|
|
« November 2006 |
Main
| January 2007 »
Xmas is the traditional time for glad tidings. Yet switch on the radio or TV, pick up a newspaper and it's the same old story: foul murders at home, mass killings abroad, health scares, the NHS in crisis, the latest government scandal, the Diana conspiracy theories continuing despite the Stevens report, melting glaciers etc. etc.. The easy response is to say it was ever thus. But most people I talk to these days agree that the news is particularly depressing. If there is one theme running through what is put before us it's (to reverse the title of that hit song from The Life of Brian) always look on the dark side of life.
Now there's no denying we live in turbulent times and that it's the job of the media to report on them, however stomach churning certain items might be. Unfortunately it doesn't stop at that. The bad news just seems to go on and on, with few glimmers of light relief in between. The right, of course, currently have a vested interest in presenting news in this way, As HG Wells put it: 'against every party in power sits another devoting itself to misrepresenting, thwarting, delaying and spoiling...what the governing body has to do in the hope of degrading affairs to such a pitch of futility as to provoke a change in government that would bring the opposition to power.'
Then there are those elements of the left that actually prefer being in opposition. Their mission in life is to rubbish any good news emanating from this New Labour government to demonstrate how right they have been in standing by their Old Labour beliefs, The 50 achievements of New Labour? Like Reg of The People's Front of Judah their response usually takes the form of " Grant you that, but what good has New Labour ever done for us?"
Finally, there are the media gloom-mongers who argue that it is mainly bad news that sells newspapers and pushes up radio and TV ratings. Accordingly the worst possible interpretation will be put on what Tony Blair and his Cabinet colleagues are saying or doing. Every difference of opinion is a rift that threatens the future of the government. Every minor Labour failing is a molehill that must be turned into a mountain. And for every more hopeful piece that survives the editorial cutting process you can be sure someone will be found to put the boot in.
Small wonder that this daily diet of negativity is breeding cynicism, despondency, and despair. Or that increasing numbers are turning from what they see as the misery of politics to more jolly, escapist pursuits that keep the pain at bay. To be sure we have to be aware of the bad news to do something about it. But too much immersion in what is going wrong tends to be corrosive to the spirit.
In contrast, there is a newspaper, Positive News, which, as its name implies is devoted exclusively to tiding of comfort, if not joy. Stories covered in recent issues include "Sweden Says Yes to No Oil", "Al Gore - One Man on a Mission", "Giving Economic Power to the Poor". As such it provides a tiny beacon of hope in the darkness that envelops us. However, good news can be a little bland and dwelling on it all the time can be as counter-productive as overemphasising the bad news. It's no coincidence that this approach to the news is usually found in totalitarian regimes. A "Candide" mentality is not really conducive to progressive change.
No, a balance has to be struck between the bad news and the good news such that the morale-sapping effect of the former can be offset by the spur to action induced by the latter. This might be done by compelling all news media outlets to devote at least a third of their coverage to uplifting stories. Too fanciful? Then how about Labour supporters doing a bit more to spread the good news about what this government is doing. Or is that being even more fanciful?
What should we make of those Christmas bonuses our banker friends are getting? I think the majority of people go through a series of stages that starts with a mix of repulsion and envy. How can one person possibly get a six figure amount as an edition to their already inflated salary? Isn't that just capitalism gone mad, a sign of our immense greed?
Looking at the national wage and then comparing it to these Goldman goldmines, you get a case of the Polly Toynbees - can this be fair? Then, most people's outrage turns into a sort of lottery day dream - what would I do with £300,000 or £3 million? Buy a nice house, a couple of nice houses? A yacht? Plow money into a charity, into your family, into a business. What a life transforming amount of money - and what do we see in our tabloid papers? Those bankers spending it on stupid cocktails, stupid cars and ludicrous gems. Then we take a few minutes more to think - are these bonuses justified in anyway? Do these super bankers that get rewarded in this way generate so much money for the City, for the country that we shouldn't critisise? If we capped their bonuses would they move out of the UK and take their investment with them? Should Government interfere in this way? What are people's views on this?
