The Progressive

Event report: Nothing personal: the role of individual responsibility in a progressive social agenda

Tuesday saw another excellent panel of speakers take on the thorny issue of individual responsibility in the rather apt surroundings of the Thatcher Room, Portcullis House. Kate Bell of Gingerbread; Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth Council; and popular blogger Tom Harris MP came together in the light of the welfare reform bill to consider the Labour party’s sensitivity to intervention in peoples’ private lives and the social and political consequences of it.

Having spent 3 years as a minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, James Plaskitt MP was suitably qualified to chair the evening, which began with a speech by Kate Bell. As a representative of the largest charity supporting one parent families, she highlighted that only a small proportion of single mothers are teenagers and that many of instances of teenage pregnancy occur in the context of social exclusion. Teenage pregnancy isn’t therefore a problem to be judged as wrong, but social exclusion is. Although the welfare reform bill focuses on individual responsibility, Kate argued that the problems people are facing are really structural, particularly at a time of high unemployment.

Steve Reed followed with an example drawn from a different field, that of guns and gangs. He pointed out that when Labour came to power in Lambeth in 2006 the borough had the lowest level of spending on youth services and the highest rate of youth crime. Looking at research into this crime it was clear that it was also linked to social and economic circumstances and the limited choices that faced many local youths. Steve highlighted the need for policy makers to give each child the choices they need, citing Lambeth as a practical example. It was interesting to hear that a battery of measures, including increasing youth services and providing skills training, has led to a halving of the number of youth homicides and a 17% reduction in youth crime in the area.

Tom Harris MP rounded up our speakers with a call for a radical manifesto, arguing that Labour ministers have stopped talking a language that the electorate understand on these issues. Whilst agreeing with Kate Bell about many things, he argued that Labour is too scared of offending people and needs to be more in tune with an electorate that generally celebrates marriage and considers teenage pregnancy to be a bad thing. For Tom this agenda is not about victimization of individuals or the making value judgements about them, but about trusting and empowering people to make their own decisions.

A lively debate followed with most of the assembled audience weighing in with their own views and experiences. A broad spectrum of views emerged, from the suggestion that where Labour has really failed is in not being compassionate enough in relation to the difficulties people face to the idea that we should be being more honest about our dependency culture and unafraid to condemn bad choices. Although there was much disagreement about where the lines are drawn, most present seem to feel that it is possible for the state to intervene without moralising and to empower through choice. 

RALLY FOR REFORM NOW!

On Thursday, Progress brought together a number of key speakers to put forward their ideas on constitutional reform which Labour should embrace before the next election. 

The event began with Stephen Twigg putting forward the strong case for a referendum on electoral reform. He argued that the case for referendum is long overdue but is stronger than ever due to the fragmented and diverse nature of the electorate. He emphasised the low turnout of 59% in the 2001 general election and the 30% of the electorate who didn’t vote for the two main parties in 2005 as key indicators of this. With regards to the type of electoral system needed, Stephen thought the AV+ system proposed by Roy Jenkins seemed the best candidate, being both proportional, achievable, and preserving the constituency link. Proposals for AV (without the plus) are a step in the right direction, with the drawback that it does not produce proportional outcomes.

The second speaker Guy Lodge focused his speech on the need to reform Parliament due to the crisis of confidence in the political class which has been reinforced by the expenses scandal. He focused on a number of key areas such as:

1. Reform of the whips
2. The need for MPs to have greater control over the timetable
3. The House should sit for longer and recess should be reduced
4. The need for a stronger committee system (Examples include a Permanent standing specialist bill Committee and a Post-bill scrutiny Committee)
5. Reduction in the number of ministers

These areas he argued would increase parliamentary accountability and reduce the transfer of power and activity outside Parliament. Guy Lodge also commented on the deep public frustration at the lack of public accountability in Brussels and the need for the UK’s permanent representative in Brussels to be accountable to Parliament. The establishment of a Public Petitions Committee, a Citizens Chamber and a system of recall for the breach of the code of conduct all might assist increasing trust in Government by the people.

