Christine Quigley, Chair, London Young Labour
Ellie Gellard, blogger @bevaniteellie
Chris McLaughlin, Tribune editor
Alex Smith LabourList editor
Tom Miller, Labour candidate for Woking
Joy Johnson, Compass
Ben Folley, Compass
Cat Smith, Vice Chair, Compass Youth
Tom Copley

Thoughts on tactical voting...

2010-04-26T10:42:00.001+01:00

My thoughts on the Compass tactical voting ballot at http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=9274#comments

"As a Management Committee member I want to express my concerns with the proposals for advising on tactical voting.

I think Nick Clegg's comments at the weekend show why Compass must be calling on Labour supporters to vote Labour in all seats. Clegg is quoted as saying "I think a party which has got the most votes and seats - which in other words has got the strongest mandate but without an absolute majority - has got the right to seek to form the government" and also ridiculed the idea of forming a coalition with Labour if it came third in number of votes cast - even if together Labour and the Lib Dems could form a majority.

On the Andrew Marr show yesterday, this was reiterated with Marr asking "Lets be crystal clear about it. Let's suppose Labour lose the election in terms of number of votes cast around the country but because of the electoral system have the largest number of MPs in a hung parliament. You would not support Gordon Brown remaining as Prime Minister under those circumstances and you would not go into any kind of relationship with Gordon Brown which would allow him to stay as Prime Minister?" To which Clegg responded "Absolutely. I think a party that has come third, and so millions of people have decided to abandon it, has lost the election spectacularly, cannot then lay claim to providing the Prime Minister of this country."

Therefore only by maximising Labour's vote can any anti-Tory coalition be formed if the electoral arithmetic necessitates this.

And whilst I recognise their progressive role in opposing the invasion of Iraq, we should not ignore the Lib Dems record of spending cuts when in power in local government, their stated commitment to "savage cuts" to cut the deficit, and their regular criticism of the trade unions integral role in the Labour Party."

Ben Folley
Compass Management Committee member

Devolution of further powers from London and increased republican-unionist dialogue are steps toward a united Ireland

2010-02-08T17:13:00.002Z

As we approach the general election, the government’s foreign policy adventures continue to cost votes, just as they did in 2005. The Chilcot Inquiry and the appearance of not only Tony Blair but potentially Gordon Brown just weeks before election day do not help Labour, whilst in Afghanistan the ongoing deaths of British soldiers and uncounted Afghan civilians continues to gnaw away at the Government, as serious questions remain about the credibility of its ally governing Kabul.

But one thing Labour can continue to point to as a foreign policy success is the Good Friday Agreement and the development of the peace process in the north of Ireland. Today we can see how negotiation between unionists and republicans will result in policing and justice powers being handed to the devolved administration. This is the latest step in a process that has seen a far reaching equality agenda to end discrimination; historic power sharing and inclusivity; and the end of violence, including the decommissioning of arms by paramilitaries and demilitarisation by the British Army.
Now there is the regular sight of face-to-face discussions by republicans and loyalists, governing together in Stormont, confirming that the future of Ireland will be resolved by an inclusive political process.

At an important and timely conference opening a discussion on Irish unity here in London later this month, a central element of the discussion will be about Ireland’s constitutional future –in the context of the Good Friday Agreement – with senior leaders from Ireland including Gerry Adams, from the SDLP and academics such as Lord Bew and former loyalist politician Davey Adams. British politicians, including Ken Livingstone and trade union leaders from Britain and Ireland and others will also participate to discuss Ireland’s constitutional future.

The focus in the British media has not been on Ireland’s current situation, but rather on the sentiment that all is now settled. The process is far from over. The Good Friday Agreement created structures that have yet to be fully tested and implemented – the current agreement is just the latest step in further doing so. But as power is further devolved to the Assembly, another historic constitutional process is unfolding whereby Stormont increasingly engages with the structures of Government in Dublin. The North-South Ministerial Council provides an all-Ireland framework for political discussion, without the interference of Britain. Joint discussions now take place on transport infrastructure linking areas historically underdeveloped because of partition, of schools that can serve communities on both sides of the border.

Some of the other political parties of the south, almost all of whom state their support for a united Ireland, have started recruiting members in the north and are starting to think about organising on an all-Ireland basis. Both Fianna Fail and Irish Labour have started recruiting in the north, perhaps preparing for a united Ireland in future.

Sinn Fein can only welcome the development where more parties identify the island as a single political entity. And here in Britain we should start to consider it a possibility. So we must start to consider if the people of the north voted for unification with the south of Ireland, as the Good Friday Agreement provides for, how would Britain hand over power? How would the Home Office here hand over its responsibilities to its Dublin counterpart? Would the Ministry of Defence hand over its military bases to the Irish Defence Forces? Presumably sterling would cease to become legal tender and the northern economy, integrating into the rest of Ireland, would convert to the Euro.

The development of the political process has been a long one that has required brave politicians in Britain to foresee a different future and challenge orthodox thinking. In the early 1980s when Gerry Adams assumed the leadership of Sinn Fein to embark on a political strategy for Irish reunification, it was Ken Livingstone as leader of the GLC who advocated direct discussions with Sinn Fein, whilst Thatcher sought to silence them. Now, such discussions are commonplace.

The conference ‘Putting Irish Unity on the Agenda’, taking place in London at the TUC on February 20th, will be a good opportunity to continue this discussion. It is Britain that has historically held jurisdiction in Ireland and it is vital that we understand and discuss how and why we should leave when the people demand it. This conference will provide that opportunity.

For more information and to register for the even, visit http://www.londonirishunityconference.org.

Progressive London sets an alternative economic agenda

2010-02-04T12:40:00.006Z

Having read the rather negative comments on the Progressive London conference by Dave Hill and Sunny Hundal, which I didn't think fairly represented the day's events, I thought I'd note down some of my own thoughts. Sunny gives far too negative a report in criticising the conference as a ‘re-election vehicle’ and for voices being ’stale’. In contrast the structures of London government were few and far between, whilst there were numerous leading new activists, social media trend-setters and the like addressing the crowds, himself included. Whilst Dave Hill bizarrely says Mike Tuffrey was the only Lib Dem invited, despite Lembit Opik MP and Serge Lourie, leader of Richmond Council appearing high up on the bill.

