|
|
I guess it was always going to happen. You raise the top rate of income tax, nationalise a few things, fall back into something resembling Keynesianism, and suddenly pundits everywhere are rejoicing at the 'death of New Labour'. The narrative is just too neat for hacks to ignore, easily fed in tasty sensational bite sized chunks. And it does feel like a lot of them are indeed celebrating New Labour's apparent demise, keen to paint the whole New Labour project as a failure from both sides of the spectrum (we have also seen the premature death of New Conservatism in the last month as well, but this has been rather less enthusiastically talked about, as if it was always going to happen anyway). I don't like the sensationalism, or the over simplification of it all. The antithesis to the end of New Labour is, surely, a reversion to 'Old' Labour - or at least that's what you'd expect, since no attractive phrase has yet emerged to fill the gap ('Less New' Labour? 'Slightly Older' Labour? I can't see either catching on). Of course, the government has had to do a few things over the last couple of weeks which, taken at face value, do seem decidedly un-New Labour. But that is only on the face of it. Beneath the surface of tax and spending increases, there are a few underlying principles which appear to remain in place. To claim that this is suddenly the anti-climactic end to a project a decade in the making is just a little wide of the mark. So before you dust down your Stuart Holland socialist manuals, therefore, I'd urge a little caution. The questions I ask are: If this is the end of New Labour, what would have been a standard 'New Labour' response to an economic crisis of this sort? How could the Labour government have responded in such a way that would have stuck to New Labour principles? These are questions none of the critics can answer. It seems to me that New Labour was expected to stand back and rely on the strength of the market, since its critics claim New Labour is built on a shaky footing of laissez faire and neo liberalism. When this didn't happen, the project had reached its end. But this reveals a basic misunderstanding of what New Labour was in the first place, and in fact its response to the crisis is helpful in further illuminating Labour's social democratic principles. New Labour has been built on the principle that we are a party able to represent not just the working class, narrowly defined, but are a party capable of representing a wider electorate. A government ready to defend middle class aspiration as well as working class need. Indeed, a Labour party prepared not to think in terms of class. Do the measures taken in last weeks Pre-Budget Report mitigate against this? I can't see that they do. A five per cent tax rise on earnings over £150,000 hardly represents a return to class based politics, but rather an acknowledgement that the wealthy should shoulder some extra burden at a difficult time. There is nothing un-New Labour in this. New Labour's critics attack from two flanks and in two separate battalions, both striking at the same target for different reasons and with different objectives. For those on the left, 'the end of New Labour' is a comfortable narrative as it signals the destruction of the neo-liberal project, proof that we are doomed whilst we rely on the market, and indicative of the need for the government to own significant controlling points of the economy to avert further disaster. For the right, 'the end of New Labour' is an equally attractive idea because, as I said earlier, it suggests that Labour has fled for the left wing. If they are not new, then they must be old. But, given what we've heard over the last fortnight, neither interpretation fully adds up. Dig a little below the surface, and you'll find that what we currently have is a Labour programme built on New Labour assumptions. New Labour is not dead: it is just harder to spot. The PBR, in keeping with Labour's approach since the beginning of the crisis, is an exercise in damage limitation, a dose of social justice to make sure that, whilst the crisis works its way through, the most vulnerable (who are always the hardest hit) are given a lifeline, and a little extra cash to boot. But this does not signal a significant change of economic philosophy. The Chancellor tells us that, by 2010, the economy will be recovering and growing again. And it is here that I sense strongest the continuing relevance of New Labour. There is this underpinning theme that, in time, the economy will recover. The market will rebalance itself, and growth will resume. The dividing line between Labour and the Tories doesn't fall on this issue. There are calls for greater responsibility in the financial sector, but I don't sense that this is accompanied by any belief that the nationalised banks should remain nationalised once the crisis is over. The dividing line between Labour and the Tories is what to do in the meantime. The consensus is that, by 2010 (and election time), the market will have recovered and will begin to perform again. The question of what to do between now and then, however, causes disagreement. The Tories, some of whom still think that a recession could be a good thing, want to do nothing. Let the market take its course. Leave it alone and let do, or to use the French phrase: laissez faire. The Tories have reverted to pretty standard dogma over this. The Labour response is actually broadly in keeping with the principles of New Labour. A faith that the market can and will recover in time, and that it will again broadly be a useful tool. But it isn't a perfect one. The state has a role to play in correcting its worst excesses, in helping the people at danger of falling off the bottom rung of the ladder. And that whilst we wait for the economy to grow again, a little government help for both the market and those positioned most vulnerably within it is both possible and necessary. New Labour isn't going to stand by and do nothing. Indeed, it never did. And it would be foolish to believe that some ameliorative measures taken in extraordinary times add up to the implosion of a tried and tested political approach. New Labour is not dead. It is merely having to come up with different solutions to new problems. Beneath those solutions lie the same assumptions that have served the party and the country so well for ten years - a faith in a strong economy balanced by a government prepared to step in when it is needed. By continuing to stick to these principles, we haven't yet seen the last of New Labour. Adam Lewis is a member of Sefton Central CLP