I would be interested to know as every year it gets me thinking, always ending up with the reality that at least I don't have that particular worry of how to spend a few million....
There I was, watching yesterday's Newsnight trial of Tony Blair for being interviewed by the police and dropping the Saudi Arabia fraud case when Kirsty Wark suddenly morphed into the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland screaming "off with his head". I must have been dreaming. Or was I?
Last Wednesday was the first anniversary of David Cameron's election as
Tory leader. And, as if to celebrate (!), Progress held a seminar on
the meaning of this fresh-faced occasional cycling enthusiast. Stephen
Twigg was joined by Tony Giddens, Deborah Mattinson, Ed Miliband and
Mary Ann Sieghart, and around 100 others, with almost as many competing
views.
These ranged from 'good PR but wanting on policies and values'
(Miliband, Giddens) to 'this guy is a serious threat to Labour who can
only improve from here' (Sieghart). Although a few members of the
audience still apparently subscribed to the 'flash in the pan toff of
no substance' view of Dave, this view appears to be far less prevalent
among Labour folk than even a few short months ago.
That is anecdotal, of course. But it was Sieghart who set the tone with
what felt like a salutary review of Cameron's remarkable progress in
rehabilitating the Conservative brand. He had shed the 'nasty party',
racist, homophobic image, succeeded in a large increase in the
proportion of women Tory candidates and led on the environment. All
this, and 67% of Tory members were happy with the job he was doing as
leader. Whatever the rumblings from the hard right, 'where else do
they have to go?' - the classic triangulatory maxim.
Most present agreed that there was at least some truth in this. The
main bones of contention are, unsurprisingly, about the future: has the
rebranding succeeded when it comes to people casting their votes? Is it
but the first step in a master plan that will soon be heavy with
popular policies and more convincing poll leads? Or are Dave's poll
ratings increasingly disappointing and his positions lacking an
underpinning set of values?
The latter two points were argued by Deborah Mattinson and Tony Giddens
respectively, and both did so with reference to New Labour. Cameron's
approval ratings were, according to Mattinson, significantly tailing
off compared to Blair's at the same stage of his leadership. The
typical Tory poll lead, of 3-5%, was 'not good enough' for an
opposition party hoping for an overall majority. Neil Kinnock - before
his '92 election defeat - had reported leads of up to 24%.
Giddens was in agreement with Ed Miliband that Cameron lacked any real
philosophical underpinning. Although he was widely seen as borrowing
heavily from the New Labour rulebook, Cameron betrayed 'a serious
misunderstanding of the history of New Labour', said Giddens. New
Labour was always policy heavy and 'always had an analysis of change in
the world.' And Miliband described Cameron's philosophy as unchanged
from the Old, unpopular Tory one: 'fundamental suspicion of the state.'
A closing thought, though. Is Cameron the apotheosis of post-modernism
in politics? Of triangulation, marketing, but most importantly of the
unpopularity of politicians and apathy to the political process? Will a
party ever again command even 45% of the popular vote on a high
turnout? Can any leader inspire quite the hope that Blair did in 1997?
Is Cameron doing just about as well as can be expected given that
the British political 'brand' is so tarnished? In this sense, at least,
I hope not.
I don't suppose there are many Labour activists who tune into Strictly Come Dancing on a Saturday evening. They should, for all sorts of good, political reasons.
First, it's a nice example of people being happy, which, according to the economist Richard Layard, is something that should now be centre stage in Labour's political thinking. Although Layard generally decries the telly viewing habit I'm sure he would make an exception in this case. Here we have terpsichorean novices from different parts of the celebrity world, learning a new ballroom or latin dance with a professional partner every week and then performing it in a knock-out competition which this week reaches its final stages. The tyros have to endure much toil and trouble during the week to hone their newly acquired skills. But by the Saturday they invariably come up trumps, surpassing their and our expectations with a dazzling foxtrot or samba that looks like a joy to do and is certainly a joy to watch. Helping ordinary people to do the same could well do more to improve their health and well-being than any other single measure ( apart, of course, from giving them more time to undertake this kind of activity). In this respect it is encouraging to note that the government intends to promote dancing lessons in the schools and on the NHS, as a means of combatting obesity. Who knows, the feel-good factor generated by this boost to dancing could even swing a tight election.