I thought it was successful in rallying the broader left in London, from the unions, anti-war movement, environmentalists and, from political parties, the Greens, Respect, and broad sections of the Labour Party and a sprinkling of Lib Dems.

From all the points it raised, from climate change, to tackling the far-right, improving transport and housing, I thought the key message was the need for a different economic policy to that which both Alastair Darling and George Osborne are clinging to. For me the top speeches were those by Johann Hari and Mehdi Hasan, neither of whom are ‘old friends of Ken’ but who are young, thinking journalists, sympathetic to Labour (they may well be members for all I know), who made hard attacks on New Labour’s commitment to neo-liberalism, demanded an end to the triangulation that ‘our cuts are nicer than yours’ and championed a spending and investment route out of the recession. Hasan’s arrival at the New Statesman in particular has seriously boosted the left of the Labour Party, not only with his articles on the economy this year, but by complementing Pilger’s articles attacking US imperialism.

I also thought the conference a serious effort to draw in Brownite sections of the Labour Party into a more left framework, though the success of this can be debated.

And as an aside, though the issue of London government and the Mayoralty received little discussion on the day - with a general election imminent, people wanted to discuss national politics and how to stop the Tories - the idea that Ken wanted to re-stand was briefly raised in dicussion by Jon Cruddas chairing the final session, when he introduced Ken as ‘the last and next mayor’. Seems a significant statement.

The numbers of people attending yesterday, its youth and vibrancy, suggest there is a broad left message in opposition to both New Labour and Cameron’s Conservatives that people will organise around…

Miliband's claims on Latin American commitment to climate action challenged

2009-12-21T07:19:00.007Z

Commentators by and large have praised Ed Miliband's contribution to the Copenhagen climate summit. Despite its overall failings, he has been praised as having worked hard to secure the final accord. However he was reported as having come into conflict with some of the developing nations in Africa in the final frantic hours and now he has made an attack in The Guardian principally on China, but reportedly including Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba.

Miliband writes that "the old order of developed versus developing has been replaced by more interesting alliances." But this does not stand up to much scrutiny, as shown by the quotes of other developing nations and leading environmental NGOs.

Muhammed Chowdhury, a lead negotiator of the G77 group, said: "The hopes of millions of people from Fiji to Grenada, Bangladesh to Barbados, Sudan to Somalia have been buried. The summit failed to deliver beyond taking note of a watered-down Copenhagen accord reached by some 25 friends of the Danish chair, head of states and governments. They dictated the terms at the peril of the common masses."

Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said the following: "Instead of committing to deep cuts in emissions and putting new, public money on the table to help solve the climate crisis, rich countries have bullied developing nations to accept far less. Those most responsible for putting the planet in this mess have not shown the guts required to fix it and have instead acted to protect short-term political interests."

Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International, stated "the blame for failure lies mostly with the rich industrialised countries which have the largest historic responsibility for causing the problem. In particular, the US failed to take any real leadership and dragged the talks down."

However, since Miliband reportedly blames the socialist governments of Latin America for threatening the result of the talks, it is interesting to watch the final press conference of the ALBA nations at Copenhagen, with the Presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales on the platform, alongside senior figures from Cuba and Nicaragua.

Morales makes some convincing statements, criticising the effectiveness of Western funding initiatives, limiited as they are in financial terms, for helping developing nations to limit carbon emissions, stating "proposing 10billion, 20billion dollars here, perhaps solves the political problems of a President, but does not solve the problems of peoples lives on Earth, and we don't want to be bribed with money". He is also critical of the manner of the last minute deal being 'parachuted' or 'smuggled' in by the developed nations, when working groups have been making preparations for the summit for over two years and which resulted in a completely inadequate agreement. As he says, the "group of friends of Denmark, headed by Obama, propose that global temperatures be allowed to rise 2 degrees and this means to eliminate, to lose the islands of the world and the snow-caps, the glaciers, around the world."

Samuel Santos Lopez, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua said "If you look, you'll see that many of the presenters today, systems of control for review and enforcement, they were proposing enforcement mechanisms but they want to impose these mechanisms on us the poor but they didn't speak about enforcement mechanisms that if they were going to fulfil or not their commitments to reduce levels of pollution - who's going to enforce that? Who's going to do that? They are going to measure and control themselves? So these are some of the issues that should have been discussed."

Whilst Chavez sets his sights on the industrialised nations, both at the press conference and in his address to the plenary "The US is responsible for 25% of the world's carbon emissions ... it's not us in Venezuela, we only emit 0.4% of the emissions on the planet - we're reducing. Cuba doesn't even come to 0.1%. In the ALBA group we don't even add up together to 1%. It's they who are destroying the planet. The advanced, developed, capitalist countries."

When it comes to Labour's credibility on the environment Ed Miliband is seen as a progressive figure keen to achieve real change, but if we are to retain any of the good will he has managed to chalk up through his efforts, we cannot squander it by blaming developing nations for failure to reach agreements when the US so obviously remains the elephant in the room.

Its the policies that need changing, not the leadership - discussing it is a gift to the Tories

2009-11-18T12:24:00.002Z

The recent articles suggesting there will be a challenge to Gordon Brown’s leadership of the Labour Party before the next General Election are a gift to the Conservatives.

Patrick Wintour and Allegra Stratton’s article on Compass published on the Guardian website last night is certainly one of those. It fits in well with the line of Toby Helm’s article in the Observer two days before, which stated the left of the party was actively working with the Blairites to elect a new PLP Chair in the coming days on an anti-Brown ticket. Whoever has briefed Patrick Wintour, Allegra Stratton and Toby Helm may be disappointed not to have it their own way, but that does not excuse their actions, which can only damage Labour.

Whilst we are behind in the polls, there are some signs we are clawing our way back. There is much that Brown needs to say and do if we are going to claw our way back enough to save this government at the next general election, but what is very clear that another bout of internal arguments over who leads the party can only drag us back down and ensure a Conservative victory.

