|
|
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.
There can be little doubt that Gordon Brown is on the ropes, if not on the canvass. Every day brings a fresh headline pointing up his weaknesses and failures. The opposition are triumphant. The media pack are in full cry, baying for his blood as they once bayed for the blood of Tony Blair.
So it would not be unreasonable to expect the Labour Party as a whole to come to his aid, if only to protect the gains of the last eleven years and to keep open the prospect of more to come.
Instead most activists and left-wing commentators seem to be intent on adding their punches to the pummelling Brown is receiving, much in the same way as those characters in that hilarious movie, Airline, queued up have a slap at a panicking fellow passenger. They are largely doing this in two ways.
One, is to use the opportunity to exert maximum pressure on the government to accept their own political nostrums, threatening to bring down the government if they don't get their way. Never mind that this exposes division in the ranks (which is anethema to the average British voter). Or that the government will be seen as weak if they do give way (again something that is a huge turn-off for most voters ).
The other (not unrelated to the first) is to throw in the towel, on the basis that a spell in opposition would do us the world of good. Never mind the impact on the lives of ordinary people or the fact that this could pave the way for another eighteen years of Tory rule.
Neal Lawson, whose latest piece for Compass exemplifies the first approach, damns the New Labour project for being two steps forward to the market and one token step in favour of society. As I commented on the related website, I see it more as two steps forward to social democracy, one step in favour of market considerations (or more precisely one step back to to take account of political and economic realities). In today's world this is the only way we can achieve our objectives.
The solution to our current predicament then is not to join forces with the opposition and the vulture- like media to exploit every government shortcoming for our own particular ends but to close ranks and fight back against this massive attack on what remains our best hope for a better tomorrow.
The loss of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London ranks as the worst blow to Labour since the 1992 general election defeat. The question is whether Labour can heed the lessons and rebuild as the party did after 1992.
That will require leadership and vision, strategy and, above all, motivation. Motivation of party members and motivation of the public.
There is still plenty of time to the next general election. But the need for action is urgent, particularly to motivate people.
We need to explain why politics is important, why Labour politics is different, and how Labour has transformed Britain and can continue to change Britain for the better.
People want a party that is clear about its values and acts on those values. People want fairness.
I believe the British public has a great sense of fairness. Labour 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 to tax, and they know that both should be fairer. Fair access to services would tackle how we get care and childcare, housing, health and education.
But there are many 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.
We need to make sure we relate fairness to people’s everyday lives in simple, everyday language.
Fair tax, fair pay and fair services would be a good platform for the next manifesto. It would motivate the public. And crucially it would inspire party members to battle for the fourth term of a Labour government that continues to build the Fair Society.
Stephen Burke is Campaigns Officer, Hammersmith Labour Party
There's a huge paradox about the latest Labour rebellion.
Those who have been pressuring Gordon Brown on the 10p tax rate change may now be experiencing a nice, warm glow of self-righteousness. But don't they see that each successful revolt undermines the authority of this government and increases the chances of David Cameron, not Gordon Brown, becoming the next Prime Minister. By winning the vote on the 42 Day Bill they would be making that outcome almost certain.
The result will therefore be to end any further help for the poor and to destroy any possibility of Labour rebels being able to influence government policy in the medium term future, at least.
Well, it was always said that self-abuse leads to blindness.
Incidentally, how is it that when you listen you are accused of doing a U-turn and when you don't do a U-turn you are accused of not listening? Anything for a negative story I suppose!
Let me say at the outset that I am no left-wing loony. In fact, as readers of my humble blog will have noticed I am staunchly New Labour. That is why I was so appalled by John Hutton's speech (reported elsewhere on the Progress site) extolling the virtues of wealth creation and huge salaries without limit.
Predictably the speech has prompted venomous attacks from the likes of Neal Lawson and Polly Toynbee, to which my instinctive response is to jump to the defence of the offending New Labour minister. But In the same way that it is incumbent on best friends to inform someone of a bad breath problem so, in this case, do I think it right that New Labourites should inform the minister of a bad politics problem when he has got it so wrong and is thereby bringing our New Labour project into so much disrepute.
I will not go into all the ways in which Mr Hutton's words have adversely impacted on perceptions of what we are supposed to stand for (Messrs Lawson and Toynbee have covered the ground pretty well) but let me say just this. Yes, wealth creation is necessary up to a point. So are high salaries up to a point. But the level at which that "point" bites in is crucial here. Wealth creation must be balanced against the needs of the environment and of our personal well-being. High salaries must be balanced against their impact on social cohesion and our sense of fair-play. Making the most of your abilities is one thing. Doing it in such a way that others are elbowed aside is quite another.
