The Progressive

This Kaminski storm must not be allowed to blow away

It’s quite clear that the, very necessary, storm over the Conservative Party’s association with Michal Kaminski, is not going to blow over anytime soon. The right-wing blogosphere must still be smarting from the trouble caused during Tory Party Conference by a letter sent by the Board of Deputies which sought assurances over Cameron’s alliance with Kaminski and Robert Zile, because they have now launched a counter-attack on the New Statesman. The Jewish Chronicle has published an email to the Cameron-aligned think tank, Policy Exchange, from the Chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich which suggests that the New Statesman misrepresented him in an article published earlier this year. This has given right-wing bloggers like Iain Dale just what they were looking for – a supposed vindication of their view that Kaminski is a supporter of Israel and that Labour folks simply just don’t understand the cultural context of Kaminski’s remarks about Jedwabne.

I have two small points to add. The first is that the Chief Rabbi was at pains to insist in his original email to the New Statesman’s James Macintyre, that he does not ‘comment on political decisions’. His worry at finding himself in the middle of political crossfire is reinforced by the Policy Exchange email where he reiterates ‘I made no political statement’. This is not surprising – Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster both try and maintain their political neutrality, as does the Chief Rabbi in the UK. I expect that Michael Schudrich is trying to quickly extract himself from having created a politically charged situation in his own country (though as Sunder Katwala points out here, he is unlikely to with this intervention.)

The second is that Chief Rabbis are one indication of the feelings of the Jewish community in Europe, but those who make up the Jewish community are another. If Conservative bloggers feel as though they have scored a political point by using someone who is so politically-compromised, they can’t shut down the views of ordinary Jewish people so easily. In a Question Time style meeting held at Stanmore Synagogue, the second question asked was about Kaminski’s involvement with the Conservatives. And there was around 70% support for the President of the Board of Deputies writing to Cameron about Kaminski and Vile in a poll for the Jewish Chronicle (I can’t find their archive, sorry).

The final thing to remember is that the Conservatives chose to be partners with controversial fringe parties in Europe. They could have stayed part of a mainstream Conservative grouping in the EPP, but deliberately picked Kaminski, Zile and others as their mates. The sad thing is that they seem to place the need to promote their particularly backward brand of euro-scepticism before the need to protect community cohesion and human rights. Newsnight are doing an investigation into this whole affair next week. As I said – no matter how much they want it to – this story won’t go away.

Event report: Labour's purpose in difficult economic times

Last night Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales, delivered the fourth lecture in the Progress series of discussions about Labour and the next decade.

Previewing his forthcoming pamphlet, ‘Labour’s purpose in difficult economic times’, he declared that we are in an era built for progressive government and that Labour’s mission is even more relevant than it ever was. He contrasted the fundamental political changes that occurred in 1979 when Thatcherism was ushered in and 1980 when Ronald Regan and the Right gained ascendancy; to the situation we face today. Today, an ‘unequivocally right wing’ Conservative government will return Britain to the days of ‘people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors’ Mr Hain said.

The Tories simply cannot offer the country the new politics that is so desperately needed, Mr Hain said. It is up to the Labour party, from the Prime Minister to the local party activists, to emphatically assert that Labour can win the next general election and that the party as a whole is up for the fight. A fundamental aspect of this approach is to project a new narrative, pinned around the core concept that Labour stands for solidarity in adversity, and to detail the damage the Tories would do if elected.

The Tories would put at risk our economic recovery with their enduring opposition to government and there would be no compassion under a Cameron government, as public services would be savagely cut during a time when people depend on them most. The Tories’ desire to make plunging premature cuts in government spending and borrowing should be compared with Labour’s detailed plan to only make necessary budgetary adjustments once the recovery has taken hold.

To conclude his speech Mr Hain asserted that Labour must be proud of its record but equally fight on a platform for the future. The government has introduced progressive reforms in rising income tax for those earning £150,000 or more whilst the Tories primary concern is to cut inheritance tax for the 3,000 richest estates in the country. Tight budgets will not stop Labour’s progressive platform and Labour should, Mr Hain declared, ‘stand tall and be proud about our record and keep fighting for social justice’.