Matthew Taylor followed with his speech on the state funding of political parties. He began by explaining that state funding would create fairness and trust as parties would be dependent on the public and vice versa. In order for parties to renew themselves, enhanced funding would also be key. Matthew Taylor pointed out that the Labour Party only ever introduces reforms when it is forced to do so or when it is in its own interests. For example in 2005, Labour’s relationship with the Trade Unions prevented the Party from reforming the funding of the political system. He indicated that this relationship has to change in order to for the Party to overcome its fears and opportunism. There is a low chance this will happen, as public attitudes are now set against these kinds of reform. The only opportunity to get it through would be as part of a wider constitutional reform package.

The fourth speaker Chris Leslie emphasised the need for increased power to local government and how decentralisation must form part of constitutional renewal. He argued that power is central to the debate about how to effect the quality and responsiveness of services. The Labour Party must deliver purposeful change in order to distribute power to the people and not to the few in society. Chris Leslie emphasised that quango-ised and managerialised public services must be transferred to local government. People’s first port of call when facing a problem should be the Town Hall. The decentralisation agenda has become increasingly difficult for Labour to stomach because of Conservative dominance of local government. However, the pendulum will swing back, and it is in Labour’s interest to deliver purposeful change.

Dermot Finch outlined the need for further devolution and decentralisation in the form of directly elected mayors due to the political and economic climate. He put forward the view that directly elected mayors would enable tailored and bespoke approaches to local problems. The economic case presented by Dermot Finch is an important area which highlights the differing and local problems of the recession with unemployment hitting areas such as Swindon and Hull greater than others. He outlined why elected mayors have not come about and stressed the division of all parties over the issue. Arguments against have consisted of:

1. An increase in the tiers of government (Plenty of unelected quangos)
2. Mayors would create maverick personalities (People can face up to them)
3. Corruption (Pretty rich of MPs to make those criticisms)

Furthermore, Dermot Finch outlined that Labour are too timid and technocratic while the Conservatives would gain at this moment in time if mayors would introduced, causing further upheaval for the Labour Government.

The penultimate speaker was Will Straw who introduced the topic of primaries in selecting Labour candidates. His argument stemmed from the lack of political engagement and the crisis in political participation within the electorate. He indicated that Labour membership has fallen from 1 million to 175,000. Yet interest in politics is as high as ever, with huge demonstrations over the countryside and Iraq War in recent years. Will Straw argued that primaries in America were introduced by proponents with an optimistic view of human nature, who wanted to see increased accountability, and to open up politics to outsiders (Barack Obama being an example). Will highlighted problems with American primaries such as the dominance of money, and the risk that opponents sabotage elections by selecting weaker candidates. These can be addressed through drawing up the rules carefully. In concluding his argument, Will Straw highlighted that primaries would encourage new people to take an interest in politics, increase involvement and engage the electorate to a greater degree.

The final speaker consisted of Fiona Mactaggart who presented a speech on the topic of a fully elected House of Lords. Straight away she pointed out that for those who don’t believe in an elected second chamber should not be a member of Progress! She went on to highlight that Parliament has simply gone backwards in regards to reform since the 1911 Parliament Act. Due to the fact that two unelected Lords are running large government departments and the large number of Lords attending Cabinet demonstrate patronage is clearly alive and well. This speech echoed Stephen Twigg’s in suggesting that a referendum on the day of the General Election was the best opportunity to put the question of fully democratizing the second chamber to the people.

After the speeches were made the floor was open to the audience. The first point made by an audience member referred to the topic of a referendum on electoral reform and making it a reality. Stephen Twigg indicated that at present, the Labour cabinet has a majority who favour AV therefore it can become a reality if legislation is pushed through Parliament. Another point raised from the audience indicated that in order for the Government to make constitutional reform a reality it needs to link these reforms to social outcomes in which the electorate can feel directly involved and benefit from. On the topic of state funding of political parties, a member from the audience commented that it would be very difficult for MPs to sell a system such as this.