To give the impression that New Labour is just about getting on and making money without limits, as John Hutton has done, simply plays into the propaganda of our enemies on both the left and the right.
Last week The Rt. Hon Ed Miliband M.P. Minister of the Cabinet Office, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told 650 people I smoked. My humiliation knows no bounds. Ed also said, he respected and trusted our sector he wanted government and the Third Sector to be partners in change and encouraged us to “bite the hand that feeds us”. Frankly all things considered I don’t care about that, the man told 650 of I hope my peers that I smoked.
Despite my ritual humiliation, the NCVO conference on Civil Society last week should be a major wake-up call for the Third Sector. The Conference gave me great hope for the future and a sense that if the Third Sector play our cards right, at last our sector will join the top table.
Ed Miliband’s keynote and Oliver Letwin’s closing speech at the NCVO conference left me in no doubt that the Labour and Conservative Parties view our sectors potential relationship with them quite differently.
As a Minister, Ed is a thoughtful, compelling and honest advocate for the Third Sector. The chap gets us. Mr Miliband spoke of The Government and the Third Sector being partners and not rivals, that our relationship should be founded on mutual respect and the challenges we will be facing concerning social justice. It seems to me that Ed is justifiably challenged by many of the most pressing social issues of this country and in intellectual and policy terms, is genuinely seeking to re-define the relationship Government has with our sector. Ed in my opinion is a big time supporter of devolved, grass roots interventions, putting it crudely a power to the people sort of guy. A Government of facilitators and of funders, working to encourage social change. But most importantly a Government charged with creating the political and policy catalysts that will tackle so many of our quintessentially 21st Century problems. Social Change by citizens for citizens sort of thing.
Being frank, Oliver Letwin also seems to mean business. The Conservatives are searching for a new philosophical framework to build what they consider a new social consensus. Three times over the last month I have heard senior Tories talk about Edmond Burke. David Cameron told a room full of journalists two weeks ago that he “travels back to Burke” when searching for the politics of social change. Some may consider this the same old same old from the Tories, Burke being the Father of Modern Conservatism and all that. The Conservatives however are thinking big, their social consensus agenda will go big on personal liberty and will I should imagine focus on the tyranny of the “brutal mob” (those that are perceived to be perpetrating anti-social behaviour) and how the a Tory government and its authority / authorities can turn back the tide.
These are two very different views of the world; one of these views will dominate the next 10 years of the Third Sectors existence. We do have a trump card though as I hope very senior politicians such as Ed Miliband and Letwin understand that without the Third Sector the social fabric of this nation would disintegrate. It would leave The Government, any Government bewildered and pretty much impotent. Knowing this to be true, what power our sector could wield if only we acted in unison.
Ed as you are writing the Labour manifestos for the next election and you turned up and so eloquently set out your stall, please expect a rush of expectation from the Sector and rightly so, for decades, indeed centuries, this sector has done what I heard one delegate call “our nation’s dirty work”. Toiled to carve out a good society, a civilised society, we are the backbone of this nation’s civil society.
To the Third Sector, we must set out our stall and that stall must be a united stall. On that note I am off for a cigarette!
The topsy -turvy world of politics continues, with week-end headlines about Cameron making a "progressive alliance" offer to the Lib Dems and the publication on Wednesday of a new Tory pamphlet by Greg Clark MP and Jeremy Hunt MP entitled Who's Progressive Now, Why the Conservatives Offer the Best Hope for Progressive Politics.
It's easy for our side to ridicule these Tory attempts to steal our clothes but it would be foolish to underestimate the attraction of their latest message for the more decent elements of the population. As Clark and Hunt say in their Observer commentary on their tract (click here) "A progressive society also recognises the value of non-material goals. Cameron has repeatedly spoken of society's sense of general wellbeing and has maintained a sustained focus on social and environmental concerns. Initially this was derided as Tory cynicism eating itself...but as the progressive Conservative vision has taken shape, such criticism has become difficult to sustain." In the leafy marginals lofty appeals of this nature could well swing the vote and hence the election.
So how should we react to the new Tory agenda? The knee-jerk response of course is to list Tory transgressions against the progressive principle and make light of what they are saying by denying any talk of a "social recession" and dismissing Cameron's references to wellbeing as some kind of New Age quackery (akin to Cherie's aberrations). However the more astute response is to use The Tories' arguments on this matter against them.
