|
|
« October 2007 |
Main
| December 2007 »
Hazel Blears’ famed sunny optimism was sorely needed on a pretty gloomy day for Labour, and she didn’t disappoint with her contributions to a useful and timely debate on Labour in local government. With a few notable exceptions Labour’s performance in winning councils has been poor in the last few years, and the discussion aimed to examine what can be done to address this decline.
Gerry Stoker emphasised how central government needs to devolve more power to local government to demonstrate clearly Labour’s commitment to localism. By running locally-focused campaigns local Labour parties can demonstrate their relevance and independence to their communities.
Theo Blackwell also wanted the central party leadership to give local Labour groups more slack to innovate – giving the example of how Camden’s Labour Council had wanted to experiment with banning plastic bags several years before the current wave of local bans began, but were not given the freedom to get on and give it a go. Local experimentation can be the best way to develop and test experimental new policies.
Stella Creasy believed that articulating a clear local narrative can overcome national concerns. She gave the example of How Iain Duncan Smith has managed to paint himself as the ‘defender’ of her local hospital, despite everything Labour has done to invest in and reform the NHS. Labour activists have to show they are an effective agent for social change, and that Labour’s philosophy of working together is the best method for achieving social change.
Hazel responded to the other members of the panel by agreeing that it is vital to increase the solidity of Labour’s local government base, and its power to make decisions; both because experience on the ground shows that Tories and Lib Dems slash services for vulnerable people, and because having a strong local party is crucial for sitting Labour MPs’ campaigning work. She restated her view that most people join the Labour Party to ‘do’ something, not just go to meetings; and we have to change the way we organise to address this. Labour members have to have a strong presence in civil society and voluntary sector. Finally, we need to reinvigorate our political confidence; show passion, zeal and insurgency; and resist the temptation to become professionalised technocrats, talking in a language people don’t relate to.
Some comments from the floor complained about a lack of support for local Labour groups from the central Party, whilst recognising the severe strain on resources. There was discussion about whether local elections are dominated by national polling trends, with a majority believing effective local campaigns could buck these trends. The importance of selecting candidates early in the election cycle was stressed by many, as was the huge pressures on time and finances that being a councillor entails. Stella picked up on this, arguing that the expectations the Labour Party has of councillors and members are appallingly offputting to most people. She wants to see greater professionalisation of councillors, to recognise the massive amount of work involved. It is not acceptable to expect people to give up their social life, as one councillor in the room admitted he has done. It will be interesting to see what Jane Roberts – who chaired the debate and listened intently to contributions throughout – recommends on Friday in her report into barriers and incentives to people becoming councillors.
“If people think they are going to get their pay cheque and they are going to keep their position irrespective of how good a service they deliver, irrespective of whether they adjust to change or not well you know human nature being what it is they sit back.”
So argued our former PM in the recent documentary The Blair Years. Tony is still clearly frustrated at the resistance of public sector workers to his much-vaunted programme of ‘modernisation’. Yet his remarks show a remarkable lack of self-awareness about his own former conditions of employment as a Member of Parliament. Let’s face it, if you happen to be in a job like Labour MP for Sedgefield (to pick an example purely at random!) it is fairly safe to assume that you will not suddenly find your employment terminated unexpectedly. Since they are largely immune from having their pay cheques withdrawn, it would seem to follow, MPs representing relatively safe seats will have a tendency to sit back rather than deliver a high quality service.
By contrast, we are continually told that today’s citizen is a savvy consumer, expecting to ‘shop around’ and pick the best deal from all the available options. So a business with sacks of correspondence in need of delivery will no longer be reliant on the Royal Mail as the only player in town. Similarly, patients will no longer be encouraged to look automatically towards the local district general hospital for their treatment, but rather compare a range of potential options. The cut and thrust of competition, so the argument runs, is necessary to deliver real choice and, ultimately, better services. It is notable, however, that one ‘service’ has been strangely immune from this logic of modernization, is that of parliamentary representation. New Labour MPs have been rather more keen on introducing competition for other public servants, than on modernizing their own working practices by reforming the system by which they are elected.
