|
|
Tomorrow the whole world will focus its attention on the inauguration of Barack Obama, in what will be a reminder of the power of American democracy. Whatever you think of the United States, one cannot but be amazed by the capacity of its democracy to renew and rejuvenate to meet new challenges and end past wrongs. Barack Obama's campaign and election is the latest demonstration of it, but there are many others.
In the UK, the 20th of January will mark a rather more low profile sign of democratic transformation as the Youth Citizenship Commission closes its consultation on votes at 16. I have written on The Progressive before about the case for votes at 16, so I won't rehearse the arguments, but if you want to have your say you can do so by going to www.ycc.uk.net.
Omar Salem writes in a personal capacity.
As Bob Dylan put it, the times they are a-changin. The golden years of the past decade have given way to the credit crunch, plunging stock markets, recession, and the possibility of 3 million unemployed by 2010.
And unlike previous economic cycles there is every prospect that we may not be able to return to the boom conditions of yesteryear. For even if we overcome our financial and economic problems we once again come up against those natural limits to growth that we were experiencing prior to the downturn - the sharp increase in the price of food, fuel, and raw material as the emerging economic giants of Asia stake their claim to them and the constraints imposed by global warming.
In other words we are caught both ways. When the economy turns down many of us have to take a cut in our living standards or have to lower our material aspirations. When the economy turns up the cost of our essential purchases goes the same way which means we have less to spend on other things.
So why does this double-bind situation not need to be a cause for feelings of gloom and doom? The simple answer is that man does not live by bread alone. Yes, in circumstances where we will have to learn to live with less than we expected (or are made to expect by the advertising industry) governments will have to abandon their promise of ever-increasing abundance for all if they are not to be repeatedly punished at the polls for not delivering on it. However, they can put in its place a much more desirable objective - an increase in the overall QUALITY of our lives. Growth in things that count rather than in things that are merely countable.
With greater acceptance of state intervention to combat the failings of the free market it's now more politically possible to introduce the sort of policies needed to achieve this aim. For example something like the Green New Deal advocated by the New Economics Foundation would not only help us to combat global warming but would also help to mop up some of that anticipated unemployment. Moreover a shorter working week and measures to promote job-sharing and personal well-being (as described in my previous piece Beyond the Treadmill Society) could also help to bring down unemployment while giving people the time and the tools to live more satisfying lives.
At a similar critical juncture in American history (1979) the then President, Jimmy Carter, made a speech to the nation in which he said "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives that have no meaning or purpose".
The current crisis is telling us that such lives of excess are no longer achievable, yet alone desirable, for the broad mass of people. It therefore presents us with a unique opportuniy to move in an altogether more rewarding direction. Let us take it.
According to Jon Cruddas the far-Right BNP is busy exploiting the present economic crisis and could easily end up winning seats in the European Parliament for the first time.
Jon Cruddas has long pointed out that one reason for the growing support for the BNP has been its ability to respond to and exploit genuine local grievances - the credit crunch will only end up exacerbating these issues and could help turn more people toward the far-right. It is sobering to remember that in recent local elections the BNP has continued to gain seats in east London and Stoke-on-Trent and picked up enough elsewhere to hold 46 council seats in England. This of course follows the dramatic 2002 local election successes in the North of England and a 4.9 per cent showing in the Euro elections in 2004. For the first time ever in this country, an openly racist party has sustained the support of more than one in 20 British voters over several contests.
I believe that the BNP is evidence of a new challenge in British politics. In the past the battle ground (sometimes literally) of left vs right politics centred on our inner-cities – this is no longer the case. The BNP has begun to develop a network of suburban supporters, people who are openly willing to admit not only to supporting a racist and bigoted political party but to doing so with pride and patriotic fervour. If the trends of the past few years continue continue, the BNP may well make the type of breakthrough that Jon Cruddas is signalling and it will then be far more difficult to reverse than to stop it before it occurs.
What Britain needs is a broad anti-fascist coalition, a new coalition of the willing. This broadest possible coalition against the BNP must be constructed nationally, regionally and locally. It needs to involve trade unions, black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, faith groups, lesbian and gay groups and every other community threatened by the rise of the far right.
David Lammy is spot-on in his analysis for Progress of the challenges facing Labour.