During the question and answer session Mr Hain broadened his vision of Labour’s purpose in difficult economic times, detailing that Labour had made a historic mistake in being ‘anti-business’. But equally the party is now paying a heavy price for ignoring its core constituency amongst the working class and New Labour was guilty of veering too far in to the belief that free markets are the sole option. The government, for instance, had taken the right decision about intervention in Northern Rock.

Labour needs to move on from the New Labour project, but not revert to Old Labour – real Labour is a great possibility, Mr Hain suggested.

The hostile media and the relentless pressure of the modern 24 hour news media were a part of the reason why Labour had struggled to get its message through, but Labour also hadn’t talked enough about its values – social justice, equality of opportunity, fighting for the many and not the few. A key government policy where progressive principles had been put in to practice was tax credits, liberating millions of people from poverty.

Finishing off the lecture, Mr Hain issued a rallying cry to the Labour party proclaiming that Labour needs to sharpen its message and that it must fight hard for a fourth term.

Primaries in the Italian Democratic party have been a major innovation for the party and the country

The Italian Democratic party has a new national leader: Pierluigi Bersani, a former government minister under Romano Prodi. He was not nominated by the national assembly, nor appointed by the members. He was instead elected last Sunday by more than 2.8 million people that voted in a consultation open to the party’s supporters.

The party organised nearly 10,000 ballot boxes around the country and sympathisers (even 16 year olds and legal immigrants that do not have the right to vote in the national election) had a decisive say in the choice.

The constitution of the party provides that everyone who shares the party’s values and its manifesto can choose the national leader and the 20 regional leaders. While a first round of vote, restricted to party’s members, selects a shortlist of candidates, it is not necessary to have paid the annual membership to take part in the final election.

This system of election has been a major innovation not just for the Democratic party, but for the political culture of the country, once firmly based on ideological parties with strong memberships and a hierarchical organisation.

When, in the spring of 2007, the Left Democratic party and the Margherita (a coalition of Christian-democrat and centrist parties) decided to merge together, the direct election of the leader by the electorate seemed the only solution, that could give to the new party a fresh start and the necessary popular support.

At that time, it was necessary to prevent the new party from being just the sum of two political élites and to boost participation in the project. Under a provisional rule, 3.5 million people voted for the national leader and a national assembly in charge of writing the party’s statute. The former mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, was elected to the leadership. His election was not a surprise, since he was supported by the majority of the parliamentary groups and all the big noises in the merging parties.

The strong support (2.7 million votes) received in the popular vote, however, allowed Veltroni to impose a party’s constitution based on the involvement not just of the members but also of the supporters, which was a world wide novelty. According to the new rules the electors, and not the members, have the right to decide the political line, to elect both national and local party leaderships and to select the candidates for the local and general elections.

This innovation did not arrive without fierce discussion and public controversy. Many feared that this new system would discourage people to join the party and that it might allow someone not really involved in the life of the party to determine its policies and its leadership.

The growing membership, however, the huge participation, and the fact that the final result of the vote reflected substantially the internal vote of the members, are the best arguments against these criticisms. They show that it is still possible for a new form of political organisation, which values participation and really empowers citizens in the life of the party.

Lazzaro Pietragnoli is a London-based Italian journalist, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Labour Movement for Europe (London and South East)

Nick Griffin does not and did not deserve a one hour platform on the BBC

I didn't watch Question Time last night and I don't intend on seeing it on iPlayer. As the programme was recorded I was peacefully protesting outside BBC Television Centre and during its airing I went to the cinema.
 
I understand from those that did watch it that Griffin's performance was poor; he laughed and smirked at all the wrong points; he didn't have any policies; his statements were vacuous and unfounded; he made excuses for his KKK mate and espoused some anti-Islamic and other racist views.
 
However, his dud performance is secondary to the signals his invitation has sent to the British public.
 
Nick Griffin, along with any other convicted racist or fascist, does not and did not deserve a one hour platform on the BBC. I remain sickened that he was afforded the opportunity to sit alongside representatives of our mainstream political parties.
 
I imagine that the BBC Question Time production team will today be patting themselves on the back for their 'excellent' viewing figures last night.
 
As a TV license holder, I sit here ashamed that our public broadcaster has legitimised a man whose party and its policies are an affront not only to me and my family, but to the majority of my neighbours and friends.