For it is an inevitable feature of the voting system used to elect our MPs, based on single-member constituencies, that a lone service provider is granted an absolute monopoly on undertaking parliamentary casework on behalf of his or her constituents. If, from an individual voters’ perspective, your MP is under-performing, unable to deliver on your requirements, or otherwise ill-suited to the task, you are simply stuck with what you’ve got at least until the next election and very possibly beyond. No ‘shopping around’ or sizing up the best provider allowed here. And yet, when it comes to the method of their own election, our members of parliament seem to have pre-determined that any possible reform should begin from the premise that this monopoly remains unchallenged! Why should the service given by MP’s to their constituents remain immune from the logic of reform which is restructuring the way all our other public services are delivered.
This does not mean calling into doubt the daunting amount of casework carried out by the vast majority of MPs, who conscientiously endeavour to represent all of their constituents to the best of their abilities. But if the rest of the public sector must accept a more challenging working environment, why should we not ask the same of our members of parliament? For here, too, increased competition could deliver a level of service more responsive to the needs of the individual service user. If the aim of modernisation is to guarantee that services are oriented around the needs of the service user then surely we should be asking whether introducing choice between parliamentary representatives in each constituency might advance the both the range and quality of choices on offer to the elector?
Join us tomorrow in Westminster for our event on Labour in local government.
Local election results for the party over the past couple of years have been fairly lamentable, with our share of the vote below 30% in both 2006 and 2007.
The worry is that losses in council seats will have a knock-on effect in a general election. Without foot-soldiers and infrastructure in whole regions such as the South East, Labour MPs and PPCs will surely be at a disadvantage when seeking election in these electorally crucial areas.
Perhaps the question is a more general one, however. Turnout is generally extremely low in local elections. One way to encourage people to vote and become involved in local politics might be to give local government more powers. And this means reforming local government finance, and allowing councils to raise - and spend - more of their own money.
Advocates of 'localism' and devolution have been saying this for years, of course. David Cameron's recent proposal - of local referenda on council tax increases - came nowhere close to really addressing these issues, as Chris Leslie, Director of the New Local Government Network and Progress Vice Chair pointed out on the Progress site last week.
Have your say tomorrow evening in Committee Room 9 of the House of Commons, 1800-1930. Speaking will be the local government secretary, Hazel Blears and Gerry Stoker, founder of NLGN, amongst others.
To register, please send your name and email address to mark@progressives.org.uk or call 0203 008 8180
The Oxford Union has voted to go ahead with the invite to the British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier David Irving to speak at a free speech event at the Union on Monday November 26th. Despite opposition, the Oxford Union Debating Society members voted by a margin of 2 to 1 to continue to extend the invite made some weeks ago.
As I stated earlier in the week, debating with the likes of Griffin and Irving may well prove intellectually stimulating for some members of the Oxford Union but the realpolitik is that the BNP is very keen to be seen as moving into the mainstream of British politics, an invite from the Oxford Union may well help the BNP in achieving this ambition.
The racist, bigoted politics of hatred expounded by the BNP will, as a result of the Oxford Union's invite, help the likes of Griffin secure some short term political credibility. In the minds of some the invitation will signify that the views of the far right are gaining in respectability.
When political parties find themselves in an embarrassing mess, blame is usually pinned on a ‘junior’ person within their own ranks.
Over the summer the Tories issued an apology to an NHS Trust after claiming it was part of planned cuts, only to then say it had been sent in error by a ‘junior researcher’. When Chris Huhne’s Lib Dem leadership team issued a leaflet with the catchy title ‘Calamity Clegg’, Huhne reacted in horror, saying it had been the handiwork of ‘an over-zealous young researcher’ (but taking responsibility of course). And then most recently – and most seriously - the government says the loss of data HM Revenue and Customs can be traced back to the incompetence of ‘a junior official’.
