Latest Posts at LabourList.org

Where is the next generation of truly inspiring leaders?

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:27:10 +0000

Watching BBC Question Time this week I was struck by how all too many of our politicians these days are, to use the phrase of a fellow Tweeter, 'political pygmies'. Shaun Woodward seemed, at times, to have trouble defending this Government's record on a number of issues. For the Tories Dame Pauline Neville Jones mumbled her way through some mediocre answers. The Lib Dems' Julia Goldsworthy played to the crowd in a perfectly pleasing but ultimately unsatisfactory matter. Even rower James Cracknell managed better, more coherent responses than the politicians.

But the star of the show (other than stand-in host John Humphrys...let him present it every week, I say) was undoubtedly Will Self, who gave intellectual answers and, to my mind at least, was correct in each of them.

All this made me think, where are this generation's truly excellent politicians, those who make us feel confident about our public life and our Government? You can count them on one hand as far as I'm concerned.

I don't agree with much that he says but Peter Mandelson is one such individual. He really gives you the sense that he's thought things through and has an intellectual basis to his politics.

Despite his apparent unpopularity I feel the same about Gordon Brown.

But what of the next generation?

David Miliband is obviously bright but is very awkward in front of the cameras. Meanwhile his brother almost has the reverse problem; he's better than his older bro in front of the cameras but, in political terms, is yet to really start shaving. I get the feeling James Purnell is both bright and articulate but, of course, is no longer in the Government.

And, well, who else is there?

Ed Balls may be many things but someone who inspires confidence in front of the cameras he surely is not. His wife Yvette Cooper is a far better performer but can come across as a tad stern sometimes.

Sadly, some of the best people in public life are, for the moment at least, unlikely to end up in positions of power. I speak of Vince Cable, the Lib Dems' economics spokesman and the Green Party's leader, Caroline Lucas.

This country's first-past-the-post voting system cruelly prevents people like them from ever having a chance of being ministers and putting their considerable talent to use for the good of all of our people. Instead we're left with too many second-raters.

Bad for Question Time. Bad for democracy. Bad for us all.

Shedding light on Cameron’s favourite Council leader's bizarre comments about homelessness and poverty

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:01:39 +0000

By Stephen Cowan

David Cameron clearly believes he can have it both ways. This week he argued he wants to tackle poverty. However, back in June, he was in Hammersmith and Fulham to tell Tory councillors how “proud” he is of their agenda - which involves cutting services and introducing new stealth taxes for some of that borough’s poorest citizens. So John Denham was right to call Cameron out on this obvious discrepancy.

Yesterday, the story moved on when H&F’s Council Leader, Stephen Greenhalgh, set out his defence on Conservative Home. Tellingly, he did not dispute John Denham’s report that his Administration is making pensioners poorer, closing youth centres or shutting advice services. Instead, he wanted to defend his decision to sell off a majority of the borough’s homeless hostels.

Greenhalgh began by asking “what is the real intention of Hammersmith and Fulham Council towards the homeless?” The answer is that they intend to only do the bare minimum and have brought forward a variety of policies which exclude this vulnerable group.

Consider the comments made by the Borough’s Cabinet Member for Crime and Street Scene in December 2007. Greg Smith explained that the homeless are a “law and order issue” while setting out his rationale for turning down a request from the BBC and Crisis (the charity) to run a temporary homeless shelter over the Christmas period. Smith said that he did not want the shelter in the borough because the hot food and warm bed would only attract more of that particular clientèle.

H&F Conservatives have also tightened acceptance criteria. The Council’s latest figures show it only agrees to provide shelter for around half the number of homeless people compared to the number accepted under Labour back in 2006. This is an astonishing cut - especially considering that we’re in the middle of a global recession when there are sadly many more homeless people in need of assistance.

But all of this doesn’t explain the reason for the hostel sell offs, which is set out on page 3 of these committee papers: the hostels are situated in a borough that has the fourth highest land values in the country; they are being sold as part of a programme that prioritises gaining “capital receipts” from a “continuous rationalisation of property portfolios.” It's a strategy copied from the Tory playbook in Wandsworth.

Misleadingly, Greenhalgh tries to argue the hostel disposals are benign. He asserts that he is only implementing the Labour Government’s policy to place homeless people in real homes and this, combined with an initiative from the last Labour administration to provide dedicated hostels for teenagers (which, not for the first time, he falsely claims credit for) has ended the need for hostels.

This is obvious nonsense. The specialised hostels for teenagers do not lessen the requirement for hostels, it just changes their use. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are actually cutting the numbers of temporary homes; selling off council houses on residential streets and gaining national notoriety by opening talks to demolish 3,500 council homes, many of which would have housed homeless people under the previous administration.