There is little doubt that our improved position in the polls across the UK, as well as in Scotland helped in ensuring Labour’s victory in Glenrothes. However, in Lindsay Roy we had a candidate who was not a career politician and our core message, ‘a new voice for Fife’, encapsulated this well. He was, as he told every person he met on the doorstep, a local headteacher, who had taken a sabbatical to stand as the Labour candidate and oppose the cuts that had been imposed in education by SNP run Fife council and the SNP executive at Holyrood. Our message showed that ours was not a ‘cut & paste’ by-election campaign, rather it was locally focused and offered voters an actual alternative to their current situation. In contrast, the SNP wanted voters to send Gordon Brown a message and claimed that when the SNP win, you win. These were old messages, recycled from the Glasgow East campaign. The only new addition to the SNP message bank was the much plagiarised “Yes we can!” The day after the US elections, Alex Salmond was photographed sporting a large cardboard yellow circle with this emblazoned across it. Within 36 hours we showed him that “No, you most certainly can’t!” The SNP selected the Fife council leader as their candidate. In addition to education cuts, he had presided over an increase in adult care charges from £4 per week to £11 per hour and the introduction of yearly £50 charges for emergency call alarms for older people. At a time when personal finances are of major concern, these additional costs reflected badly on the SNP, contrasted strongly with the policy of the previous Labour administration’s and undermined the SNP’s assertion that it was Gordon Brown who was out of touch and that with them in power, everyone was better off. In contrast with Glasgow East and Crewe, the Prime Minister was upfront in this campaign. Gordon and Sarah Brown’s willingness to visit the constituency gave activists real confidence and showed that we were not fighting on the back foot. A number of residents commented how much they appreciated the ‘personal’ letter that they had received from Gordon following his visit to the constituency. One woman told me that while she knew it was a mailshot, it showed that he cared. Some conventions do matter, but we have been left open to attack when the Prime Minister has not campaigned in by-elections. Regardless of whether this by-election was held in Gordon Brown’s ‘backyard’ or not – his involvement cut any such attacks short. The number of bits of paper that fall on doorsteps or doors are knocked or telephones are called during by-election campaigns frustrates voters. Some do not hold back in showing you the contents of their recycling bin or slamming their door just to demonstrate the irritation with such intense campaigning. On the eve of poll we set out knocking on doors to deliver polling cards to Labour promises in our core areas. We asked them to take the card and hand it to our volunteer when they went to vote the following day. In return we would not bother them again. The reaction on the doorstep was stunning. Voters genuinely appreciated that we were making efforts not to intrude. When I picked up the first batch of cards and polling numbers from a polling station at 9am, I was stunned at how many Labour supporters had brought their cards with them. From this we knew that our voters were turning out in our strong areas and no doubt the SNP teller, stationed at the same polling station, was demoralised by the considerable number of people who were obviously turning up to vote Labour. On polling day, feelings were very mixed, but most were apprehensive. Many people who were out had been in Glasgow East just a few months earlier. We were well aware that there our voters come out early; SNP voters came out later in the day. However, the strength of our message quite obviously trounced that of the SNP. We fought with confidence, showing that we had both a leader and a candidate who we believed would deliver for central Fife. Further we did not take our traditional support for granted, paying that final bit of attention on them to ensure that our polling day operation was most effective in ensuring victory for Lindsay Roy, Gordon Brown and the Labour Party. Joseph Sherry is a member of Leeds Central CLP
Every journey begins with a first step and so is the case with reform of Young Labour. Over the last year there have been a number of improvements to Young Labour including a Young Labour website, a toolkit to support young members, more links with young trade unionists and more regular meetings of the Young Labour national committee. However, the reforms to Young Labour passed by Labour Party Conference last week represent the first step ensure that these improvements are not an isolated occurrence but result in a permanent change to a more active, open, democratic and effective Young Labour. Their passing signified an acceptance by the conference that Young Labour’s structures needed improvement and were not open or democratic enough. The question is whether these reforms will do enough to solve these problems – and ensure long-running improvements.