The suggestion seems to be that these so-called ‘junior’ officials are permitted to an extraordinary amount while escaping the radar of their boss (or boss’ boss…depending on how junior they are): issuing apologies on behalf of their party, write pamphlets and handle extremely sensitive material.
Either the politicians are showing bad judgement by allowing such inexperienced people such levels of responsibility. Or, as is more likely, the people blamed for the gaffes might not be as junior as their masters make them out to be once the crisis has hit. Saying an error was caused by a ‘senior official’ places it uncomfortably close to whoever’s in charge; blaming a ‘junior’ official distances them from the incident, implying that they were much too busy and important to know what a mere underling was up to.
Declaring that ‘I take full responsibility’ but then throwing in the ‘it was an inexperienced junior researcher’ just looks ridiculous. Maybe politicians of all parties need to ‘get a grip’.
Sorry to disagree with our esteemed Director but I do not think that enhancing equality and freedom is a sufficient over-arching vision for a progressive party in the 21st century (see Robert Philpot's article in the current issue of Progress magazine). Nor do I believe that ministerial references to allowing everyone to achieve their full potential are adequate as "the vision thing". Nor is it just the ecology,stupid as my fellow blogger, Melanie Smallman, has recently suggested. All these may be sub-components of what we should be aiming for. But outside a larger framework they could be a digression from what is really needed to set us on the right path.
Without a fundamental change in the way we live, more freedom and equality can simply mean giving everyone an equal chance to over-indulge themselves, which is the main driver of global warming and social breakdown. Likewise the goal of everyone achieving their potential in our society as it stands could just mean giving everyone an equal chance to take part in a rat-race to the top where the main consequences are time-poverty, stress, broken relationships and a sense of failure for the vast majority who do not make it. And an emphasis on ecological considerations per se could leave us feeling guilty and depressed.
Even as a vote-winning strategy the promise of striving for these seemingly worthy objectives can have its downside. More equality can be seen as a threat to those on higher incomes. more freedom as a threat to our safety, and more greenery as a constraint on our standard of living (as the Daily Mail will no doubt be quick to point out to its readers).
No, if there is to be an all-encompassing vision that captures the public imagination it has to relate not to the simple, material-based imperatives of former times but to the more subtle imperatives of the current century. In advanced countries like the UK these revolve around the need for psychological, social, and environmentmental well-being rather than the need to acquire more and more possessions. It is this all-round improvement in the quality of our lives that is the vision we and the world are crying out for. As the Australian eco-campaigner, Clive Hamilton, put it in a recent lecture in London "we need to live richer lives instead of lives of riches".
To achieve this kinder, gentler, more fulfilling kind of society a complete change in our culture is required. The one we have now is essentially a "market" culture which is geared to bringing out the worst in human nature - one-upmanship, selfishness, laziness, gluttony, envy and greed - rather than the best. As such too much time is spent on working, shopping, binging and watching junk television (all of which can be damaging to ourselves and the planet) and too little on things that really matter, like peace of mind, nurturing relationships, meeting our family, community, and environmental obligations and participating in active and creative pursuits.
A truly progressive government can counter the insidious pressures of the market place by such measures as reducing working time, promoting a more discriminating form of consumption (covering the amount as well as the nature of what we are buying), introducing emotional intelligence and relationship and character training into the school curriculum and by encouraging "feel-good" communal activities.
Unless we switch from a culture of competitive excess to a culture of cooperative sufficiency based on personal and planetary well-being everything else we do to try to improve the human condition is spitting in the wind.
Progress's event tomorrow on prison reform follows some high-profile interventions on the subject in the past few days.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, spoke out against prison overcrowding in a speech to the Howard League last Friday.
And yesterday's Observer carried two stories on prisons. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's speech today makes a similar point to Lord Phillips', linking overcrowding with the level of prison suicides. There have already been more this year than in the whole of 2006.
The paper also featured details of a leaked Ministry of Justice memo, warning of cuts in the number of prison officers.