The message from these Conservatives is very clear: the homeless are not welcome in Hammersmith and Fulham.

So, Cameron’s soft words about fighting poverty sound more than a little hollow when you consider his favourite Council’s heartless approach to homelessness. But, just for the record, let’s also consider how David Cameron failed to do anything after I wrote to him about hikes in meals on wheels charges that have now been increased by £547 a year; that council officers say the elderly, sick and disabled have been “put at risk” by the Conservatives’ new £12.41 hourly charge for home care; or that they use sharp practices to deter seriously ill people from using vital services.

David Cameron clearly hopes that the public will ignore all this and that his PR approach to politics will be enough to send him through the doors of Number 10. But Cameron’s Councils tell a different story - one that offers a much darker future for our country’s poorest people.

Stephen Cowan is the Leader of the Opposition in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

The ShortList - November 14th

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:23:07 +0000

From @LabourList

Catch up with the highlights from LabourList this week, with this week's ShortList...

First, check out this week's PPC Profile, of Putney's great campaigner Stuart King.

News
Glasgow North East by-election: The full results and updates.

But what does Labour's victory mean and what lessons should we take from it?

Poll List: In a new poll, the Tories are below 40%, and UKIP have capitalised.

Gordon's Letter: Names matter because people matter - but we should lay off Gordon on this difficult case, writes PPC Julian Ware-Lane.

The Sun's attack on the PM was shameful and shameless, says Anthony Painter.

Murdoch says he agrees with Fox News' Glenn Beck: Obama is "a racist".

After a ridiculous round robin email amongst Parliamentarians, eventuall, Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland snapped and spoke out!

The BNP website and the Obama design...anything look familiar?

Could Labour's cash crisis cripple the election campaign?

Housing Minister John Healey calls for a "national crusade" for more greener homes.

Party and Policy
With a nod to the classic Life of Brian skit, what's the EU ever done for us...?

Rethinking Mandelson: asset or liability?

Jessica Asato explains why former ministers have written to the PM to ask for a rethink on universal childcare vouchers.

How do we get it right on immigration?

And where are we at now on the difficult issue?

In his NHS column, Amanjit Jhund returns to his home to of Glasgow and sees what more needs to be done to overcome health inequality.

But Labour's record on the NHS still beats the Tories' hands down, writes Councillor Chris Williamson.

We need fairer admissions and more good schools - and that means more Academies, says Oli De Botton.

Opinion
Join the campaign to make "Against the Odds" Labour's next Party Political Broadcast.

PR or not PR: Peter Willman says the argument is a calculated "Blairite" plot.

PR or not PR: And Julian Ware-Lane responds, saying that factionalising the argument shows desparation.

The PM should show his respects to our fallen at Wootton Bassett, says Dan Wilson.

The Berlin Wall 20 years on: Paul Richards remembers how the Cold War and Thatcherism permeated our culture.

The "unelites" have broken the rules of our party - and shattered public trust in our movement, says campaigner Ralph Baldwin.

Only around 30% of households have savings - Labour must stand up for the majority, says Duncan Weldon.

Previous editions of the ShortList
Blair and Miliband to Europe? - November 8th, 2009.

Europe and the Primary debate - November 1st, 2009

Griffin on Question Time - October 25th, 2009

Tory numbers - October 17th, 2009

Conseravtive conference - October 10, 2009.

Labour conference - October 3rd, 2009.

A Britain where everyone has a stake and a say - September 5th, 2009.

Teddy Kennedy: a good and decent man - August 29th, 2009.

Election strategy - August 22nd, 2009.

We Love the NHS - August 15th, 2009.

Green shoots are not enough - August 8th, 2009.

Debating ConservativeHome - August 1st, 2009.

Cruddas and Purnell - July 23rd, 2009.

The Ken Livingstone interview - July 18th, 2009

Terror laws should never be allowed to threaten the rights of us all - Labour must open a new debate on fundamental rights

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:47:10 +0000

By Ed Williams

“Here in this country and in other nations round the world, laws will be changed, not to deny basic liberties but to prevent their abuse and protect the most basic liberty of all: freedom from terror.”
Tony Blair, Labour Party Conference, 2 October 2001.

It was at this highly charged moment a few weeks after 9/11 that Labour’s compass on universal fundamental human rights tilted irrevocably towards the Bush led “war on terror”, being driven almost exclusively by the understandable desire to avoid further devastating attacks.

Labour can be proud of its efforts in bringing down levels of crime by over a third since 1997, as well as the unprecedented advances in employment rights and protection from discrimination in the work place and in the provisions of goods and services: advances that really do benefit the many not the few.