The most recent Compass Management Committee was held less than ten days ago and the suggestion by Wintour that Compass believes ‘if Brown stays, an election defeat could be so heavy that there would be little left of the party to inherit’ is simply a fabrication. Neither is it true that Compass is waiting for the pre-budget report ‘before deciding whether to move against him.’

In fact, it has been noted within Compass that the Brown government is showing some positive fresh thinking – which is also positive with the electorate – with the introduction of a 50% income tax rate for the rich and that a Tobin Tax would be a welcome tool in helping to control some of the wilder money flows encouraged by neo-liberal economics. Opinion polls show investment in new council housing and the cancellation of Trident replacement are popular with voters. Alan Johnson and David Miliband, both mentioned in the Wintour article, show no sign of changing tack and offering an alternative to the economic agenda of New Labour.

What Labour does not need are those within the party playing games for their personal advantage. What was evident in June when the hardcore Blairites attempted their most recent coup against Brown was that they were not seeking to secure the more progressive policy framework necessary for Labour to rebuild its support.

As with Wintour’s, Toby Helm’s article on a left-right alliance amongst MPs challenging for the Chair of the PLP – as a mechanism to change the leader – is not borne out by reality. Every media report on Sheerman’s posturing gnaws away at the party’s credibility whilst the left is well aware it has the best representative it could hope for in Tony Lloyd – a principled man who represents the mainstream of the grassroots membership.

Talking about a leadership challenge now simply aids David Cameron. What Labour now needs is for Brown to deliver some new and positive messages, which connect with people on the ground and take the fight to the Conservatives.

Commitment to US foreign policy is not on the tick-list for EU President

2009-11-03T09:10:00.006Z

I've been amazed in recent days with the fawning over Tony Blair as a potential candidate for EU President, though I can't decide if it's the fact he so divided Europe in his support for the US invasion of Iraq or by so many on the centre-left of British politics asserting why we need a British President of the EU.

I think Simon Fletcher hit the nail on the head with his post on this, when he said, "Britain was seen over Iraq in particular as a bridgehead for American foreign policy. This view is held all the way from mainstream European socialist parties to many on the centre-right."

Whilst Schroeder and Chirac opposed the invasion, Aznar and Kaczynski who supported it were soon voted out of office to be replaced by candidates committed to withdrawing their countries troops. But amongst Labour's sister parties there is little support for Blair. Robin Cook reportedly wrote in his resignation letter before the invasion that "I am dismayed that once again Britain is divided from our major European neighbours. As president of the party of European socialists, of which the Labour party is a member, it troubles me that I know of no sister party within the European Union that shares our position."

This sentiment continues. Only last week Jean Asselborn, who chairs the Foreign Ministers network for the Party of European Socialists said, "Now in the United States, Obama is the president, it is no more Mr Bush. We have a new treaty, we have to reset Europe and we need to start with some new ideas. There is and will remain a link for the next generation between Iraq, Bush and Tony Blair."

Tony Blair has no claim to be a progressive political leader for Europe. But I for one question why it needs to be a British person. What claim can we have to lead the European project? We are not in the Euro, we opt out of the most progressive agreements, how can we stake our claim?

Being the bridgehead to the US is certainly not the key issue. As Jeremy Corbyn reminded us "Blair sees things in terms of some self-proclaimed north Atlantic moral superiority in dominating the affairs of the world." Yes we want good relations with the US - but on what basis? And who is the candidate who best represents Europe's links with Russia, China, India and Brazil amongst others? I've not yet seen this raised as a priority. Perhaps it's time.

Royal Mail management continue to prolong dispute as they dig in for liberalisation

2009-10-20T08:52:00.004+01:00

The Royal Mail management's determination to put conditions on the involvement of ACAS is a further sign they are more interested in a showdown that prolongs the dispute and marginalises the CWU (as the leaked document showed) rather than reaching a negotiated settlement with the union.

It is simply not justifiable to demand the CWU calls off its strike before engaging formerly involving ACAS. The CWU has made a genuine commitment to negotiations by asking the government to intervene and by offering to go to ACAS - but as Billy Hayes, said: "Any third party involvement needs to be on an entirely transparent basis with a joint intention of reaching an agreement."

It is increasingly apparent however, if the part-privatisation plans earlier in the year were not enough, that Royal Mail's public service is being gradually dismantled by the rather sanitising word of 'modernisation'. Not only have we already lost the second delivery and Sunday collection, but the CWU today claims that under the plans, people living in urban areas would get their post as late as 3pm , while those in rural areas would get it at 4pm and businesses sending bulk mail would have to pay an additional fee to guarantee a morning delivery - a further departure from the universal delivery service as new market rates are introduced. Those who would seek to highlight this news has come from the CWU should note the Royal Mail management are not even willing to make these plans public and subject to scrutiny - it is they who are hiding their real plans whilst prolonging and intensifying this fight.

The CWU, contrary to media arguments, has bent over backwards to accommodate service modernisation plans, even where this has meant some job losses. To assert they are a block on improvements to the service is plain wrong, they are simply trying to defend their workforce whilst at the same time prevent a downgrading of the service the public receives through the Royal Mail management prioritising maximising its own profit.

It's right-wing enough already. Stop Nick Griffin appearing on BBC Question Time.

2009-10-16T09:55:00.003+01:00

Clearly we've got plenty of problems with Question Time even before Nick Griffin appears on it. It's a compulsory hour of pain each week. The panel is always slanted strongly to the right and this lack of balance needs to be challenged. Why do figures from business appear far more regularly than trade union leaders? Why are Tory MPs joined by right-wing crossbench Lords who simply back up their views. How often do the Greens or Respect get invited compared to UKIP? Why aren't alternative Labour views ever represented? Now you can't even rely on Liberal Democrats to assert a faux-left position. Last night we saw Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker give his support to further troops being sent to Afghanistan and making an attack on the CWU postal workers.