Three things need to be done – exposing the Tories; showing how Labour has made a difference; and explaining why Labour has the direction and policies for the future.
The first two are important and I will return to them, but the third is fundamental.
Reminding voters about Labour priorities is crucial. ‘For the many not the few’ was a Blairite slogan but it still resonates strongly. ‘Fairness’ is widely understood and should be applied as a test to all decisions and policies. And we need to show why ‘collective action’ is the only answer to many of the big issues facing Britain.
These principles need to be related to people’s lives and their concerns today and for the future.
There are many ways this could be done, here are just three – make taxation nationally and locally more progressive and thereby fairer; make work more flexible for all and more rewarding by raising the minimum wage; and provide better support to the growing millions of people with caring responsibilities.
Only when Labour clearly has set out what our priorities are and why only Labour can deliver this agenda, can we move forward.
We must also attack the Tories. David Cameron has had an easy ride to date but his economic and social policies must be exposed. And we must attack the Tories for their record in local government given they now run most councils, making cuts in local services and hidden charges.
Finally, we need to show how Labour has made a difference to people’s lives. There isn’t a household in Britain that hasn’t benefited from better schools, better health services, the minimum wage, Sure Start children’s centres and free early education, lower crime, record employment and the list goes on.
That hasn’t happened by accident. But people need to be told repeatedly why it has happened, and what is at stake at the next election.
Britain’s golden weekend at the Olympics has provided a much needed boost to the nation’s morale. It has also highlighted some lessons for future success, not only in sport but for the country as a whole.
There can be no doubt that many of the gold medal successes owe much not just to outstanding individual performances but also to investment in sports like cycling and rowing.
Such investment can only be delivered collectively through taxation or, in many sporting cases, through the lottery. We have seen unprecedented levels of investment in British sport and public services in the last decade but that seems to be almost unrecognised.
That is quite different in other countries. In Ireland for example,
virtually every village let alone town has large signs acknowledging
public investment in the local infrastructure, whether it’s highways,
sewers or broadband.
So in turn, the British government should do much more to promote and achieve recognition for investment in local services in this country. Every school, health centre, Sure Start children’s centre, park and of course sports centre should trumpet what has made it possible.
People need to see how their taxes have made a difference in their local community. And we need to tell them.
One of the other bonuses of recent days in Beijing must be to dispel any lingering cynicism about 2012. How can anyone not be excited about London hosting the Olympics in 2012? And how can anyone doubt the benefits it will bring this country?
The results of the Henley-on-Thames by-election were described by breathless journalists as a new low for Labour. It was no doubt a very poor showing, but, and it is a very big but, the result was actually in line with virtually every other similar by-election since 1997.
Like it or not, the Henley result was a classic squeeze of progressive voters in a safe Tory seat where the Lib Dems came second.
It reflected the same pattern seen in the Winchester by-election in 1997 where Labour lost its deposit despite being 20 percentage points ahead in the national polls. A squeeze repeated many times in rural or suburban seats in recent years.
None of this was widely reported, even though Labour had been open about expecting to lose its deposit, despite fielding a strong local candidate.
And, it is interesting to look at what the Henley result may say for the Lib Dems and their reliance on southern rural and suburban seats.
For a smaller party they seemed to throw considerable resources at the Henley by-election. It was a contest where voters complained of leaflet fatigue and longed for it to be over.
Yet for all their efforts the Lib Dem vote actually dropped by over 2,300 votes from the 2005 General Election. The Henley result could bode badly for a third party with more southern seats won from the Conservatives than northern ones snatched from Labour.
So while Henley remains a very poor result for Labour it also offers a worrying lesson for the Lib Dems.
I couldn't help noticing the contrast between the handful of Africans marching with the coffin of Zimbabwe's democracy at last Friday's London demonstration and the 1 million who turned out against the Iraq war.
The common theme seems to be that the Left are prepared to tolerate any kind of oppression as long as it is opposed by the American and British governments.
John Rentoul, on the Independent's Open House blog, is positively gushing in his praise for James Purnell's speech for Progress last week: 'No wonder several Labour people in Westminster in the past few days have said to me: "Have you read Purnell's speech?"'
... says Rentoul. All part of Purnell's 'discreet rise', apparently. Though the number of admiring media profiles the pensions secretary is receiving is definitely on the increase. See this one by Fraser Nelson in the Spectator.