Luciana Berger is director of Labour Friends of Israel

The Liberal Moment: A response

Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP                            20 October 2009
 
Dear Nick,

Thank you for sending me your pamphlet called 'The Liberal Moment'. It has rather small type but good to get ideas out and in print.

But I fear it is what the French would call ‘la politique politicienne’ – i.e. some very good arguments got lost in a pure party political appeal.

I can criticise Labour with the best of them but I know - unlike you if I may be rude - what South Yorkshire was like before 1997 and Labour has made a huge difference.

I also think the Tories are reactionary – not the least on Europe where we share some views.

In a Barnsley council by-election last week, Labour got 1600 votes, the Tories fewer than 90 and the Lib Dems fewer than 80. Therefore to place your party as the sole proprietor of decent progressive values which will hoover up votes may feel good when dictating a pamphlet but it is not serious politics for shaping government.
 
You also know that in Doncaster Lib Dems made a disgusting xenophobic attack on a Danish-born Labour councillor. I asked you with your mother and wife in mind to rebuke your local anti-Europeans but you chose to ignore my appeal. That’s la politique politicienne and you should be bigger than that.

You will recall a few years ago when we were speaking together in Sheffield I said people should vote tactically to stop the Tories winning back Sheffield Hallam, your seat. A good friend of mine who has a bright future in the Labour party and I hope in parliament was the Labour candidate there last time but I still believe it is better to have Lib Dem MPs not Tories in the House. But you did not reciprocate and I think this ‘politique politicienne’ approach weakens the cause of progressive politics.

I realise that at the moment from your point of view all guns must be turned on the government. But as you seek to rake Labour with gunfire you will end up making holes in progressive politics as a whole and Britain will fall under a reactionary, elitist, isolationist Tory party of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
 
 
Rt Hon Dr Denis MacShane MP

Tory privatising blunders begin

Prospect, a trade union which represents 16,000 defence professionals, has hit out at Liam Fox's plans announced on yesterday's BBC1 Andrew Marr Programme to privatise the Met office. In a bid to cut defence spending by a quarter, Fox said that there was a “strong case to look at the assets of the MoD and say, do these deliver anything for the frontline?"

Prospect Negotiator Philippa Childs said: "Dr Fox clearly has an imperfect understanding of the work of the Met Office.” The Labour government has already looked at whether it should privatise the Met Office a number of times and concluded that it wouldn’t be sensible.

The union says Dr Fox's starting point - "does it deliver anything for the front line" - is an insult to the staff of the Met Office who offer a direct and real contribution to the front line in Afghanistan through mobile units embedded with troops that provide key weather information in advance of operations.

"As well as providing the National Meteorological Service for the UK, its combined weather and climate change research and expertise is relied on by MOD, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Defra. Privatisation would denude the government of this intelligence.

"How can an agency that is a key contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be privatised and still be expected to provide impartial, objective information?" asked Childs.

Finding juicy bits of the public sector to privatise has been a hobby for Tories over the last twelve years, but as they get closer to power, you can see them salivating over the opportunity to test their privatising zeal. This isn’t the first and it won’t be last if the Tories get into power. 

After the frenzy of Jan Moir, now we need action on the PCC

This week has seen Twitter come into its own. Except for assiduous followers, who had really clocked Trafigura, Carter-Ruck and Jan Moir before now? Jan Moir complained that the furore which erupted after her disgusting article was “a heavily orchestrated internet campaign”. But that’s the thing – it’s actually quite hard to ‘orchestrate’ on the internet. If something takes off, it’s because people are interested in it, or angry. Yes, we came to learn about Trafigura through journalists acting in solidarity with their colleagues on the Guardian. And yes, gay campaigners on Twitter were among the first to highlight Jan Moir, including Stephen Fry who must surely be top of the people to influence on lobbyists’ lists. But what happened next was up to ordinary people on Twitter and the rest of the blogosphere. Before online campaigning took off, these two issues would have taken much longer to gain traction as campaigns would have spread through word of mouth or strongly worded letters to newspapers. The last five days has shown the liberating power of internet campaigning.