But on the legitimisation of racism, it was outrageous to see Nigel Farage asserting that his party UKIP is not racist but whipping up Islamophobia by highlighting, as he said, an upcoming 'big demonstration' for Sharia law in London and asserting that immigration into Britain from eastern Europe is already too high. If he is already accepted as holding mainstream views and that meant his racism went unchallenged last night, then think how much worse it will get when Nick Griffin appears and he, and UKIP and the Tories, and perhaps a Labour minister who has accepted the government's concessions to the right on asylum and immigration all get going.

Alan Johnson made a good case for no platform. Our priority should be to prevent the debate with Griffin taking place. Imagine, as he said, that in future the BNP will be invited to comment on schooling or, presumably, housing and other everyday issues. Issues where they have nothing to add except their racism.

As an audience member from the NUS Black Students Campaign said "for some viewers yes, they will say i'm no longer going to vote BNP but other viewers in communities across the country they will see ... he'll drop in a few anti-immigration comments, a few blatant Islamophobic comments ... it's a debate not worth losing for some of those viewers who will then turn to the BNP, for whose communities it will have a negative impact, creating fear."

The figures show wherever the BNP appears whether thats in Barking, or in Oldham a few years back, racist attacks increase. And we already have the emergence of the EDL sieg-heiling on the streets and outside mosques. This can only be encouraged by Griffin appearing on Question Time.

So join the Unite Against Fascism demo outside the BBC Wood Lane Centre at 5pm Thursday 22nd October.

See http://www.uaf.org.uk/

Alan Johnson:
They [the BNP] are a white supremacist party. Their rules make it very clear, they are an illegally constituted party and you may like to reconsider your invitation to next week's Question Time on that point.

The court has now determined they are illegally constituted and that's why Nick Griffin is saying they'll change their rules. Now this won't change anything, these people believe what the fascists believed in the 1930s and the Second World War, they believe what the National Front believed. These people come back time and time again, they believe in the purity of the Aryan race, it is a foul and despicable political party and however they change their constitution they will remain foul and despicable.

I agree they should be confronted in argument, I've been doing that all my life, through the trade union movement, the National Front.

If you want an answer David, for Question Time there isn't a constitutional obligation to appear on Question Time and I won't appear on a platform with the BNP. Why? Because next week it will be about the BNP and I agree it's good we're having this debate and highlighting what's in their constitution. Next week it may be about the BNP and the people on the platform will be able to have that debate, but you're talking about bringing them in to be a legitimate political party on this platform and a few weeks later it will be about schools, it will be all the things you ask us about and that gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve.

The BBC have taken this decision with an illegally constituted party and the more you do that the more you allow the far right to seem as if they are a normal party.

Audience member:
In terms of the BNP. Now next week on your programme, they will be there, Jack Straw and co will be there. Yes there will be an argument, yes most probably Nick Griffin will probably be found to be a complete a fool, yes, but he has that platform right there.

Now for some of us, for some viewers yes, they will say i'm no longer going to vote BNP but other viewers in communities across the country they will see that, they will see Nick Griffin there and he'll have a few little soundbites coming out, he'll drop in a few anti-immigration comments, a few blatant Islamophobic comments, which will happen, which feature in the film by Wilders the Dutch MP, things like that will happen.

Now yes it's a debate but it's a debate not worth losing for some of those viewers watching that programme which will then turn to the BNP, for whose communities it will have a negative impact, creating fear.

The SPD's only future is in alliance with Die Linke

2009-10-07T13:30:00.005+01:00

Two interesting articles here, from a Labour perspective here in Britain but worth reading nonetheless, on the poor result for the SPD in the recent German federal elections. Despite the SPD's vote collapse and the increase for the Free Democrats, the share of the vote for the SPD, Greens and The Left (Die Linke) was almost equal to that of the CDU and FDP who are set to form the new government.

However, an alternative coalition was never on the cards due to the SPD's refusal to countenance a national agreement involving Die Linke who reached a new high of 12.5% of the vote cast. But if the SPD can run a joint administration in Berlin with Die Linke, and increasingly is seeking to make deals in Lande governments then surely it can in the Bundestag? And if it had run a strong campaign proposing a red-red-green coalition - could it have galvanised the electorate to push it over the winning line? We will never know.

But it remains simply unacceptable for a social democratic party to cede government to the neo-liberals during an economic recession, having sat in a humiliating 'grand coalition' with the CDU in recent years but unwilling to be the senior partner in an alliance with those who share its ethos and indeed include many former comrades such as Lafontaine. Notably following the deaths of Afghan civilians at the hands of a NATO bombing called in by a German commander during the election campaign, the SPD cautiously took up something of a 'raus aus' (get out!) policy - one championed by Die Linke since the invasion. Those on the left of the SPD must now turn around the argument in the party to ensure a constructive working relationship with Die Linke in Berlin city administration can be replicated in the Bundestag.

Jon Worth: Cooperation with Die Linke, and Müntefering out: the way forward for Social Democracy in Germany
Tom Miller: The problem for the centre-left

Livingstone points Labour away from Tory cuts agenda

2009-10-07T13:22:00.000+01:00

For me Seumas Milne's Comment is Free article on 16th September said it all: "Whatever else you might say about David Cameron and George Osborne, they have carried off a brilliant political manoeuvre ... the Conservatives have succeeded in turning the entire focus of political debate on its head. Instead of an argument about how to beat the slump triggered by the banking crash, all three main political parties are now competing over how to cut public spending and services."

This is true, only a few weeks ago Labour activists were rubbing their hands at the prospect of a real election fight where Labour stood for investment against a Tory agenda of public sector spending cuts. This was - and still is - a real opportunity for two very different manifestoes and an election battle which would finally mobilise Labour activists and supporters to spread a positive message.

But not only were the Lib Dems easily sucked in, with Clegg unwisely burning some bridges to the disillusioned left by calling for "savage cuts" but successive Labour ministers visiting the TUC, including Mandelson and Balls, announcing planned spending cuts. The Prime Minister himself said we will "cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets" but, as Jackie Ashley argued, if voters are led down the road of cuts then they will vote for the party that they trust to do it more effectively. Labour needs to rethink its current message.