Other members of the audience introduced aspects of further areas of constitutional reform, such as ministerial term limits and abolition of the monarchy. One member did make an important point reinforcing the view held by Matthew Taylor, by highlighting the timidness of the Labour Party and the low prospect of change under the current Labour Government due to its lack of political power.

The event gathered a great deal of insight into how the Labour Government should push for constitutional reform. Even though the complexity of the issue remains large, there was enormous optimism for constitutional change.

Event report: Never-ending violence? How can Colombia achieve peace and respect for human rights?

On Wednesday Progress joined forces with Justice for Colombia to hold a meeting about prospects for human rights and peace in Colombia.

Newly appointed Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant began by admitting that because he had only been in the job a week, he wasn’t able to make many informed comments about the specific situation in Colombia. He was at the meeting to listen and learn from the discussion. But he was able to start by showing off his fluent Spanish, honed over time spent in Latin America when training to be a priest. Chris emphasised that his experiences of Latin America instilled an instinctive commitment to supporting human rights and poverty eradication. He also drew a link between Colombia and his Welsh constituency – both scarred by the problems associated with cocaine.

Colombian Ambassador Noemí Sanín Posada had bravely agreed to speak to an audience dominated by those who were angry and hostile about the Colombian government’s treatment of trade unionists. She made a spirited defence of the approach of the government, facing a conflict of huge complexity and depth. Colombia is Latin America’s most enduring democracy, but also the most troubled by violence. In 2001 the EU described Colombia as a failed state – but since Álvaro Uribe came to power homicides and kidnappings have fallen dramatically. The reduction in violence in the cause of the president’s popularity in the country. The Ambassador recognised that the armed forces were committing crimes outside the law, but claimed the government was dealing with the problem – 27 members of the armed forces were dismissed last October. She also pointed out that the opposition are able to organise and hold many important elected positions – including Mayor of Bogotá. Ambassador Posado concluded by outlining Colombia’s continuing problems – three million internally displaced people, human rights abuses and drug terrorism. She argued that the Colombian government has a responsibility to act on these problems, and is working to do so.

Human Rights Watch’s Tom Porteous began by thanking the ambassador for her candour, but argued that she was underestimating the degree of the problems. Whilst progress has been made since 2002, with the FARC pushed out of many areas, there were still major issues of concern.
1-    The intelligence services are engaged in extensive, illegal surveillance of judges and trade unionists.
2-    President Uribe has repeatedly made unfounded allegations linking opposition figures to the FARC, putting their lives at risk.
3-    There has been a rise in extra-judicial killings by the army, and that there is a systemic problem with the army killing civilians and dressing their bodies in FARC uniforms.
4-    Colombia has the largest number of trade unionists killed of any country in the world.
5-    The demilitarisation of paramilitary groups has been flawed.
6-    The President has frequently thwarted and undermined the judicial process.
Being based in London, Tom’s major concern is the degree to which the UK and USA provide military assistance to Colombia. There is no accountability for what the UK is doing and what effects its assistance is having.

TUC international spokesperson Sally Hunt began by railing against the description made by a Colombian newspaper of the Justice for Colombia delegation she took part in – she was angered at being described as part of a ‘bastion of British Marxism’ leaving with ‘ammunition to fire’ at Colombia. As part of the delegation Sally saw that the Colombian government was responsible for the murder of its own people, and the displacement of its citizens. The situation for trade unionists was most concerning – a rise in murders of trade unionists, 200 arrested for trade union activity, and 1500 trade unionists murdered with no charges brought. A member of the magisterial trade union told Sally that they were seriously concerned Colombia was slipping into tyranny. Sally directly challenged the Colombian government claim that extra-judicial killings are under control. She argued the British government should come clean on funding the Colombian military, that we should know where British military aid was going, and that negotiations for a free trade agreement between Colombia and the EU should be suspended.