Prison reform has been off limits for New Labour since 1997, in the face of a hostile tabloid press and the memories of four election defeats - where Labour was hammered for being 'soft on crime' - still fresh. But is momentum finally beginning to build behind the idea?
Speaking at tomorrow's event will be:
Baroness Jean Corston
Author of The Corston Report: A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system
Bobby Cummines
Director, Unlock - The National Association of Reformed Offenders
David Lammy MP,
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities & Skills (with responsibility for offender learning)
Ben Leapman,
Home Affairs Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph
Lucie Russell,
Director, SmartJustice
Fiona Mactaggart MP (chair)
Join us tomorrow in the Wilson Room, Portcullils House, between 6 and 7.30pm. To register, please send your name and email address to mark@progressives.org.uk, or call 0203 008 8180.
It all started somewhat casually. An old comrade, Harry Barnes became an MP in 1987 and I became his researcher. I thought it would be a temporary job but has just turned into 20 years – you get less for
murder! But it's been an exhilarating time in the corridors of power, well, the adjacent ones. Ten years in opposition and ten in office. Five Labour Leaders. Five military interventions. The painful process of revisionism as history reshaped socialist visions. Household names coming and going.
The first big issue was the poll tax. We tried to persuade the party to lead the campaign. Despite David Blunkett and Robin Cook's help, the field was largely surrendered to hard-left groups. Popular anger put the skids under Thatcher but we missed a chance to renew the movement rather than just boost the "generals of gesture.
I then became involved in Northern Ireland. Many then thought that the Irish Question started and finished with unification. Parts of the British left were more fiercely nationalist than the Irish left. We opposed kneecapping. But the rot on the left was very deep. A senior left-winger told me that "the Army – he meant the Provos – had to deal with informers in wartime. We organised the Peace Train visit to London where Irish parliamentarians and IRA victims were picketed by Troops Out supporters. Those who accepted bullets in other people's knees shot themselves in the foot. Their day had come, and gone.
As the peace process began in the 90s, it was dangerous to allow republicans to think the best and loyalist extremists to think the worst from Labour. This undermined bipartisan support for John Major'sthen fledgling peace process. I proposed that Labour should be neutral on the border issue and focus on power-sharing with a Bill of Rights and improving north-south relations instead of unity by coercion.
But unionists also needed bringing in from the cold. I organised a conference fringe with the new unionist leader David Trimble. Bringing unionists into dialogue is now seen as a vital precursor to the Belfast Agreement. Political inertia must always be challenged or dangerous delusions linger. Apparently powerful networks and ideas are often weaker than apparent and can be overcome with political and organisational coherence.
After Ireland came Iraq. I helped form Labour Friends of Iraq to unite those who differed on the invasion but who supported the non-sectarian Iraqi labour movement which has soared from virtually nil to many hundreds of thousands, including myself and Harry Barnes as honorary members.
We have had some success but many are still sitting on their hands and make America the prime enemy at the expense of universal human rights and of socialists, feminists and reformers in the Middle East. They cannot see further than the end of Bush's nose.
Iraq seems intractable and Iraqi forces building a democratic and federal polity could fail. With or without foreign troops, the labour movement should be supporting non-sectarian forces like the trade
unions. It's tragic that many left-wingers talk about Iraq but don't engage with Iraqis and, for instance, ignore the success of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq.
We have witnessed the death of two key political factors: distance and deference. Thanks to the Internet, we know much more. And there's less respect for authority. An informed population that can influence policy-makers is a bonus. The downside is an often half-assed and belligerent political dialogue.
But we have done what seemed impossible twenty years ago. Then, a minimum wage, peace in Northern Ireland, the regeneration of the north and substantial redistribution and much more were utopian. There's still everything to play for.
The author is Chief of Staff to Sharon Hodgson MP and Director of Labour Friends of Iraq.
Sitting in a seminar during the Progress annual conference on 3 November I was struck by the difficulties which speakers had articulating how Labour can make equality and aspiration a reality for all.
This should be key to solving Labour’s ‘vision problem’. But the difficulties seem to be as much about language as direction.