Brendan Barber's own speech to the TUC, including stating his opposition to Trident replacement, was in complete contrast. He said "the bad economic news is not over. Banks are still not lending as much as they should, but rebuilding their balance sheets. Businesses are not investing. Consumers are slow to spend. That's why public spending and state intervention has had to fill the gap."

And today Ken Livingstone argues that Labour needs to strike out with an alternative economic agenda, one of investment and public spending to drive economic growth.He writes "There is an iron law in politics – the party that sets the agenda wins. A year ago, Labour was rising in the polls as it set a clear political agenda: the global financial crisis could only be addressed by massive state intervention."

There are cuts that can be made, as Livingstone says, "wasteful public spending, that does nothing to benefit either the economy or the population, should be cut – the Trident programme should be abandoned, defence spending cut to the same share of the economy as Germany, ID cards and other grotesquely expensive gimmicks should all go."

But we are also in a period where the public is prepared to accept radical redistributive measures. There is no real public concern about the level of debt, people are more than happy for the government to ramp up public expenditure if it is in their material interest.

If the government has the will to take on the Tories and the right-wing media then there will be public support for increased taxation not only on the sort of individuals who take home enormous bonuses each year but also on those major companies who continue to suck in enormous profits. At the same time that the government was leading the national debate when it bailed out the banks, its new 50% income tax rate was met with approval from the public. Similarly, the Compass windfall tax campaign demonstrated the support the government would enjoy in taxing the enormous profits of the private utility companies and imposing more stringent regulation.

Osborne's commitment to pay freezes for those earning as little as £18,000 and cutting access to pensions is a great opportunity for Labour, which desperately needs to show clear red water between itself and the Tory cuts agenda.

So far Brendan Barber, Ken Livingstone and Seumas Milne have outlined an alternative, but we need a far higher level of debate on economic policy within the Labour Party, we need it now, and we need it to impact on the manifesto for next year.

Heseltine exposes colonialism in the Tory mindset

2009-09-26T09:12:00.005+01:00

I was both amazed and disappointed to see Michael Heseltine get away so lightly in the press this week having revealed on BBC Question Time a particularly colonial mindset when it comes to race and asylum. His complete lack of any interest in the welfare of asylum seekers was shown by his bowing to populism by declaring them all economic migrants looking for jobs, and that they were identifiable as such because 'he'd seen them'. Amazingly he suggested they should queue up to fill in application forms in the country where they are being persecuted. Quite how someone could go to the British Embassy or High Commission, fill in a form, leave it and then wait for who knows how long for a response, when they are acting out of desperation and often fear for their own lives, is beyond me.

But particularly eye-watering was his use of Afghanistan as a case-study, where he argued there was no persecution taking place because there is an 'army of Western people' there defending their liberties and suggested he couldn’t believe any persecution was taking place. Such stupidity is staggering. Even taking away the fact that hundreds and even thousands of Afghan civilians are being killed by the great saviours from the West, the NATO commanders themselves say they don't have enough troops to cover the country and large swathes of it are beyond their control.

Labour needs to take up Heseltine's points and challenge David Cameron to distance himself from them. The government cannot be so weak and have its agenda dictated by the Daily Mail that it cannot challenge Heseltine when he falls into such an appallingly colonial stereotype and provides such a gift.

However at the last general election Labour did fall into that trap on asylum and immigration, and if it were really to challenge Heseltine, it would have to publicly accept the failures of the NATO mission in Afghanistan and the claim that it is helping the people there.

Not only is the Afghanistan mission a vote loser, but competing with the Tories on asylum and immigration is a complete loss for Labour. As with law and order, people believe the Tories can do 'tough on asylum and immigration' better than Labour can. Perhaps the party thinks it is better to say nothing, as Harman did, than fall into a trap of competing for the most hard-line policy. This would actually be a step forward from the last election. But whilst the Lib Dems are seen to combat the Tories as effectively as David Laws did then we risk more progressive but disillusioned Labour voters drifting over to Nick Clegg.

Here is the transcript of the passage below, you can w atch it by clicking here.

David Dimbleby: Will the closure of the Calais camps stop the flow of illegal immigrants?

Fraser Nelson: It's an excellent question and no I don't think it will for a second. For as long as we've got an utterly incompetent border system they will always come here. We should ask ourselves why were they in Calais, why weren't they camped out on a German border or an Italian border? They know exactly where to come if they basically want to settle and not get caught, living in the Minister's house cleaning the carpets. The very fact the Calais camp exists tells the world who has got the most lax immigration system in Europe and its us.

David Laws MP: I agree with Fraser's first point that this will not be successful in stopping the flow of illegal immigrants. All we've done essentially is move these people around the north-western part of France. These are very desperate and therefore very determined people sometimes with some very tragic stories to tell. I recently met some young Afghan students in a school in my constituency in Somerset, who'd made their way across half the world having lost their parents in the atrocities in Afghanistan and where I disagree with Fraser is that the idea that this is a problem that can be fixed just by tougher border controls and the idea that we are now weak on the issue of asylum isn't true, we now have a lot of border controls. A lot to try and stop the bulge we had four or five years ago.

Dimbleby: Are you saying it was wrong to close the camps down?

Laws: I'm saying it will have very little effect and what countries like France and Italy should be doing is taking a greater responsibility themselves to allow some of these individuals to make applications in their countries.

Dimbleby: But don't they already have more illegal immigrants coming in and applying than the United Kingdom does?

Laws: Some of them on the borders do, but some of them are complicit in not allowing them to make applications in country. The French are particularly bad at this and until we allow these people to make fair applications in these countries themselves we will continue to have this problem of them coming across the border.

Michael Heseltine: Of course the French were right to close the camp. It certainly won't stop the flow, because the flow has to be dealt with by effective border controls and we do not have sufficiently rigid and effective border controls and I believe they should be improved and I believe the next Conservative government will do that.

But I think you've got to start with another issue. David said they've got to be allowed the chance to fill in the forms and applications. None of them would get in. The fact of the matter is these are not persecuted people, they are economic migrants who want to get in to a very wealthy society...