The second political reason for watching Strictly Come Dancing is that it's a salutary experience for us serious-minded folk to indulge in popular passions from time to time - if only to keep our feet on the ground. The show has 10 million viewers and dance is the fastest growing pass-time, with more than 13 per cent of the population attending dance performances and more than 4.8 million people involved in some form of community dancing. Moreover a recent survey revealed that dance was second only to football as a favourite group activity for 14 year olds.
Third, the show leaves one with an enormous sense of what people are capable of given the right support. It should therefore act as a spur to everyone engaged in the social democratic project which, after all, is essentially about helping everyone to achieve their full potential.
Finally, Strictly Come Dancing should be watched by Labour activists for the judging. As is typical for these competitions there is a Mr Nasty (Judge Craig) and a Mr Nice (Judge Len). Judge Craig (otherwise known as Judge Dredd) is for ever dwelling on the faults and tends to mark low.No weakness is left unnoticed. No punch is pulled in pointing them out to the contestants. The atmosphere created is one of gloom and despondency. Those at the receiving end scowl and become very defensive. They admit afterwards that they have lost confidence as a result.
Judge Len, on the other hand, emphasises what the contestants have done right. He takes full account of the difficulties they have been up against, offers friendly advice on how their performances can be improved and generally marks up. If he has any criticisms these are usually preceded by some words of praise. Credit is given where credit is due. The contestants perk up, respond with a smile on their faces obviously happy to take Judge Len's advice and go away determined to do better next time. Judge Len brings out the best in them.
There are obvious parallels here for those on the left who are trying to influence government policy. You can either do it in a Judge Dredd sort of way or you can do it in a Judge Len sort of way. I know which method I favour. How about you?
History has demonstrated exactly how important the female vote is in British politics. Since the Second World War the right has only ever won with a lead in the female vote. In 1997 this changed, and under Blair, the women's vote helped Labour win. However Labour's female support has dwindled since they came to power. In the 2005 election men and women voted identically and by this summer the Guardian/ICM poll detected a women's defection from Labour and a growing anti-Labour gender gap, this emerged clearly in June when the Tories were 1% behind among men but 8% ahead among women. Polls taken last month put the Tories and Labour on level pegging among men (34%) but Cameron leads 34% to Labour's 31% among women. The poles are demonstrating that Cameron's current lead is based on the women's vote and that Labour must re-engage its female supporters if they are to stay for a third term.
This apparent loss in faith has happened under Blair, once considered the magician of the female vote. And looking forward to the next three or four years the gender gap appears even more pronounced. Last month's Populus poll asked how people would vote in three or four years, presuming the Tories would be led by Cameron and Labour by Brown. The Tories lead has narrowed from 42 to 34 per cent against a Brown-led Labour party in October from 38 to 34 per cent now. Men favour Labour under Brown 37 to 34 per cent over Cameron leading the Tories but women prefer the Tories by 42 to 30 per cent.
The Tories current hold on the female vote has widely been credited to Cameron's ability to woo the female vote through softly-softly policy and charm. However a poll published by the Fawcett Society last week showed that while Cameron may be perceived to have personality among the male vote, on issues such as "sound judgement" and the problems that might face "a capable leader' Brown beats Cameron on the female vote. It would seem that women are far more cynical when it comes politics than the simple 'personality' argument allows them credit for.
So while Labour may not need to panic it does need to address its loss of female support. How does Labour win back the women's vote? The deputy leadership seems to be the place where this may happen. Arguably Harriet Harman is the candidate most likely to increase Labour's vote at the general election. A survey commissioned from YouGov found that 15% of voters would be more inclined to vote Labour if Harriet Harman succeeded John Prescott; Hilary Benn was the second favourite among voters with 12%.