But there is an argument, not without some merit, that the Government went from bringing “rights home” with the Human Rights Act (HRA), to a Government which, in its desire post 9/11 to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US, was prepared to engage in a gradual, subtle and often barely debated erosion into our civil liberties.

At the end of this 8 year battle to keep the UK safe from Islamic terrorism, following damaging arguments over 90 day detention, extraordinary renditions and complicity in torture Labour is in danger of losing its way as the party of Human Rights.

Ignoring the Orwellian implications of true liberty being merely “freedom from terror”, there can be no doubt that in times of war or extreme national danger exceptional times call for exceptional measures. That is when the rights of the individual will indeed be compromised for the greater good. However, not only does our democratic state need to be under real and significant threat for such incursions to be justified, but such measures should be carefully targeted and heavily scrutinised. Most importantly of all, they should be temporary and capable of prompt repeal.

No-one on the centre left can justify, nor should they, the use of Anti-Terror legislation to evict elderly members of the Labour Party from their own conference for heckling a government minister, or arresting grandmothers on peaceful demonstrations against nuclear power, or the Met in 2008 using stop and search powers to search 58 children aged nine or younger. Indeed last year a total of 2,331 children aged 15 or under were stopped by Met officers using terrorism powers in circumstances where “there is absolutely no evidence of children in this country being involved in acts of terrorism” (Lord Carlile, the Government’s Independent official reviewer of terrorism legislation).

Nor could anyone on the centre left justify the widespread use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, (an act designed to prevent crime, terrorism and protect public safety), by local councils to spy on people suspected of dog fouling, fly-tipping or fraudulently applying for a school place.

The primary duty of the police force is to maintain law and order. Police officers will understandably use - and on occasions stretch - whatever legal tools the State grants them. Local Authorities face increasing funding pressures and will look to new and novel ways of maximising revenue. You would hope that common sense would dictate that laws designed to target the specific and unique threat of terrorism would not be used by the Police as instruments of general policing, or by Local Authorities as money making opportunities. However, it is naive to believe that common sense, let alone the common law, will prevent abuses of the sort listed above.

This should tell us that the laws designed to deal with exceptional, real and serious threats should only be targeted at those threats and never be permitted to threaten the rights of us all. It also tells us that now more than ever that we need a framework of rights through the HRA that safeguards individual rights against the interference by the state in its many different guises. We also need to constantly be on our guard against state power, whether it is acting with the best intentions or not.

Perhaps it is time to dust off an old 1992 manifesto commitment for an elected House of Lords, where:

"A new elected chamber will have the power to delay, for the lifetime of a parliament, changes to designated legislation reducing individual or constitutional rights."

That way perhaps some of the misuses of the Anti-Terror legislation of the past few years could have been avoided. Whatever we do we certainly need more considered oversight of such legislation by Parliament, too often it is rushed through, with little or no debate. Parliament also needs to be more alive in anticipating and legislating for potential abuses by state actors.

But these are matters of process, what the Labour Party now and in the future needs to do is to set itself as the party of not only employment rights, but as the guardian of Human Rights. For what could be a greater example of a statement of the universality of our human condition than through the protection of fundamental rights?

One of the first things any incoming Cameron Government would do would be to repeal the HRA, as well as row back on the hard won employment rights of the last 12 years. The idea that they will put rights at the front of their agenda is as risible a suggestion as their hollow claim to be the “true progressives”.

However, to be able to make the case with credibility Labour needsa frank admission of where mistakes have been made over the last 8 years in the so called “war against terror”. It should be viewed as a sign of strength for a government, particularly a progressive one, to engage in a dialogue with the British people about both its successes in keeping our shores safe from further terrorist attacks and its difficulties in balancing national security and human rights.

We should not be afraid to make the case for a society where the human rights of all are respected and not ignored by state bodies. As a Party we have been making this case since John Smith’s speech in October 1993. We should take the fight against the ignorance and misinformation peddled by the Conservatives and the tabloid media about the HRA, and point to its many successes. But most importantly we should move away from viewing human rights through the prism of the Bush years, where such rights were seen as dispensable in the fight against Islamic terrorism. We should reflect instead on the more subtle and corrosive effect of the debasement of these rights by cynical politicians and tabloid headline writers, where we the Labour Party are too timid to come to their defence.

In the final analysis the “most basic liberty of all” is liberty itself. It is time as a true progressive party to once again make the case for fundamental rights, with confidence, clarity and certainty. As the 20th Century revealed, a world without human rights is the darkest of places indeed.

You won't be laughing if they win

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:35:54 +0000

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed a new banner on the right hand side of LabourList today. It's an image of John and Edward Grimes, collectively known as Jedward, the bubblegum pop duo that have taken this year's X-Factor by storm.