Laws: How do you know they are? How do you know they all are?

Heseltine: Well because...

Laws: The people I met were not economic migrants they were genuine asylum seekers.

Heseltine: Sorry I have seen the people in these camps...

Laws: So how do you know there background circumstances? How do you know they're all economic migrants?

Heseltine: Because you can tell...

Laws: You cannot tell by looking at them. It's a ridiculous thing to say.

Heseltine: Ok, ok let's concede they should fill in a form. But why should they fill in a form in France when the legitimate place to fill in a form is in the place where they're being persecuted in the British High Commission or the British Embassy.

Laws: In the middle of Helmand province?

Heseltine: Well we're meant to be defending them. Are you telling me that with the Western troops, the NATO troops all over Afghanistan that there is persecution going on?

Laws: There is a lot of persecution going on, yes.

Heseltine: There is a whole army of Western people, defending the liberties such as they are in Afghanistan. But the important point is, if you were in one of these other countries, and you wanted to come to this country and you complied with the law, you would fill in the form where the alleged persecution was taking place.

Laws: That's not always possible, as well you know Michael.

Heseltine: What the people in the camps are doing are jumping the queue and that is absolutely unacceptable standard whereby people should be allowed into this country.

How to make friends with the Lib Dems...

2009-09-20T22:28:00.006+01:00

Labour's relationship with the Liberal Democrats may be important come the General Election result. Ken Livingstone sought a progressive alliance in the last London Mayoral elections, and secured a second preference call from the Green's Sian Berry. The odd-choice of Brian Paddick for the Lib Dems prevented much progress on a wider agreement, but Ken has continued to work sections of the Lib Dems, including inviting Susan Kramer MP, Lembit Opik MP and Mike Tuffrey AM to the initial Progressive London conference. Taking a similar line at this year's Compass Conference, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP was invited on to the platform, and Lib Dem MPs such as Evan Harris and Stephen Williams have spoken at other recent Compass events.

However what the Lib Dems decide to do in the unlikely sitation the next General Election is so close as to produce a hung parliament is anyone's guess. The social liberals have been outmanoeuvred by the Orange Book Thatcherites in leading party policy in recent years but Clegg, despite calling for 'savage cuts' in public spending has rejected Cameron's proposals to co-operate against Labour.

All of which suggests it is worth cultivating a real relationship with the LibDems on areas where we agree - particularly where it exposes differences with the Tories. But a lesson in how not to do this is shown by Kerry McCarthy MP on Twitter (look for @KerryMP) who has created the hashtag #offthefence in tweeting "Calling on Lib Dem MPs, PPCs and activists on Twitter. Wd u be prepared to support a minority Tory govt in power? #offthefence #ldconf."

Hmm...how to make friends and influence people. Calling on people to get 'off the fence' doesn't sound too friendly. Might want to rethink that one...?

Czech Social Democrats set to benefit from opposition to US Missile Defence

2009-09-19T09:47:00.008+01:00

News that President Obama is abandoning his predecessors plans for US Missile Defence bases in eastern Europe has been met with wishful thinking but wildly inaccurate reports in the media that the decision will be unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic. A curious article in The Guardian from the Washington-based Olivia Hampton argues that the decision may improve relations with Russia but 'at the expense of relations with Poland and the Czech Republic' which she describes as 'former Soviet satellites'. The Times said the decision had 'caused dismay in Europe' while Toby Harnden in The Telegraph reported Republican senator Lindsey Graham as saying 'it will scare the crap out of the Poles, Czechs, Ukranians and Georgians'.

However opinion polls for the past two years in the Czech Republic have shown opposition in the Czech Republic hovering consistently around 65-70%, with the emergence of the first major social movement of the post-Communist era. Local groups of the Ne Zakladnam (No Base) movement emerged in towns across the country, local village mayors around the proposed site held referendums to demonstrate the strength of opposition, environmental organisations conducted research into the health effects of the US radar and conferences were held with guests invited from around Europe.

The effect of this was to bring the Czech Social Democrats into the camp opposing the radar. Testing the waters, it found strong support for its position amongst other sister parties in the Party of European Socialists - not only in Poland where the interceptor missiles were due to be based - but from key allies in Germany and Austria. When regional government elections were held in the Czech Republic, the Social Democrats seized control of twelve of the thirteen regions from the conservative Civic Democrats and new Central Bohemia governor David Rath announced he would hold a referendum. The lower house of parliament had been finely balanced between a governing alliance of Civic Democrats, Christian Democrats and Europe's most rightwing Greens, against the opposition Social Democrats and Communists, since the 2006 elections and when the opposition was eventually able to force a ratification vote of the government-agreed treaty onto the parliamentary agenda on a day when the government could not rely on winning the vote, it was forced to call a recess and withdraw the treaty with Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek giving a live TV broadcast to inform the public.

This week Social Democrat leader Jiri Paroubek welcomed Obama's decision and said 'the entire missile defence shield project was an expression of an ideological and simplified perception of the world and the return to the Cold War times'. A recent STEM opinion poll shows the Social Democrats on 29% are now five percent ahead of the Civic Democrats on 24%, while the Communists remain the third largest party, on 11%. A general election is imminent.

Labour should take the opportunity of this bold new step by Obama to call for an end to the deployment of US Missile Defence facilities in this country. The radar at Fylingdales and satellite downlink facility at Menwith Hill are part of the same system that has been destabilising relations between the US and Russia, and continue to make the Yorkshire bases the frontline of any future conflict - just as Russia had previously announced the eastern European bases would be. This Summer the Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Mike Gapes, repeated earlier concerns about the system, stating 'We are not convinced that, as they are currently envisaged and under current circumstances, the United States' planned ballistic missile defence (BMD) deployments in the Czech Republic and Poland represent a net gain for European security.' Other senior backbenchers including former Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle and Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee Michael Connarty have called for the bases to be closed.

Labour should learn from its Czech sister party: a break from US militarism can bring around a turn in fortunes.