As I pointed out in my previous post current discontents and the intractability of social and environmental ills have more to do with the market culture that pervades our society than government policies. It is advertising and marketing ploys that are encouraging excessive forms of behaviour, whether this be acquiring too much debt, binge-drinking, over-eating or over-consuming generally. It is the car industry that is creating our environmentally harmful obsession with the car and the sex industry that is creating our relationship damaging obsession with sex. It is a market-driven media that is responsible for young girls rating how they look as more important than how intelligent they are. And it is the rat- race for riches that is causing so much stress and mental illness.
The answer is not to give even greater free rein to market forces as the Tories would have us do but to rein these forces back where appropriate as New Labour are trying to do. Countering the seductive and insideous influences of the market cannot just be a matter for "the family" or for "the charities"or of giving "more power to the people" since, where nothing else changes, they will all continue to be overwhelmed by the tidal wave of market pressures. Nor in a secular society can it be done by "the church" as was done (to some extent) in the old days.
No, the only sufficient countervailing force to the enormous strength of today's market culture is the state. Only the state has the power to enable us to resist rampant consumerism. This it can do by building on and extending the interventions that have already been made to address many of our social and environmental ills, supplemented by a redirection of our education system to prioritise social and environmental goals over economic ones.
By emphasising how a progressive society can only be attained through this kind of state intervention we can mark up the essential difference between our and our opponents' approach and turn Tory efforts to claim the moral high ground in this vital area into a massive own goal.
In a week when Ed Balls clearly been busy he has hailed the Spice Girls suitable role models for the nation’s young women as they embark on a comeback tour. He is quoted as saying “They work hard, they are clean-living and they were about girl-power”. An outraged reaction has ensued from certain rightward quarters. The News of the World has rejected the secretary of state’s charge as “A Load of Balls” raging against “a catalogue of bad behaviour which would horrify most parents”. Their objections include eating disorders, failed marriage, flirtations with lesbianism and two children born out of wedlock. Yet this seems a dangerously out of touch reaction to reality. Apart from the blatant homophobia on display which flies in the face of the repeal of section 28 and introduction of civil partnerships, surely many parents would recognise aspects of their own lives in this list: indeed such fallibility makes the Spice Girls thoroughly modern mums.
Scratch beneath the surface and not everyone has a fairytale marriage, not all mums are bringing up their kids in circumstances they envisaged at the start of the adventure. People are not all leading the perfect nuclear family centred linear lives of the parenting mags that crowd the shelves of WHSmiths. Influential German sociologist Ulrich Beck has talked of “post-traditional families”.
He has stated: “Even parenthood, the core of family life, is beginning to disintegrate under conditions of divorce. Families can be constellations of very different relationships. Take, for example, the way grandmothers and grandfathers are being multiplied by divorce and remarriage (without any genetic engineering).” This is not theory; it’s fact. Beck also talks about labour market shifts and the balancing act that flexible working brings. The Spice Girls as working mums exemplify all of the above. They are fortunate enough to have been able to take a crèche on tour demonstrates how they are thoroughly modern mums.
Spice Girl support from Balls, a Gordon Brown ally and minister seen by many as his master’s voice, is in itself interesting. This is a band who burst onto the musical-scene proclaiming their adherence to Thatcherism. Exactly 11 years ago the Spectator Christmas edition ran an interview where they asserted that Thatcher was the original Spice Girl prototype. Victoria pre-Beckham declared “Major [is] a boring pillock. But compared to the rest, he’s far better. We’d never vote Labour.” Other views espoused were virulent Euro-scepticism and fears of losing the British identity in a single currency. The article made waves at the time which also ushered in the era of Britpop . Throughout the 1997 General Election party leaders were asked to name all the Spice band members. Blair was shaky at the start of the campaign but with some coaching on the election trail was able to reel them fluently off by the end.
Tellingly the 1996 Spectator interview saw the Spice Girls making pronouncements of families in flux. Lead-singer Geri (now a single mum and UN goodwill ambassador) is quoted as saying “The old-fashioned Victorian family of 2.4 kids is dead forever. But every child needs one decent parent. They must learn honest, openness about sex and tolerance.”
Again this chimes with academic theories of de-traditionalisation and individualisation that have been ground-breaking in twentieth century sociology and beyond. In a pre-New Labour age when Major extolled the virtues of Victorian values, the Spice Girls’ depiction of family values contradicted his cultural canutism and prefigured changes that have continued throughout the twentyfirst century.