Still, perhaps the political editor of the Tory organ isn't the best person to be listening to at times like this ...
Political cross-dressing is occasionally sensible from a tactical perspective but rarely does it make for an effective political strategy. Too many voters just don't see what the real differences are between the two main parties in Britain, we live in the age of fuzzy politics. Gordon Brown knows that if he and the Labour party is to regain the trust and confidence of the electorate he will need to articulate exactly what differentiates progressive Labour politics from those of the opposition.
In an attempt to stimulate debate and discussion can I suggest three main differences:
1. Conservative philosophy believes that inequality in society is inevitable and desirable and that government can play virtually no role in its eradication. Progressive, left of centre political parties have always argued that inequality is repugnant to a modern, civilised society and that governments can be operate some powerful levers that bring about change.
Modern example: Labour wants education up to 18 for all, the Tories want to keep it to a select few.
2. Conservative politics believes in that most government 'intervention' is futile, be it in the markets or in the realm social policy. Progressive Labour politics believes that there is both strength and virtue in collective endeavour, that government really can make a difference in helping improve the quality of life for all.
Modern example: Labour introduced the national minimum wage, the Tories opposed it.
3. Conservative politics is 'conservative' politics, it seeks to entrench privilege and limit opportunity to an elite few.Progressive Labour politics recognises that to live is to change, that reform is often necessary to help re-affirm or re-assess strongly held values and beliefs in fairness, justice and tolerance for a modern setting.
Modern example: Tories have fewer women MPs than Labour and (in contrast to Labour) the vast majority of the Tory front bench come from backgrounds of immense wealth and privilege.
Let's not forget who the real enemy is and let's also remember that, yes the centre ground is where elections are won and lost, but let's not forget that in politics the centre ground covers a very wide area.
In all the frenzied analysis of why we lost Crewe and Nantwhich there is one contributory factor whch invariably fails to get a mention. Pundits and politicians will pour over policies, presentation and personality but there is a conspiracy of silence over what is really calling the tune. I refer, of course, to the influence of the media.
It is easy to understand why this should be so. The pundits work for the media, as do their editors and producers. The politicians work through the media. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Nor do you bite the hand of those who write about you.
However there cannot be a proper diagnosis of what went wrong without reference to what is being reported and how it is being reported. If the blame for global economic setbacks is repeatedly being laid at the door of No. 10, if spending time to make considered judgements on complex political problems is continually being presented in terms of Gordon Brown being a "ditherer", if the 10p mistake becomes "a kick in the teeth" for every working person in this country, regardless of the remedial meaures and of what else Brown has done for the poor both here and overseas, then it is small wonder that people are totally fed up with this government.
After all, the voting public do not usually make up their minds after weighing up all the pros and cons of difficult election issues. They tend to focus, emotionally, on the cons as conveyed to them by the press (or rather the press headlines), the radio and television. If there's a relentless barrage of anti-Brown/government stories it's inevitable that this will sway voting intentions, particularly when it takes enormous commitment (and guts) to stand out against the crowd.
We expect this kind of hyped-up negativity from the right-wing tabloids and broadsheets, of course. But when they are joined by a left-wing commentariat intent on punishing this government for not following their agenda there's little that can be done to tip the balance in our direction. The last straw is when the dear old BBC, that last bastion of public service impartiality, starts taking its cue from the tabloids and left-wing critics in its coverage of how the government is performing.
One day it's the the best crime figures we have had for years (an overall fall of 9%) being presented almost soley in terms of a 4% rise in gun crime, which represented only a tiny fraction of the grand total (click on here for the full story). On another day it's John Humphrys in his interview with Gordon Brown referring to the £2.7b rescue package as "that little bribe". As I write this, Humphrys is at it again describing this government as simply "a continuation of the Thatcher government" ( in his On the Ropes interview with John Prescott). And then there's always Jeremy Paxman sneering away from his Newsnight pulpit at anything ministers have to say in defence of their government.
No government can survive such a concerted and sustained distortion of its record and policies from all parts of the media. Unless some serious thought is given to how the media can be made to behave in a more responsible and even-handed way, all talk about how we can save ourselves is just spitting in the wind.
|
|