But we know that media frenzies do not often create lasting change, and it will be the same with Twitter. It’s great to highlight individual cases, but the slog of traditional campaigning must go on. After Trafigura it will be up to dogged investigative journalists and human rights organisations to continue to expose companies dumping toxic waste, and intrepid reporters to fight gagging orders. After Jan Moir, it will be up to gay campaigners to continue to highlight cases of homophobia, because one victory against the Daily Mail is unlikely to change deep seated prejudice no matter how high it rose on the Twitter stakes. But one organisation which could face reform after being highlighted both by the Jan Moir episode, and by the film documentary Starsuckers, is, in Alastair Campbell’s words, the “for the press by the press” club of the Press Complaints Commission.

I made my first ever complaint to the Press Complaints Commission yesterday about the Moir article, but very soon after realised that it was likely to be completely pointless. As a friend pointed out to me on Facebook, the Commission was releasing the following statement to people who had complained about Moir: “the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail.” How absurd. I was a directly involved party - I read the article. It ignored established facts. It suggested that Gately’s death had something to do with his gay lifestyle. And it did so on the day that Stephen Gately’s body was flown back to Ireland for his funeral. All of those things might constitute a breach under the Commission’s Code of Practice, so why can’t any member of the public ask for an investigation? When the public want to complain about Jonathan Ross or racism on Big Brother they can register their grievance with the BBC or Ofcom. Why can’t we do the same with the print media?

Might it have something to do with the fact that while the BBC’s and other broadcasters’ regulation is funded through taxpayer’s money, the print media’s regulator is funded by... yes, the print media. While the actual commissioners of the PCC are less dominated by members of the media than was previously the case, the funding body (the Press Standards Board of Finance) is completely dominated by press barons, including none other than Paul Dacre. This document from MediaWise sets out the sorry history of attempts to reform the regulation of the press – there have been eleven separate reviews or commissions since self regulation was introduced in 1947, with very little result. You can see why after reading this unbelievably smug defence of why the PCC should continue to be self-regulated  which suggests that it allows the body to “incentivise amicable settlements” and “react quickly to a changing and rather fluid environment”. So its role isn’t to uphold the public interest in a free press, then? Or ensure that the industry is held to account? Politicians have always been worried that they will upset the press if they introduce state regulation, but their job is to act in the interest of their constituents, not themselves. Given that the Sun has ditched Labour, and the Mail and Express never liked us anyway, wouldn’t this be the perfect time to take another look at finally sorting out this mess?

Time for Labour activists to recognise transparency campaigners

Having seen from some car-crash broadcast interviews from MPs following the Legg letters, it got me thinking - why is there not more public recognition of the people (rather than the newspapers) who brought the transparency debate about?
 
As with many disclosures of this kind, it's often the case that it is messenger who gets shot, rather than the message dealt with.      
 
Sadly we have shades of this here. As has been noted on Labour List, it seems the closer you get to Parliament the more jellyfish-like the reaction is for both the message that Parliament needs to be more open and transparent - and the messengers who worked hard to deliver it.
 
One person who deserves much more public recognition than she has received so far for her work is Freedom of Information campaigner and journalist Heather Brooke
 
If there was to be a proper response, it would see the push for greater transparency in our Parliamentary system as something that was long overdue, and that campaigning for it was an act of public service which should be recognised.
 
If the state currently hands out honours to those who have dedicated service for the public good, then the first on their list should be those journalists who - like Brooke - asked the right questions and, in the best traditions that people on the Left have campaigned for, didn't let up when faced with bureaucratic denial. 
 
But the bet is that no brave soul will sign even an Early Day Motion in support of this, as MPs often appear to do when garnering publicity over achievements of soap characters or minor celebs. 
 
Pushing for greater transparency is deeply rooted in our traditions and activism.

When Labour came to power in 1997 it set down an early marker for reforms.  The Public Interest Disclosure Act, which I worked on in the late 1990s, is amongst the strongest whistleblower protection anywhere in the world. 
 
The Freedom of Information Act drove exposure of Parliamentary practices, yet nowhere do we see those who made the personal sacrifice and hard work rewarded despite clear public opinion.
 
Compared to the Tories, strides we also made in consumer protection and advice over the last decade, yet somehow I get the feeling that we are seen on the other side of the argument.
 
Labour party members and supporters shouldn't drop the baton, but engage with the openness argument.