Tony Blair, speaking about education reform, once said ‘what can we learn from reform; what works and what doesn't; what is it necessary to do, to take the logic of the reforms presently in place, to their completion?’
So how do the Young Labour reforms measure up? The greatest significance of the changes is that Young Labour’s structures will no longer be able to collapse into complete inactivity - as sadly has happened in the past. The process for electing the chair of Young Labour will be more open and democratic, with him or her being elected by Young Labour delegates to Young Labour Conference rather than the more opaque process that has existed so far. The reforms will ensure greater democracy by bringing all regions in line with the current position of London and Scotland (where regional chairs are elected by young members). Similarly, Young Labour will get equality officers, as already exist in London Young Labour and Labour Students. Finally, Young Labour will get a dedicated policy committee providing more scope for Young Labour to influence the party policy process - as has already successfully been the case with the campaign for votes at 16.
In order to complete these reforms though, to further open up, democratise and strengthen Young Labour, at least three further improvements are needed.
Firstly, the youth representatives on the National Policy Forum should be elected by young members, rather than as present by CLP delegates to Labour Party Conference. It is difficult to see how they can really be representative of young members when that is not their electorate.
Secondly, the requirement that candidates for chair of Young Labour must be members of the Young Labour National Committee is overly restrictive. At a time when our Labour Government is working to give people more of a direct say – such as through the community calls for action developed by Hazel Blears – we should be willing to put more trust in Young Labour delegates to elect who they want rather than artificially restricting their choice.
Thirdly, the age rates for various positions in Young Labour need to be rationalised. Candidates for the youth representative on the NEC have traditionally been required to be aged under 23 (when Young Labour membership goes covers those 26 or under), whilst candidates for other positions, such as Young Labour chair, can (as far as I know) be elected even if they turn 27 the day after being elected. This does not seem to make sense, and should be replaced with a single and consistent age rate for all positions.
Changing structures and systems is all well and good, but real change depends on action - as Young Labour chair Richard Angell argued forcefully in respect of community involvement. As young Labour members we will need to work to turn these reforms into greater involvement of young people across the country in the Labour Party. To help, more resources to train young members to campaign and develop their ability to become CLP officers, NEC members, councillors, Assembly Members, MEPS and MPs would be welcome. As would more scope for Young Labour to develop policies and campaigns to feed into a dedicated youth manifesto. There will always be more that can be done – but the good news is that the first steps have been taken.
Omar Salem is chair of London Young Labour and a member of the Young Labour executive.
Gordon Brown’s well received Labour Party Conference speech mentioned how he felt ‘stung’ by the reaction to the abolition of the 10p tax rate and he pledged that ‘where I've made mistakes I'll put my hand up and try to put them right’.
This month, basic rate taxpayers earning between £6,035 and £40,835 will start benefiting from the increase in the personal allowance announced following the abolition of the 10p rate. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies this gives £120 to ‘almost all' of these basic rate taxpayers. The first £60 is included in the September pay packet - which is currently being received by taxpayers - with subsequent payments of £10 for the rest of the tax year.
Although not a huge sum, the money arrives at a time when many are feeling the pinch of higher food and energy prices. Will the public feel that the payments combined with the Prime Minister’s words of contrition do enough to make amends?
Omar Salem is chair of London Young Labour and a member of the Young Labour executive
Yesterday, Labour Party Conference voted to include extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in our next manifesto. This comes following the National Policy Forum’s vote in July in support of votes at 16. There was a warm welcome for the vote – as you might expect – from a number of national youth organisations. There were also a few critics, including Guardian journalist Michael White and Tom Harris MP.