Mandelson needs to re-think 'public spending constraints'

2009-09-14T23:54:00.007+01:00

Peter Mandelson's speech delivered for Progress this morning demonstrated New Labour's inability to challenge Thatcherite neo-liberal economics, even as it has brought major banks and corporations to their knees, and suggests the government has not yet realised what is needed to win the election. Whilst the economic situation requires a bold new strategy, we are only offered a gradual creeping extension of Blairite public service reforms, in his own words "this will mean an expanded role for city academies [and] building on the foundation trust model as central to a future NHS." What could be more depressing than an economic policy of continuing with the most discredited policies that the Party and wider movement were never consulted on and which they have never supported.

The government is right to attack the Tories on their plans to cut spending, the prospect of which has them 'foaming at the mouth' according to Mandelson, but it is simply not credible to take them on whilst proposing a mealy-mouthed agenda of 'public spending constraints'. The very idea of campaigning on such an agenda opens the door to cuts and the future protestations that the Tories are slashing spending out of principle and Labour cuts spending only where necessary.

When he says, "We need to be: 'effective state' social democrats, not 'big state' social democrats," we should take him head on and question what is wrong with 'big state' when the market has failed us and left thousands jobless. He says "we unashamedly reject those who espouse the centralising or controlling state," yet day in day out we are forced to endure the embarrassment of watching Alastair Darling plead with state-owned banks to lend money, when he could simply instruct them to do so. How many jobs have to be lost before they start lending again? If the government believes the economy needs banks to lend it should and their executives fail to do so, then the government should force them to.

Undoubtedly the Tories will savagely cut public spending, David Cameron has said as much. But it will be to Labour's detriment if it is sucked into the Tory agenda of debating cuts 'because of public spending constraints', without first tackling such constraints. The constraints can be shifted and burdens eased without affecting public services, the enormously wasteful spending projects such as Trident and ID cards should be abandoned, an even bolder high-rate income tax on the super rich and innovative ideas that bring those such as migrants and asylum seekers being forced to work illegally into the tax system would raise new revenues to prevent the type of Tory cuts that would affect the poorest individuals struggling in the recession.

Rumours of Sheerman's challenge are a dead end for Labour

2009-09-14T11:10:00.005+01:00

Reports in The Guardian that Barry Sheerman MP is planning to stand as Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party shows the desperation of those MPs eager to change leader, but not the party's political direction, having failed to unseat Gordon Brown earlier in the year.

The change that is entirely necessary is the party's political direction and the manifesto it offers to the electorate when the General Election comes. Barry Sheerman, and his supporters such as Siobhan McDonagh, are entirely wedded to the New Labour project and are only interested in a change in personality at the head of the party - not any progressive shift in policy that will clearly demarcate Labour from the Thatcherite economic policies of Cameron and Osborne.

Despite being described in the article as a Brown loyalist, I can't think of anyone better to represent backbench - and party grassroots - opinion to Gordon Brown than the current chair Tony Lloyd. His opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the replacement of Trident, top-up fees and the introduction of trust schools, as well as chairing the Trade Union group of Labour MPs, marks him out as one of the more principled Labour MPs who nonetheless maintains a close working relationship with all wings of the party. His defeat of the Iraq-war cheerleader Ann Clwyd in 2006 demonstrated MPs recognition of the unpopularity not only of Blair's foreign military adventures, but of a whole host of neo-liberal policies.

Any leadership change now, particularly one that involves shuffling key supporters of New Labour will drag the party further down in the polls as it is shown to be directionless and interested only in personalities. Sheerman's desire to stand is not to represent grassroots opinion but a cynical second attempt to oust Brown without offering any programme of renewal for party or government.

Successful anti-fascist mobilisation in Harrow - but questions still to be answered

2009-09-12T14:53:00.009+01:00

I’m pleased to see John Denham’s comments on the English Defence League this morning. The Press Association reports him as saying, "If you look at the types of demonstrations they've organised... it looks pretty clear that it's a tactic designed to provoke and to get a response and hopefully create violence. You could go back to the 1930s if you wanted to - Cable Street and all of those types of things. The tactic of trying to provoke a response in the hope of causing wider violence and mayhem is long established on the far-right and among extremist groups."

Recent events show how the electoral successes of the BNP have emboldened the far-right’s violent core to return to the streets. The anti-Muslim mobilisations by the English Defence League in Luton and Birmingham on previous Saturday's have caused violence, and their latest demonstration increased the stakes in their attempts to demonise the Muslim commmunity, set to take place outside Harrow mosque, on a Friday night in Ramadan, on the anniversary of September 11th. It follows the BNP's strategy to make Muslims the focus of its racism, particularly following the 7/7 London bombings in 2005.

The calling of the demonstration seemed to have created real fear and tension amongst Harrow’s 35,000 strong Muslim community. The new mosque building was surrounded by tall wooden hoardings, as was the Costcutter next door and most shops on the high street. Plenty of residential homes had also had their windows boarded up. Aside from the area immediately next to the mosque, it had become something of a ghost-town as the EDL were expected to spark mayhem.

But in fact, whilst I was there, the far-right was nowhere to be seen. Apparently around 20 had been removed by police earlier in the day, but there was only one protest taking place – not the two opposing ones I had expected. Whilst the high street was devoid of life, immediately around the mosque was a large vibrant protest mainly by the local Muslim community and some anti-fascist protestors, milling around and talking good-naturedly. I arrived soon after 5pm, when the EDL and Stephen Gash’s 'Stop the Islamification of Europe' had publicised they would protest. Apparently some of them had arrived earlier in the day, if only 20, and had been led away by police to prevent them causing violence. In contrast to their tiny numbers there were perhaps over 1000 in place for the counter-protest, most of them young Muslims under the age of 30, both male and female, lining the hoardings around the mosque and spilling into the streets - occasionally clearing to let a bus through. Disappointingly, there was only little evidence of the left being there in support. Tony McNulty MP, Navin Shah AM and Steve Hart, the regional secretary of Unite, all addressed the crowd though.