The Spice Girls’ union jackery fitted with the prevailing zeitgeist of Cool Britannia which began as a good idea in theory (updating the stuffy image of hidebound Britain) and ended as just toe-curlingly embarrassing. The most noteworthy development British politics since this moment is the advent of the third way and a post-ideological period. It’s unimaginable that the Spice Girls’ 1996 statements would be uttered by any of the current crop of UK pop personnel – contemporary pop like today’s politics is less polarised that in the past.
Jon Cruddas has argued that the Labour/Conservative duopoly is now more Pepsi and Coke than a serious battle between opposing ideas. This post-idelogical shift was discernable when Labour-leaning think tanks in the 90s were advocating identifying with “quality of life” issues rather than a comprehensive programme of nationalisation. The politically restricted unions now offer members cut-price insurance rather than bringing down the government. Yet softer issue-based politics are frequently ill-defined. Women’s issues for example need to be recognised as integral in all areas of decision-making rather than an add-on for the manifesto often reduced to childcare alone.
The demise of polarising politics has also coincided with less interesting pop-stars and the demise of one-time staples of the pop industry Smash Hits and Top of the Pops who fed off personalities mouthing off in interview and on-song. Yes we might have Pete Docherty and Amy Winehouse today but no-one knows their opinions on anything. Their bad behaviour antics make them cartoon characters who provide endless tabloid copy via picture-driven headlines. They are not however the sort of pop-stars of who are capable of generating column inches from the Murdoch mouthpieces for their opinions. For such specimens one must reach to relics from further back in pop-time when pop equated with singles, albums and gigs as opposed to downloads, ringtones and social networking; to the Spice Girls and dear old Morrissey .
With tales of the back-from-the-dead canoeist dominating the tabloid press as the year ends 2007 seems to have been the year of the comeback. The Police, Take That and Led Zeppelin have all toured this year. Meanwhile the News of the World advises Balls, who knows a thing or two about parenting as dad of 3 with his fellow-minister wife Yvette Cooper, that he’d be better justified selecting the Sex Pistols as role-models for today’s youth. Let’s hope the Spice Girls and other 2007 comeback acts keep it special and are not tempted to emulate the hackneyed Pistols regular reunions where gig-goers are patronisingly treated to the pantomime dame Johnny Lydon (nee Rotten) taunting the crowd with his old catch-phrase “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” Now that really is what I call a poor show.
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.
Last Saturday I attended a huge rally in support of our local hospital. It should have been one of those heart-warming, everybody -pulling -together -for- a -good -cause, occasions. But it didn't turn out that way for me.
There I was, amongst thousands of mainly Tory-voting, middle to upper class people, led by our local MP, Sir Nicholas Soames, who were protesting against A&E and maternity services at the Princess Royal Hospital being transferred from Haywards Heath to Brighton and casting our Labour government as the villain of the piece.
To add to my discomfort, whereas all the other T-shirts and posters were proclaiming SAVE THE PRH, my placard read SAVE THE PRH, PAY MORE TAX! Needless to say my particular contribution was not well received. Reactions ranged from pitiful, "he must be crazy" smiles to disdainful grimaces. The only positive response was from a Roman Catholic priest, which I have duly weighed in the balance against the thoughts of Richard Dawkins.
But what my lone placard did do was to provoke a very useful discussion about whether it was possible to have hospitals catering for all needs in every locality without sharp rises in the levels of taxation. The real issue, in my opinion.
It occurred to me afterwards, when regaining blessed anonymity in a near-by coffee bar, that here is a tactic that might be adopted more generally in the struggle for a better society.. That is, instead of just joining in demonstrations against hospital, school, or care-home closures (which effectively puts the boot into our own government) Labour activists might be better employed in using these events to make the link between better, universal, public services and the need for more tax revenue, as I did (even if it lays you open to receiving some funny looks!). After all, consciousness -raising is a vital part of progressive activity and there is no way we are going to meet the enormous public demands of a progressive agenda unless people at large are prepared to make this connection.
The hysterical response of the Tories to a computer-adjusted picture demonstrates how desperate they are for a smear story to turn the polls in their favour.
Even if the facts were as alleged and our Jamie had actually agreed to the photo being altered, would this have been such an awful offence? The photoshoot was done to show the support of those present for the new hospital. The insertion of Mr Purnell's image after the photo had been taken was quite immaterial in this connection.
There would indeed have been cause for censure if James had not bothered to turn up at the event. But he did make the effort, albeit twenty minutes late, and I can well understand the practical photographic reasons for recording his presence in the way that was done.