Three main arguments were put forward against votes at 16. Now that votes at 16 will be in Labour’s manifesto there is likely be a repeat of these criticisms from those opposed to votes as 16. On the face of it, these criticisms may initially seem to be ‘common sense’, but they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Argument 1: ‘Introducing votes at 16 would be bad for democracy because it would result in a fall in the percentage turnout of eligible voters at elections’
This argument was put forward by Tom Harris MP, who wrote: “If 16 and 17-year-olds are to be given the vote, I worry that the most significant effect will be a huge increase in the number of “voters” who don’t vote.” This argument is flawed on at least three counts.
First, its premise - that the percentage turnout is what matters in terms of how ‘democratic’ an election is judged to be - does not make sense. Imagine a society of 100 people. A situation where 60 people are eligible to vote and 40 of them do so (i.e. 66% vote) is not necessarily more democratic than one where 90 people are eligible to vote and 45 of them do so do so (i.e. 50% vote). After all, in the later case more members of the society actually vote.
Second, the argument confuses legitimate and illegitimate means of encouraging higher turnout. Making it easier to register to vote, moving voting to weekends and running campaigns to encourage voting: these are all legitimate ways of encouraging higher turnout. Deciding who is eligible to vote on the basis of how likely they are to do so is not. The rationale of this argument would also justify excluding other groups with low turnout, such as ethnic minorities or those in social classes C2DE.
The third and final nail in the coffin of this argument is that - even if you accept its flawed reasoning - it is far from certain that the percentage turnout will fall. In Germany the voting age was reduced to 16 in some municipal elections, and the result was that a higher proportion of 16 and 17 year olds voted than those aged 18 to 24. Indeed, a lower voting age may even lead to an overall increase in turnout if young people pick up the habit at school and continue to vote throughout their lives – meaning a whole cohort of people more likely to vote than their forebears.
Argument 2: ‘16 year olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol, drive, etc. and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote’
One objection to this argument – raised by a commentator on Michael White’s article attacking votes at 16 - is that it confuses public and private rights. Drinking, smoking and driving are private rights, not public ones. On the other hand, voting is a public right. It is not incompatible for 16 years olds to have one but not the other.
This argument also misunderstands why it is that 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to drive, drink, and smoke. It is not because we believe all 16 or 17-year-olds, if they were allowed to do these things, would end up having alcohol-induced car crashes or hooked on smoking for the rest of their lives. Rather, it is because a substantial minority are likely to do so, and in doing so are likely to hurt themselves or others. Where the line is drawn is a matter of judgement and common sense - rather than hard and fast rules. An individual 16-year-old is able to do a lot less damage with a ballot paper and a pen than a ton of mobile steel. There may be a very small minority who abuse their right – but there are 50 year olds who may do the same.
Argument 3: ‘16 year olds aren’t really interested in politics, and those that are can have a say by joining their local youth council or campaigning against climate change/international poverty’
This is possibly the most ill-thought-out of the arguments. Michael White put it as follows: ‘Engage young people more in politics, I hear you bellow more thoughtfully. Well, fine, though civic engagement is a more subtle development in which party politics, an acquired taste to say the least, would not be my priority. Global poverty work or green issues of the kind which naturally engage their sympathy would be a better start.’
Much as young people care about global poverty and the environment, they also care about crime, education and work opportunities, their health and many other issues. One of the reasons the commentariat can get away with pigeon-holing ‘youth issues’, as Michael White does, is because young people don’t tend to have power to set the agenda for themselves.
Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 years olds will help right that balance. Even Michael White might be pleasantly surprised. Nat King Cole and Jimmy Young were right when they sung ‘They try to tell us we're too young.... We were not too young at all'.
Omar Salem is chair of London Young Labour and a member of the Young Labour Executive. For more information about Young Labour’s campaign for votes at 16 visit http://votesatsixteen.labourspace.com/.
There's always one, isn't there. Or in this case a not so magnificent seven or a dirty dozen.