Polly Toynbee advocates the need for strong female visibility in the Labour Party if female voters are to be re-engaged. In 1982 Labour had only 10 women MPs to 13 Tory women, today Labour has 97 whereas the Tories have only achieved 4 more. However she argues that the Labour party has not done enough to make their female MPs visible. Added to this the Conservatives women2win project that appears to be setting up female candidates on Cameron's "A-list" and into winnable seats. It would appear that come the general election the Tories would have far stronger female voices on their front line than ever before.
In America female political representation has reached new highs as Nancy Pelosi has taken over as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hillary Clinton is doing better than ever, there is an increased number of women in both houses and as state governors. The Democrats won the women's vote overwhelmingly: 55% voted Democrat as opposed to 43% voting Republican. Over here it would appear that Harman may be the solution to regaining the women's vote: she is a high-profile woman campaigner who is determined to make a difference. Considering the YouGov results, it would appear that if Labour present a Brown-Harman duo that the female vote can be won back. Will women vote for a strong female voice just because it is female? Or because of the feminist undertones? But is a female deputy leader really what is called for? Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Hillary Clinton campaigned on the feminist ticket.
Perhaps it is not Cameron's charm that is winning over the female voters but his seemingly patient, empathetic and steady approach to policy, perhaps it is his call to emotional intelligence. It is very easy to look back on Labour's record, that although based on earnest aims, has not gone far enough, such as making extended schools work for all or addressing the issues surrounding maternity leave. If Labour is to win back their female support then perhaps it does not just require more visible female representation or more "female friendly" figureheads. Perhaps the general election will not be won by politics based on the feminine touch or the feminist cause. Instead Labour must not only formulate but also implement policy that makes the female voters feel as if the concerns that matter to them also matter to their party. Labour must go to further to extend the good work they have started and also address new issues that politics has previously shied away from.
Yesterday’s Pre Budget Report was not just about Gordon preparing for a role in Number 10 but about Labour delivering on its manifesto and for the people we are here to represent. The £2000 grant to help care leavers to enter higher education and change the 1% chance they will get there is great, but more important to me is the extension of Child Benefit to Pregnant Women after 29 weeks.
This policy will make women £200 better off by the time they have given birth. This will go some way to meeting the ambitious agenda of halving child poverty by 2010 meaning that children will be less likely to be born into a family in poverty helping to get the best start in life, ensuring mothers can afford to feed themselves properly during pregnancy and helping to provide the myriad new things a baby needs to have waiting for them.
Labour Students have been calling for this in their most recent campaign that had an EDM on the issue put down. The fact that students and young people within the party were able to champion an issue core to our beliefs and win on it should be applauded. It shows that their hard work is being heeded, not only in the constituencies but in the policy making process too. Their campaign to reduce VAT on Condoms of last year was also a great success.
This must lead us to ask, what is their next big idea…?
Who says public meetings are dead? There was a time when it was widely proclaimed that the idiot box had killed the willingness of bums to get on seats in dusty halls in their spare time. I’ve been to two in the last week that seem to suggest people can’t get enough of the cut and thrust of debate.
On Tuesday Baroness Uddin sponsored a “Beyond the Veil” meeting at the House of Commons addressing the situation of ethnic minority and implicitly Muslim women in the political process. Hazel Blears made some opening remarks and left. Jacqui Smith stayed longer but also had to go off and do stuff. I hesitate to proclaim that the lunatics then took over the asylum but it seemed pretty cool that a bunch of vociferous BME wimmin were left to air our views in the opulent splendour of a parliamentary committee room which normally houses blokes of middle age, middle England etc etc. The discussion at times felt a little circular with lots of complaints. One person had come down from Huddersfield and penned an action plan on the train with outcomes and deliverables for getting Muslim women into Parliament. It all reminded me of the old Women’s Lib maxim “a Woman’s Place is in the house… of Commons” mixed with a dash of New Labour fondness for targets. Of the two men present Lord Ahmed left before the end and the other; Mohamed Khalil, who stood in the last general election in Aylesbury neighbouring seat to where I was on the ballot paper, got a bit of a rough time largely for being a bloke as far as I can see. One of the common suggestions was for expenses to be provided so that sisters from further afield can attend future re-runs. What with the current Labour party cash crisis I can’t see it happening.