Opportunity, aspiration, equality, security, social justice – you name it, Labour talks it. Yet it doesn’t seem to be getting through to voters.
But I do believe the public has a great sense of fairness. Labour therefore should start talking about creating ‘the Fair Society’.
The Fair Society will embrace fair pay, fair taxation, fair access to services and so on. People understand what is fair when it comes to pay and tax and they know that we have to make both fairer. Fair access to services would tackle how we get care and childcare, housing, health and education – with fair charges where appropriate.
But there are lots of other things that could be embraced by the ‘fair’ banner. A fair world would include fair trade, fair chances would mean a fair start in life, and fair power needs fair votes.
Is the ‘Fair Society’ an answer to the vision problem?
Polly Toynbee seems to think so. In her Guardian column on 9 November, she described fairness as the ‘red thread’ that could run through Brown’s Britain. Strangely Polly was at the same seminar at the Progress annual conference!
It’s frustrating that despite our record, Labour does not have an electoral edge when it comes to the environment. How we win back this territory was the theme of the discussion in the session ‘It’s the ecology stupid’, but I don’t think we came near finding a compelling solution.
First Friends of the Earth argued that the party daring to adopt the most radical environmental policies would win the green race (although arguably not necessarily the next election!). Minister Phil Woolas, in contrast, argued that our edge was on the global playing field – demonstrating that we can uncouple economic growth from environmental degradation and showing developing countries how to grow in the same sustainable way.
While both points are interesting, I’m not convinced that either position gives us a real edge – it’s all too subtle. We seem to have fallen into a competition to define the best shade of green, when we need a new colour altogether. Apart from being a hard ‘sell’ on the doorstep, given that the main parties have such different perspectives on almost everything, it seems odd that when it comes to the biggest issue of them all, the only debate is how far and how fast.
The problem is that the narrative we’ve all adopted around climate change is not the narrative of progressive politics. It is essential a conservative one – that we aspire to keep some semblance of the status quo. Have we forgotten that as progressives we’re fairly dissatisfied with many aspects of our current society and actually want to make things better?
The scale of change needed to tackle climate change is massive. Why the modesty then? When we’re thinking about reducing travel and fuel use, why aren’t we thinking about housing policy, so that those in low paid jobs have the same opportunities to live near their work as those on higher incomes? We know that children from the poorest backgrounds have less choice when it comes to schools, so when we’re thinking about building schools for the future and reducing their carbon footprints, why aren’t we considering how we can increase opportunities for these children? Why isn’t our aspiration for sustainable development for a fairer as well as greener society than the one we have today?
The problems facing our climate give us the perfect licence to make change. We should use this momentum to bring about the progressive changes we believe in - making sure that the poorest people here and abroad actually get the most benefits from these changes. As well as distinguishing our flavour of environmental politics, getting this right could provide the compelling vision that Labour needs to win the next election.
The survey of Tory candidates carried out by Conservative Home makes very interesting reading however the questions asked are probably more interesting than the answers. For example not a single question on housing, education or health - apparently the public is more interested in whether Tory candidates support the right of Catholics or other religious adoption charities to decline to place children with same sex couples. Candidates are asked about Iran but not about Iraq, about nuclear power but not about renewables.
What have we discovered? Mainly that Tory candidates are largely Eurosceptic, pretty much pro-nuclear and believe that England does not get a fair deal in terms of the distribution of the nation's finances. So all in all, nothing new.
The word so long associated with Northern Ireland was "intractable" but Northern Ireland has now become a model for other conflict zones to emulate. Sinn Fein and the DUP, now in a power-sharing government together, recently sent representatives to Finland to help broker a settlement between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias.
Having absorbed 40% of two Prime Ministers' time for many years, there is an understandable desire to look over the Irish Sea with some satisfaction and to hope that the devolved administration makes orthern Ireland a prosperous place to live and work.
There is some evidence that this is happening - soaring property prices and increased investment in jobs in towns once devastated by terrorism.