The future face of our party shouldn't be presented by those rather institutionalised MPs who appear on our screens holding forth about 'natural justice', but by a recognition of the actions of those who drove long overdue reforms.

Theo Blackwell is a Labour councillor in Camden

Event report: Would primaries save or kill the Labour party?

Progress recently launched its ‘Primetime’ campaign to introduce primaries for selecting Labour candidates. This debate brought together two proponents and two opponents of the idea to debate whether the time is right for this change.

Will Straw began by setting out the case for primaries:
    All parties have suffered from declining membership – on average just 40 people selected each Labour PPC
    Primaries are an inevitability – the debate should be around how to make it work
    Spending caps can be introduced so the process is not dominated by money
    Local parties can still select the shortlist, and use an All Women Shortlist if they want
    Sabotage from other sides can be avoided – through voter registration, and by holding all the parties’ primaries on the same day

Editor of Tribune Chris McLaughlin responded:
    If the Labour party is close to death we should ask why this is – because the government has neutered policy debate
    Primaries would remove activists from power within the party
    They would damage representation and  would not enhance policy discussion – in the Tories’ Totnes primary the least political candidate won
    Who will pay for primaries?

David Lammy:
    first advocated primaries in February 2008 after seeing the power of Obama’s selection and election.
    Is the Labour party a monument or a movement?
    Most voters in Tottenham aren’t in a trade union – how does the party reach them, and reach others in the wider progressive movement?
    When we select candidates we should be lowering the bar to participation.
    Primaries can be an educative process – letting people learn about what political engagement involves
    We can’t leave selection of candidates to rooms smaller than this one, and less representative than this one
    It has always been a struggle to get the Labour party to reform
    Ken Livingstone’s support for primaries shows that this is not a left/ right issue – it’s supported by all progressives and democrats

Luciana Berger countered:
    Primaries are not a panacea
    Concerned that it would be impossible for a poor candidate to beat a rich candidate in a primary election. What would stop a rich candidate writing a letter every week to every voter in the constituency?
    Concerned about negative effects on representation. the appetite for All Women Shortlists in the wider public is very low
    We need to do lots to encourage greater political engagement – but more than a one off election every four years

Questions and discussion:
Why would the public want to vote in another election – wouldn’t turn out be low?
WS: a turn out of 20% is fantastic in comparison to the current turn out of 0.1% in Labour party selections

CM: This signals the end of the Labour party as we know it
DL: The Labour party is an evolving force and this debate should be about renewal. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners will vote Labour, but they won’t join as party members.

WS: We can have spending caps. And bear in mind there are two ways of getting letters out – paying for postage, or persuading volunteers to deliver them for you

DL: There is already an issue with money dominating selections – winning candidates often spend several thousand pounds

WS: There are 30 types of American primaries – let’s create British primaries

Jessica Asato: The current process isn’t producing the representation we would like. Let’s have All Women Shortlists in public and explain why we want it. Primaries would work against people with contacts in the Westminster Village.

CM: Why should we throw open the process from a small group of progressives to a larger group of non-progressives?
LB: The Greek experience: primaries selected George Papandreou, whilst the Athenian mayor was selected by deliberative polling which brought about a better candidate

Sion Simon: Dilettante millionaire members of the Labour party would become MPs and working people would be excluded.
DL: The last 15 years have already seen a stampede of careerist professionals into politics –the status quo is not working. We should have faith in the selectorate to choose the right person.

At the end of the meeting a vote was taken and a clear majority agreed that primaries could save the Labour party.

We must dig ourselves out of this mess

Many MPs continue to view themselves as badly done by, under valued and under paid. Everyone is to blame but ourselves for the expenses scandal. I beg to differ. Parliament set the rules, or rather the lack of rules, and we must dig ourselves out of this mess.

Are we under valued? Yes. Are we underpaid? No, not by the living standards of the people I represent and not by the values of the Party that I represent.

It is precisely the Club mentality that has got MPs into this problem and that ethos of sticking together runs strong. But what kind of club do we belong to? In my view Westminster is an outdated, elitist, over privileged establishment run on the principles of a Gentleman's Club. Its time for Labour to break free and become the People's Party again.

John Mann is MP for Bassetlaw