Even though we're all meant to be on the same (Labour) side, more confrontational in some ways was the Charles Clarke vs. John McDonnell punch-up at Queen Mary College organised by Tower Hamlets Labour Party on Thursday as part of its week of action. MP and London minister Jim Fitzpatrick was also on the platform with ex-MP Oona King chairing. McDonnell actually spoke very well on inequality. It was largely a negative picture he painted but in response to the statistics trotted out by Clarke on how many times the man who would PM had rebelled McDonnell pointed out that Michael Foot and the young Neil Kinnock had been rebels who became leader. But they never became PM either is what he didn’t stress. When asked to name their Labour movement heroes, McDonnell plumped for Atlee and the rather brusque devil-may-care Clarke picked Kinnock - fittingly given that Kinnock mk2 was in some ways his Frankenstein-like creation.
Meanwhile Fitzpatrick selected Keir Hardie on the grounds that he was “a Scot who came to east London”. What is it with this trajectory? The north-of-the-border accent of Sir Robin Wales, Newham’s elected mayor, betrays the fact that he was hardly born within the sound of Bow Bells and George Galloway probably didn’t even know where Bethnal Green was before his Glasgow seat boundary was re-drawn. As she has done at past Progress events Oona King proved to be a fine ringmaster - a future in TV hosting beckons possibly? As with her one-time adversary’s gig two days earlier in the Commons, the room had to be vacated due to booking time constraints with the crowd baying for more.
Forget the telly, which already looks dangerously passé in these multimedia times. If you’re in need of something to do in these long nights, public meetings are where it’s at. Go seek one now.
Over the next few months there wll be huge hue and cry on the left about whether we should maintain our nuclear deterrent. Old CND placards will be dusted down from the attic,the Guardian's pages will be overflowing with vitriolic pieces lambasting the government for this crime against humanity, peace-lovers will be calling for the blood of Tony Blair (again!), ranters will be raging on websites, sanctimonious sermons will be delivered from pulpits, all culminating in the hyped-up drama of the paliamentary debate and the obligatory speculation that the Tories might find some excuse to combine with rebel Labour MP's to bring down the government on this issue.
It will be the 1950's all over again with much tearful talk about how those dreadful weapons have no place in a civilised society and how Britain can give a moral lead to the rest of the world by giving them up.
What will be disregarded or played down in the debate, of course, will be the little matter of a manifesto commitment. Not just one of those a tiny, tucked away commitments like doing more to make our playgrounds safe but a commitment relating to one of our chief concerns, the defence of the realm. Like it or not, on page 88 of the little Red Book it is clearly stated that "we are also commited to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent." So our response to it at this point in the parliamentary cycle is not just a matter of being for or against, or of being left or right. It is about the very nature of our democratic process, in particular the expectation that political parties will stand by their core promises to the electorate if they win power.
To renege on a manfesto commitment of this importance would represent such a breach of the electoral compact with the British people that it could be decades before Labour was entrusted with office again. In these circumstances Labour has no alternative but to proceed with replacing Trident.
To those on the left who disagree with this proposition I would ask one, simple question. What would be their reaction if Labour had been elected on a manifesto commitment to renounce nuclear weapons and then continued with them once in power?
The harsh and obvious truth is that as a party we under-polled our full support in 2005. If we are to win a fourth term in 2009 then we will need to mobilise and motivate every single Labour party member and supporter and this will undoubtedly place a huge imperative on internal party reform. Why? Because local campaigns and local candidates matter. A detailed, seat-by-seat analysis of the 2005 election result shows just how much local campaigns made a difference. For example in seats where MPs were being replaced by new candidates the overall performance of the defending party was demonstrably and significantly worse than average - I should know, I was a Labour PPC in such a seat (Shrewsbury). So just as important as Labour renewing its electoral coalition is the issue of how we renew and rebuild the party itself.
But, as Liam Byrne has pointed out (Fabian pamphlet - Why Labour Won: Lessons from 2005), we must also accept the truth that we will never communicate the full measure of our radical, progressive ambition – epitomised by our commitment to end child poverty in a generation – through a media distorted by cynicism, and twisted in its search for bad news. Just as, nationally, Labour must hold the radical centre, so must local parties become centres of radicalism in their communities, at once becoming the first port of call for those who are ambitious to change where they live, and a network through which we engage progressives in every corner of these islands in our national – and international – campaign for social justice.