But beneath the happy headlines the sad reality is that Northern Ireland remains a bitterly divided and segregated society. Most people live in homogenous Catholic or Protestant areas and 95% of its pupils
attend largely segregated schools.
There are four state-funded schooling systems in Northern Ireland: controlled schools which are open to all but are mainly Protestant; Catholic maintained schools which are 99% Catholic in numbers and
ethos; Irish language schools; and the integrated education sector.
Integrated schools began in an old scout hut 26 years ago and have grown into a 62 school, 19,000 strong part of the educational mosaic. They command high public esteem because their pupils achieve above average results and because they seek, much more than other schools, to nurture understanding of the cultures of their Protestant, Catholic and other pupils. Yet they cannot meet the demand for places with up to 800 pupils turned away each year.
The case for increased integrated education has been championed by a wide variety of politicians. The Conservative Minister Sir Brian Mawhinney legislated to ensure that the Government had a duty to encourage and promote integration. The need for integration was part of the Good Friday Agreement. Mo Mowlam wanted to make it a priority but had to put making peace first. Peter Hain won loud applause at the 2006 Labour Party conference by backing more integrated schools.
It's common sense that increasing contact between pupils of different faiths would do much, over time, to break down divisions and misunderstandings. I have myself heard on visits to integrated schools
of how teachers and pupils contend with days that test community tensions: the death of the Queen Mother or the Pope, for instance. Or putting on "Irish" or "British" sports.
Sectarian attitudes are formed at a very early age in Northern Ireland and pupils at integrated schools are more likely to challenge such attitudes as they mature. There is another benefit too as parents,
carers and extended families come into contact with "the other community" at the school gate and events.
But integrated schools have to live in the world as it is and one of its flagship schools is to have a large security fence built, at massive cost, to prevent youths running through the playground to chuck missiles at nearby Catholic houses.
The moral and political case for overcoming segregation is now increasingly complemented by a strong and growing economic case.
A recent authoritative report from Deloitte claims that £1.5 billion is being spent on running a divided society.
There are already 50,000 spare desks in Northern Ireland and this is forecast to rise to 80,000 due to falling rolls. This means that schools built for thousands now have mere hundreds rattling around
their corridors. Small rural schools are in danger of being closed.
The integrated education movement has responded to this challenge by suggesting that integrated schools could provide the solution in such rural areas and so avoid children having to travel long distances to schools in nearby towns.
The movement does not, however, take a purist position and encourages sharing of facilities and collaboration between all parts of the educational estate.
There are, however, no silver bullets, so to speak, that will wave away decades of accumulated division, distrust and segregation.
The danger is that public opinion outside Northern Ireland will become complacent about Northern Ireland. Perhaps symbolically, Gordon Brown is the first British Prime Minister since 1976 without a personal family connection to Ireland.
I don't doubt his commitment to Northern Ireland and it is clearly up to those who live there to make it work. But those who are seeking to foster reconciliation need continuing understanding and support from others in these islands and further afield. It will take a generation or more to lift the dead weight of the Troubles. Where better to focus attention than the new generation in school?
Gary Kent is the parliamentary consultant for the integrated education movement. He can be contacted at garynkent@gmail.com. There is a Facebook support group. The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education is at http://www.nicie.org/ and the Integrated Education Fund is at http://www.ief.org.uk/
At first glance, perhaps, reform of our electoral system was a surprising topic to for Oona King to introduce in the morning session of Progress Conference, entitled “Equality and aspiration – can Labour stand for both?” But as she forcefully argued, for as long as the system obliges political parties to concentrate their appeal to swing voters in the key marginal seats, Labour will be constrained in its capacity to build a broad coalition around a more redistributive programme for tackling inequality in our communities. Far from being a ‘chattering-class’ issue or an exercise for ‘anoraks’, the question of reforming our present system of representation goes to the heart of why people come to identify and join the Labour party in the first place, and to its ability to advance a socially progressive political agenda to help those most in need of a bold Labour government. Many of the areas with highest levels of poverty, joblessness and sustained under-investment have regularly returned Labour MPs with substantial majorities, and yet, under a First-Past-the-Post system which has allowed such voters to be taken for granted, the voices of the poorest in our society are massively under-represented in the fraction of the electorate which gets to determine the outcome.