American trade unionist Dan Kovalik echoed Sally’s criticisms – he claimed the dark hand of the Colombian state was behind killings of trade unionists, and that Uribe’s stigmitisation of trade unionists directly threatened individual’s lives. Being smeared with a supposed link to the FARC set people up for assassination by the right-wing paramilitaries, and in some cases, the army.

The first point from the audience was that UK military assistance has been designed to engage with the Colombian armed forces to increase professionalism and human rights. Cutting aid will not aid the improvement of Colombia’s armed forces.

Labour NEC member Mike Griffiths disagreed, saying the UK can support a strong effort to prevent drug trafficking without having to fund Colombia’s military.

Chris Bryant responded by emphasising that British aid should never aid or abet human rights abuses. He said his predecessor Gillian Merron had been very clear in her criticisms of the Colombian government when she had visited recently.

The Ambassador responded to Sally Hunt’s accusations. The Colombian government cannot control what newspapers say about people – there is a free press. By suspending military aid the USA put at risk programmes to train the Colombian military to respect human rights. She claimed justice in Colombia is independent, and functioning well. She pointed out that 238 trade unionists were killed in 2002, but only 38 have been killed this year – too many, but a definite improvement. She criticised attempts to derail free trade agreements – this would harm the poorest in Colombia.

Dan Kovalik defended his attacks on the free trade agreements – arguing subsidised American foodstuffs would be dumped in the Colombian market – causing huge problems and further displacement of the rural poor.

Tom Porteous concluded by pushing for transparency over how British tax payers’ money is being used in Colombia, Sally Hunt concluded by stating political prisoners do exist in Colombia, and Chris Bryant concluded by offering his willingness to meet those who have travelled to Colombia, and emphasising how everybody is committed to achieving peace in Colombia.

The far-right, left behind

The extreme right is on the march, or so we are told. The European elections saw the BNP win their highest profile positions of power thus far, and right-wing parties experienced gains across Europe. Two horrifying acts of violence in the United States, gunshots echoing from across the ocean, have left a Kansas abortion doctor and a guard from Washington’s Holocaust Memorial Museum dead. Judith Warner and Paul Krugman both write in today’s New York Times about these incidents amid US government warnings about a sharp rise in the activities of right wing groups and individual extremists. What is going on? One must be cautious not to over extrapolate from these headlines: fewer people voted BNP this time than last, people want the state to help them through the recession, and a black man now sits in the Oval Office.

Nevertheless, it is important to question why anyone is turning to far-right ideas and, indeed, violence. It may actually be a sign of social progress; nothing gets right-wing extremists fired up more than concrete evidence that their worst fears about blacks, gays, and women gaining are being realised. The best way to counter paranoid responses like these is through public education and an open, honest, and resolute assertion and debate on the progressive values we hold are best for society. In other words, to reinforce a liberal society, redouble efforts to engage in a liberal civic discourse. Government efforts for increased citizenship education are a good first step. The opening up of our democracy through a constitutional reform effort that brings together parties, activists, and ordinary citizens is an important next one. Finally, ensuring that people don’t feel left behind in the wake of social, political, and economic change is vital to keep people from turning to the right and its imagined vision of a ‘better yesterday’. We must not, therefore, ignore calls for improvements in public service provision, expansion of social housing options, and widening opportunities in education and skills training. Far right attitudes, while springing from many sources, are indeed a defensive and fearful reaction to real and perceived economic dislocation and societal change. We must work to bring people in, and address their needs and concerns, to ensure that these developments on the far-right remain the fringe phenomenon that they are.

Event report: Focus on the fourth term: Where have we come from and how can we get there?

On Monday night the Boothroyd Room was packed out for this most eagerly anticipated of Progress events. The focus on the fourth term seemed more timely than we could have imagined following the crushing results of Thurday’s elections and everyone in the room was eager to start the debate on how we move forward.