In his pamphlet Byrne argues - and I totally agree - that this adds up to a clear message; a sharp swing to the left won’t take us back to the glory days of 1997. Nor will binning the reform manifesto on which we’ve just stood and won. But it’s equally true that we didn’t poll our full support. Radical party reform is vital if we want to mobilise every single Labour sympathiser in 2009.
Maybe treading water is the right metaphor. Possibly something about running around in circles, going off half-cocked, scoring an own goal, being on the ropes or canoeing up a less than pollution-free creek without a paddle. Whichever you think most appropriate for describing the challenges facing London’s plans for the 2012 Olympics, surely we need a timeout and change of gameplan before we are forced to throw in the towel.
It should give no one any pleasure that this is so. Cries of “I-told-you-so” get us nowhere. But nor do accusations of joy-killing. While the descent from cream-suited euphoria in July 2005 to rose-tinted explanations of overspend and delay last week was wholly predictable, there should not be any embarrassment that London has fallen victim to the economic and logistical problems of hosting an Olympics. Structurally, the system for determining the hosts and creating the necessary infrastructure concentrates too much pressure on governments, cities and organisations unable to absorb it.
It was not until 1984 and the 23rd Olympiad (actually only the 20th, but still), in Los Angeles, that the games made money for the first time. China’s budget for 2008 is soaring past the original $23 billion estimate. Montreal’s taxpayers are still forking out for 1976. Athenians have the EU to thank for subbing them two years ago. $32 million per year of public money is still required for the upkeep of Sydney’s Olympic venues. Atlanta basically ended up as the Coca-Cola Games to take the sting out of the costs. But still had to have a billion dollar bail-out.
Add to this overarching reality our functional inability to deliver on such projects and you have a situation that requires a totally new approach. And not just to London 2012. A successful fortnight of sporting spectacle and a transformed East London will be a proud achievement. But a more significant Olympic legacy could be the reform of the organisation, economy and politics of the Games itself.
First, we need to challenge the convention of having a single city and its surrounding area as host. Joint hosting, making use of several locations, works for the world’s second and third largest sporting events (the football World Cup and European Championships). Why not the largest? In fact, in an age of 24-hour broadcasting, the internet and fast and cheap inter-continental travel, why do the Olympics even have to take place within the same time-zone, let alone the same postcode?
What if, for 2016, instead of single cities bidding for the whole Olympics, potential hosts (be they cities, regions or countries) bid for one of the 28 Olympic sports and the dozen or so events each comprises. Let’s say that no country will “get” more than five sports. Then whichever nation tops the medal table gets to choose the four sports it wants to host in 2020. Second place chooses the next four and so on up to seventh. But one of the sports that the seven top nations choose has to be jointly hosted with a nation that came in the bottom seven. And it has to be on that second country’s soil.
If this had been the case after Athens 2004, then economies with a combined per capita GDP of $182,000 would now be building new infrastructure and encouraging tourism to those with a combined per capita GDP of $39,000. Admittedly, there’s more than the fair share of political and security obstacles to that scenario (USA and Syria getting together on a velodrome project is probably a little premature). But the basic point remains. The Olympics could be a vehicle for building international relations and spreading a bit of global wealth rather than the strangely divisive, money vacuum it has become.
As the next hosts (Beijing’s already a write-off), we should take the first steps towards changing the Olympic paradigm for good and for the better. Let’s go back to the IOC and to (gulp as pride is swallowed and nearly choked upon) France, as host runners-up, and suggest that 2012 becomes a joint Anglo-French affair, sharing the glory but also the costs and the organisation. And with our two nation’s poorest regions or cities included in the reconfigured bids.
After it is all over, the UK can then lead the expansion of this new model for the Games into a multi-hosted, worldwide event that leaves in its wake more than some unused buildings and a slightly heightened interest in archery.
|
|