This is not to claim that Labour has failed to improve the lives of people living in some of our most deprived communities. Indeed, the landslide victory in 1997 was possible only in the unique circumstances which allowed the party both to reconnect with the aspirations of wider sections of the electorate, whilst at the same time advancing a radical series of measures such as the introduction of a National Minimum Wage, Working-Families Tax Credits and the Sure-Start programme to give all children the best possible start in life, regardless of their background. Yet since 1997 Labour has lost nearly 5 million voters and seen its membership continue to haemorrhage, a factor which has been largely masked by an electoral system which mitiagates against the development of a viable alternative on a national basis. Hence, disillusioned voters in safe seats have been neglected on the grounds they have ‘nowhere else to go’, whilst policy is extensively fire-proofed in focus-groups to reassure Daily Mail readers. Moreover, there is a risk that this is creating a vacuum which extremist parties of the far right are beginning to exploit.
Whilst it is entirely understandable (and indeed necessary if it is to win a majority under the present system) that Labour concentrates upon winning over the critical voters in the marginals, this has a distorting effect on the party’s campaigning. It results in a strategy that is de-motivating essential activists in safe seats, undermining the party’s appeal to new members and, crucially, reducing the political scope to put forward a radical and distinctive policy agenda capable of addressing the scandals of inequality and social immobility in our nation. Of course, Labour cannot tackle inequality from the opposition benches, nor can it afford to simply retreat into a ‘comfort zone’. To succeed, the party needs to advance policies around which a broad coalition of voters can cohere. But Oona is surely right to suggest that the electoral system distorts priorities and acts as a constraint on our ability to achieve our ambitions for Britain. She is quite right to insist on the need to rebalance the campaigning incentives given out by the voting system, and we should join her in calling for labour’s progamme of renewal to embrace the need for electoral reform.
Monday evening’s event on Zimbabwe, held jointly by Progress and ACTSA, was thought provoking. It was humbling to be in the presence of Lovemore Matombo, President of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. Lovemore has made and continues to make huge sacrifices because of his opposition to Robert Mugabe, facing dismissal from work, imprisonment and intimidation. Kate Hoey MP made an inspiring speech setting out why and how the left in Britain and across the world should raise awareness and campaign against the regime in Harare.
It’s pretty clear that South Africa, and Zimbabwe’s other neighbours, hold the key to resolving the crisis. It will only be through pressure from Thabo Mbeki that Mugabe is forced to step down and Zimbabwe can begin the process of rebuilding its civil society and economy. However, this pressure has been conspicuously lacking. The unwillingness of African leaders to be critical of a man who cleverly wraps himself in the flag of African liberation and resistance to Western imperialism is preventing European and American pressure having any impact.
Some voices at the meeting argued that by speaking out against Mugabe British voices risked being counter–productive. Our colonial past will contaminate opposition to Mugabe, and people across Africa will side with him. Whilst this issue is one we have to keep in mind, I found the argument being made depressing and defeatist. We can’t allow post-colonial guilt to prevent us speaking out against one of the world’s worst human rights abusers. And unless we help the Zimbabwean opposition put their case to the rest of the Africa, their voice will never be heard.
I watched the second part of Britz last night. The clear message emerging from Peter Kominsky's Channel 4 drama was:
Muslims are being persecuted in this country as well as abroad
It's no good trying to change things through our democratic system
Moderates are Uncle Toms
Suicide bombings are the only answer
And just in case the viewer didn't get it over the four and a half hours that this piece was on screen the message was spelt out right at the end in the suicide bomber's recorded video which included the words "You are not innocent while you keep electing this government and look away as they butcher Muslims all over the place".
As Hassan Butt, a former Islamic extremist, put it in an article for the Observer, "By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us".
Isn't there a law against inciting terrorism?
|
|