Context is everything in incidents of this sort. The so-called "fakery" did not involve misrepresenting anyone, as the BBC trailer for the documentary about the Queen did. Nor did it involve the kind of breaches of trust perpetrated by the BBC and ITV in respect of their phone-in audiences. It was done simply to rectify the consequences of a heavy ministerial schedule. Maladroit? Yes. Something approaching a resignation matter? Come off it!
Another Labour Party Conference. And once again there has been a media blitz trying to force us into a premature decision affecting our future. Last time it was all about when Tony Blair should go. This time it's all about when Gordon Brown should go to the country.
Great for the Rudolph Murdochs and Jeremy Paxmans of course. with the prospect of an exciting battle for power pushing up newspaper sales and the ratings of political pundits. But not, I submit, so great for the likes of us.
Here we are, only halfway through our term of office with a good majority and still much to do regarding the implementation of the policies we were elected for. A successful election now would give us about four more years of government, just two more years than what is left to us. A successful election nearer the end of our allotted time would give us something like six or seven years more. More time for our policies to work, more time for our values to be embedded, more time to create that progressive consensus which could make this the century of social democracy in this country. Do we really want to run the risk of having all that snatched away in a matter of weeks?
The counter-argument, of course, is the possibility of losing the election if we delay. I say we have more to lose than to gain by going for it now. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The mood of the electorate is volatile. It wouldn't take much bad news, whipped up by a media bent on producing a tight finish, for the polls to swing the other way (as seems to be already happening at the local level, e.g. Sunderland).
Moreover a whiff of triumphalism is beginning to creep in amongst the party faithful, which is never attractive and can be counter-productive. Harriett Harman's "we are ready for an election and we know the British people will vote for us" may play well to the gallery but to this observer it brought to mind Neil Kinnock bellowing "We're all right! We're all right" from that Sheffield platform in 1992.
And do not underestimate the hatred that is still smouldering away against this government. Such an emotion is much better at getting people to the polling stations than luke-warm support, particularly on a cold, wet November evening.
No, let us be safe rather than sorry, Gordon, and allow time for that lukewarm support to be turned into the kind of enthusiastic support that can survive the worst that fate and the Daily Mail's headlines can throw at us.
In his recent Reuters speech Tony Blair argued that "attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment; it is not enough for someone to make an error, it has to be venal." He is right. In today's media comment and reporting have merged into the same thing. Talking about the 24 hour news agenda Blair stated that "things harden within minutes. You can't let speculation stay out there longer than an instant." In other words, make an error within the first few minutes of a story breaking and what was a mere 'problem' can fast become a major crisis.
As Michael White has argued in today's Guardian, politicians are accountable but journalists are...
This valet first posted here to decry the jejune and superficial way in which the press discusses the merits of political leaders. It has been a constant theme of this disappointed and saddened animal ever since. And it looks likely to continue to be a preoccupation, almost an obsession, in this simian's pantry.
Andrew Rawnsley, writing in this week's Observer makes the link between the freshness of the Brown cabinet and the youth of its members: [Brown] also talks about his premiership being a moment for 'moving the country' into its 'new generation'. He cannot really personify generational change himself since he is actually older than the man he will replace as Prime Minister. The way to compensate for that will be to surround himself with younger and fresher faces.
It's an unexceptional sounding argument; the sort of line that glides glibely past. And yet, am I alone in thinking that one of the most surprising features of recent reshuffles was Margret Beckett's promotion to foreign secretary? No one predicted it. She was a genuinely fresh choice - and rewarded for being one of the very few politicans who can speak to a difficult brief without being defensive and who sounds distinctively like herself. She is, of course, a professional politican, with little carrer outside politics. So what I am about to say is not a hard and fast rule. But isn't anyone a little depressed by the idea of a whole generation of politicans entirely made up of former special advisors - on both sides of the House?
What is necessarily fresh about a slate of people in their late thirties who have been working for politicans for the last 15 years? Many are talented, many will deservedly go far. But is entry to the cabinet decided entirely a generation in advance? Where, among the MPs outside government, or in its junior ranks, are those who are come into parliament from other jobs, other sectors, other interests and other experiences? They needn't be young to be fresh. What about people getting into politics in their forties, fifties and sixties? Of course such people have the disadvantage of not inheriting a lunch rota with journalists... But I dream of the day when someone who was a nurse five years ago is in cabinet today.
The thing to keep an eye on here is the overall balance of the parliamentary party. The risk of having boundary changes shrinking Labour seats, aspiring special advisors and former MPs looking for the route back is that the balance of the parliamentary party moves too far towards the lifetime career politican. The door must always be ajar.
|
|