I refer, of course, to those so called Labour loyalists who seize the opportunity for fifteen minutes of fame or pay-back time by sounding off against the leadership when they know that the media will be hanging on their every word.
This kind of intervention might be defensible in normal times when there's nothing at risk but the size of a particular majority or a few percentage points in an opinion poll. It might even be desirable if it offers constructive advice which has a reasonable chance of being implemented. However none of this applies to current demands for a leadership debate.
Such a debate might be justified if there was an obvious, alternative, popular candidate waiting in the wings (popular in the country as well as in the Labour Party). There is none.
It might also be an option if it was possible to have a cool, calm, sensible debate about changing our leader at this time without a malign media and opposition exploiting and exaggerating any sign of weakness and division within our ranks. It is not possible.
It might even be regarded as being in the national interest, were it not for the fact that we are facing one of the most critical periods in our economic history (underlined by today's news about the collapse of Lehman Brothers) which requires a steady and experienced hand at the tiller.
In these circumstances. those who run the Labour Party know full well that having a leadership contest now would be like turkeys voting for Xmas. It just will not happen.
These calls are therefore so obviously destructive of our chances of winning the next election and have so little prospect of being implemented at this time, that they can only be regarded as an act of wreckless self-indulgence by those who are making them.
I would liken these people to a panicky bunch of backseat passengers yelling for the driver to be changed as he is desperately trying to negotiate dangerous hairpin bends in the road. My advice to them (as it would be to the passengers in that car) is short, sharp and simple. "SHUT IT!"
So David Davis wants to stand for re-election to his seat of Haltemprice & Howden in a "noble endeavour" to shaft Cameron, get his face all over the papers and pose as the defender of liberty and the Magna Carta. We shouldn't dignify this tawdry electoral stunt by lending it the slightest claim to legitimacy. It demonstrates that the Conservatives have contempt for the principle of representative democracy. Your view gets voted down fairly and squarely? Just throw your toys out of the pram and hold a sham by-election in a seat you would have won anyway. We should leave Davis slugging it out with the Monster Raving Loonies and their ilk.
And before anyone rushes to denounce me for being an illiberal authoritarian or the latest modish insult, I couldn't have supported the 42 day proposal either. But if Davis felt the need to go into battle for habeas corpus why didn't he do it around the original 28 day measure? And the bill hasn't passed into law, nor is it likely to do so anytime soon as the Lords will send it back.
Even if the Parliament Act was invoked, that has far greater consitutional legitimacy than a fake plebiscite in an area highly unlikely ever to be suffer the effects of terrorism anyway. We might not come out of this episode exactly covered in glory ourselves. But we shouldn't be pressed into fighting this meaningless contest/ We should expose the cynicism of the Tories for playing politics with national defence and by-passing the democratic will of the House of Commons. And move on to pick the kind of battles that can unite the party and win broad public support.
Here's an interesting piece from the former Labour MP for North East Derbyshire, Harry Barnes, on his 'Three score years and ten' blog, entitled 'Seven reasons I'm not a Bennite'.
Some of you might be surprised to read a former member of the Campaign group provide some particularly thoughtful insights on the military interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, which spanned some of his time in parliament.
Never forget the sense of relief and exhilaration we felt that glad, new morning ten years ago and imagine the sense of loss we shall feel next time round if we allow our divisions to result in a Tory victory.
Yesterday I was introduced to the Party's exciting new 'Member's Personal url' pages (MpURL in web-speak) which Party members can find here.
It's got a great feature called 'Pin2Win' which lets you find out what events are happening nearest to you (and right across the country) as well as allowing you to post events too.
Everyone is given their own blog space and there are chatboards for each of the National Policy Forum Commissions. It also enables you to get in touch with other members in any other constituency as long as you know the name of their CLP. A particularly nice touch is a forum called 'Stories from the Doorstep'. There's a great story on there recounting a response from a long-time Labour voter who had been asked whether she needed a lift to the polling station. Her response: "thats a very kind offer dear but I prefer to use the cars supplied by
the Tories. They are far nicer vehicles and it gives me great pleasure
to waste their time." Classic.
Since I didn't realise that there was this new space for members to get active in, I'm guessing that there a few others out there too and thought it should be flagged up! Sign up today!
|
|