But it wasn’t the violent demonstration much of the press has made out. On one occasion some of the crowd surged, according to Navin Shah at the arrival of three carloads of fascists, who were chased down the street. There was no evidence of any fighting though. That was when some initial conflict with the police occurred, some young people were pushed back and some threw missiles over the police. Nothing like a riot that the press have referred to, but evidence of the tension felt among the local community.

Much of the reporting has highlighted the fear caused by the EDL’s planned protest, but some of it has disgracefully played into it’s agenda. ITN’s bulletin, all 67 seconds of it, manages to assert that the EDL/SioE protest was intended to be peaceful until the anti-fascists turned up; suggests there was something sinister about young Muslims in “headscarves and hats” (I’m always scared of a person in a ‘hat’) and outrageously offers the Stephen Gash assertion without challenging it in anyway that building a mosque advances the cause of Sharia law in Britain; and also made rather too much of what lots of the press has called rioting. Certainly whilst I was there, the police shoving back a surge, or a few missiles being thrown – regrettable as it was – was nothing serious.

Having seen no sign of the fascists by 7pm, when their protest was due to finish, I had to head home but there were still hundreds of people on the streets. If there was further trouble after I had left one could say it wasn’t particularly clever of the police to effectively 'kettle' one end of the street, given the effects of that tactic earlier in the year. As I headed off toward Harrow & Wealdstone station, the police formed up across the street and started marching towards the protest, pushing people out of the way. When they stopped, and I asked if those wishing to disperse could go to the nearest station I was told protestors couldn’t use Harrow & Wealdstone which was about one minute down the road, and would have to walk the mile through the centre of town to Harrow-on-the-Hill. I’m sure that helped relations with those remaining.

Still, the result seems to have been a success in that the fascists were stopped from protesting. However regrettable, particularly when it appears in the media, too much attention has been given to reported violence, I have yet to hear anyone was actually injured or that any property was actually damaged. Given the tension the planned protest had caused, it was welcome to see such a strong mobilisation, though next time we need the left and other anti-racists offering their support. Rather than presenting the easy news story that three or four people threw a stick at the police, the media should seriously expose the far-right agenda, part of the BNP’s recent strategy, of demonising the Muslim community and should question why they are being given the oxygen to do it.

Will Britain compensate for the victims of collusion?

2009-09-09T00:25:00.001+01:00

After a number of days reporting on those killed in the north of Ireland by Libyan armaments, it is worth flagging up the Gerry Adams article today where he says he supports compensation for all victims, but opposes any hierarchy and calls on the British government to compensate the families of those killed and injured through the collusion of British state forces and Unionist paramilitaries.

Whilst the Labour government has accepted collusion took place over many years, it is regrettable that it has sought to explain it away as the act of rogue elements and that the limitations enforced by the Inquiries Act have effectively placed a barrier to any meaningful investigation into individual cases. Nonetheless, Labour should not let its successes in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement and St Andrews Agreement be undermined by Tory electoral opportunism on the question of Libya.

You can read the Adams article here and, if you want to take part in a quick campaigning action, use this tool to ask your MP to sign up to EDM 898 'Inquiry into death of Pat Finucane' - one such victim of collusion - an EDM tabled by my own MP Jeremy Corbyn.

As the recession makes Trident less popular, Labour should seize an opportunity

2009-09-08T22:59:00.001+01:00

A surprising news story in The Guardian tonight on prospects for nuclear disarmament. Des Browne is apparently to lead a new group of former ministers to rally support for nuclear disarmament ahead of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference next year. Surprising of course, because he was the Defence Secretary who guided the Trident replacement decision through the Commons. Browne is reported as saying "it is a limited window of opportunity ... it's a big opportunity for nuclear weapons states … to make a contribution to improving the confidence the rest of the world has in the non-proliferation treaty".

That confidence needs more than repeated statements of commitment to eventual disarmament at some point in the distant future, next year will be 40 years since the NPT came into force and the UK government is currently planning on a nuclear weapons system to last another 40 years. It is however welcome that the government recently announced it would delay the Initial Gate decision on Trident replacement. It had to really, since its proposal of formally making the decision during Summer recess was a recipe for more accusations of control freakery and fearing debate, but it was welcome that they extended the delay as far as they did, until after next year's NPT in early May. Browne's window of opportunity not only refers to awaiting potential new steps to be agreed in New York, but also the government being able to deliver them as a diplomatic success at the general election. And of course, regardless of Michael Ancram's involvement in the group, the election of a Cameron government will kick disarmament negotiations into the long grass.

Labour needs to consider what progress can be made now and how it can benefit from it. Even those who remain stuck in 1983 realise that they need to offer more than repeated statements of vague commitment to a goal of disarmament at some unidentified future date. What is stopping the government from drawing up an agreement with at least an aspirational timetable, with interim goals and a proposed end date, for achieving verifiable disarmament for all nuclear weapon states? It would be a significant turnaround, but is Des Browne, and more importantly Gordon Brown, willing to consider an early termination of the replacement programme - perhaps before even all the submarines have been built?

And in the recession the government have an added opportunity to make the case for disarmament. The government's White Paper said procuring the submarines alone would cost £15-20 billion and this was later described as a 'ball-park' figure when a senior civil servant was reminded the Astute submarines were running almost 50% over budget. As David Cameron today announced "with a Conservative government, public spending will be cut" and Alastair Darling warning of "tough decisions" to be taken, Labour should seriously consider cutting spending on nuclear weapons altogether.

Though only a snapshot, the poll in today's Independent confirms what others have done consistently over the past two years - shown that the majority of the public is now opposed to Trident, particularly when asked to choose between nuclear weapons and public goods such as health or education. It is not even just Labour or Lib Dem voters who are strongly opposed to Trident, by a narrow margin more Tories oppose it than support it. Whilst all parties agree on the need to cut the budget deficit, the government needs to draw a clear dividing line between itself and the Tories and rather than risking unpopular spending cuts elsewhere must be willing to slash taxes being allocated to Cold War weapons.

Vince Cable had the best line again when he confronted Cameron's latest public spending wheeze - his headline-grabbing but pointless plans to cut food subsidies in Parliament - when he said 'We are talking about Trident. He is talking about salads'.