Acting Director of Progress Jessica Asato opened the evening with a rallying call for a focus on progressive change (which you can read here), setting out the need for Labour to demonstrate clear plans to tackle inequality, reallocate central government revenue to local government, undertake constitutional reform and to set out sensible dividing lines between a Labour and Conservative future. Lorna Fitzsimons then chaired a distinguished panel of speakers. Newly appointed health minister Ben Bradshaw arrived fresh from the PLP and tackled the leadership issue head on with a strong plea to the party to end speculation and get behind Gordon Brown. He went on to outline three focal points to take the party forward, namely the need for radical constitutional reform, continuation of a strong response to the troubled economy and a building a cross-party progressive alliance on where we hold things in common. His message was clear; that continued talk of a leadership contest would only damage Labour’s chances at the next election.

Steve Richards from the Independent spoke next, outlining his view that the leadership issue is symptomatic of deeper problems within the Labour Party dating as far back as calls for Tony Blair’s resignation in 2005. He  argued that New Labour lacks clear definition and what is needed now is boldness and clarity, particularly in relation to constitutional reform, the economy and public services. He was followed by Stephen Byers who echoed calls for strong policy initiatives in key areas but, in the most controversial section of the evening, called strongly for the replacement of Gordon Brown as a necessary prerequisite to a Labour recovery in the polls.

Denis Macshane made a well-timed entry at the end of Byer’s speech, just on cue to hear his comments about the PM. He went on to disagree, on the basis that Labour’s current difficulties are a result of “three great tsunamis of challenge”, including social change and growing racism in Europe. Some solutions proposed by him included postal voting for all and elections at weekends.

Almost as interesting as the speeches themselves were the reactions of the large audience gathered to hear them, with a wide range of views expressed through vigorous applause or lack thereof and the many questions posed to the panel. However despite some clear divisions over the leadership question and the direction of reform, the overall impression was of Labour members searching for practical ways to reinvigorate the party and work towards a fourth general election success. I left with the welcome feeling that despite the troubles and disagreements of recent months, we ultimately have a dedicated, strong and vibrant body of Labour supporters who will continue to drive the party forward.

It will be of little surprise that the event gathered a great deal of media interest. Links can be found here.

Local Politics and Power

Instead of commenting on the outcome of yesterday’s local elections, which there is already more than enough of, I’d rather like to offer my observations as an ‘outsider’ on what has struck me most about British local politics over the last few weeks. First, the real on the ground nitty-gritty of local politics seems to be pretty universal. My exposure to the American variety goes as far back as I can remember, from the involvement of my parents in our town, and it seems to be just as tooth and nail here as there. Beyond that, the proliferation of different models of local government in the US, varying from state to state and from municipality to municipality, makes any generalisation and comprehensive comparison between the two countries almost impossible. The sheer number of local authorities, and the diffusion of powers throughout the American system, stand in stark contrast to the relatively uniform and orderly system of local government in this country. While decision-making and authority might be more dispersed and decentralised there, local politics here impacts upon the national in a way unmatched in the US. 
    The result of yesterday’s poll is already sending shockwaves reverberating to the highest levels of government. While this may be a traumatic episode for Labour and British politics, it points to a peculiarity of the British unitary state system that sets it far apart from my native country. Further strengthening of local government may be desirable, though one mustn’t miss the power local election outcomes already exert on the national political scene. It would be bizarre for local election results even to be mentioned in the national media in the United States, whereas in Britain they can induce a cabinet reshuffle and massive national debate. The strength of parties and their significance at the local level in the UK also distinguish the two countries. The party identification of local candidates in the US is often insignificant, if not entirely absent, whereas in the UK local and national politicians are linked in a sort of collective accountability that can either hurt or help each other. The country may be on the verge of a fundamental debate about the shape of the British democratic process; the often indirect ways power is held to account locally and nationally in the current system should not be overlooked.