But, as with the David Cameron and George Osborne, you won't be laughing if they win...

Closer to crisis? Why Labour must do more to help the low-earners hardest hit by recession

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:42:00 +0000

By Sophia Parker

This week’s labour market statistics make for less depressing reading than they have done in a while - with the smallest increase in unemployment since March-May 2008. But although the deterioration has slowed, the direction of travel is still downwards. Long term unemployment has risen, and projections indicate that, as in previous recessions, unemployment will continue to grow long after the economy enters its technical recovery.

However, some are more exposed by the current circumstances than others. Far from the early predictions of a ‘white collar’ decline, instead it is the UK’s 7.2 million low-paid, low-skilled workers at the sharp end of a flexible and global service economy who are being hit hardest.

These workers are more at risk of losing their jobs by virtue of the industries, occupations and geographic areas where they are concentrated. For those low earners who do lose their jobs, they will find it harder to re-enter the labour market due to their low skills levels.

This should matter to everyone, but to the Labour Party in particular, which knows its strength on the doorstep is a history that is rooted in championing working people’s causes and tackling inequality.

This week, the Resolution Foundation published Closer to Crisis?, an in-depth analysis of how the recession is impacting on low earning households across the UK. We argue that despite a swift response by government, further action is necessary to protect low earners during the downturn and to ensure that this recession does not entrench the already-growing gap between the rich and the poor.

Some of this action must focus on addressing the immediate risks presented to low earners by the recession. For example, we propose that training should count towards eligibility for Working Tax Credit, as skills help to protect people against job loss. We argue that more must be done to fully engage all lenders and utility companies in showing forbearance: without it, low earners can be tipped quickly into crisis by any change in working patterns, let alone a redundancy.

But there remains a deeper set of questions which all progressives now need to embrace, about how and why low-earners came to be in such a vulnerable position in the first place. Our analysis shows that even in the good times this group was living on the edge, with 11.1 million low earners in poor financial health in 2008, and many of them struggling to progress beyond ‘dead-end’ jobs which lack the occupational perks and security of many higher-paid roles.

As we move towards a period of gradual economic recovery, the challenge to government will be to ensure that this recession does not reinforce or enhance these patterns of polarisation that could be traced back to long before when the downturn took hold. This matters for both social and economic reasons.

But it also matters politically. Looking at MORI’s latest analysis of voting intentions, it seems that low earners are drifting away from Labour, with the same numbers now planning to vote Conservative next year as voted Labour in 1997 and many certain not to vote.

If Labour still believes that the working classes are their voters they need to demonstrate this commitment, by doing everything possible to help low-earners maintain their fragile economic independence. This is not an easy task – but it is a necessary one if low earners are to return to Labour once more.

Sophia Parker is the author of ‘Closer to Crisis? How low earners are coping in the recession’ and Director of Policy & Research at the Resolution Foundation.

The culture of instant gratification: why Labour must get a grip on advertising

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:53:47 +0000

By Gabe Trodd

This week, the Independent ran a feature on Sao Paulo’s Clean City Law, which has outlawed billboard advertising and blitzed the electronic ads, shop signs and street banners that once littered a beautiful, edgy and complicated city. Eight thousand hoardings have been done away with so far, with more to go. Those who disobey the law can be fined more than £3,500 per offending site. In its first year, the law brought to the city nearly £15m in fines.

Indeed, closer to home, it’s evident that what underpins the invisible hand of the market is the grasping, poisonous tentacles of advertising: gaudy, sprawling billboards splattered indiscriminately across our finest British towns and cities; piercing, all-consuming junk-food adverts, jingles and hooks being pummelled directly into British children (one in three children is now obese or overweight and Government studies now predict that the majority of children will be overweight or obese by 2050); and The Apprentice-style, hard-sell marketing techniques puncturing and deflating a rich, bustling, modern British culture at every other turn – from football stadiums to landmarks.

The Independent’s feature got me thinking about David Lammy’s absorbing article on youth crime and culture in the New Statesman towards the end of last year, which struck a chord with many people, one way or another. I think some of the issues he laid bare should be explored further by Labour on a much larger scale.

At the heart of Lammy’s thesis was the notion of a ‘culture of instant gratification’ contributing to a crisis amongst British youths and, in particular, British males - reflected by statistics on school grades, suicide rates and the percentage of men who make up those people in custody. Whilst much of Lammy’s approach was notable, I’m particularly interested in this ‘culture of instant gratification’:

"And, in this post-Thatcherite generation more than any other, young men struggle to control their own emotions. An inability to delay gratification - whether with food, alcohol, money or sex - is becoming a hallmark of our age, reinforced by advertising and media (by the age of ten, the average British child recognises nearly 400 brand names)."

Lammy subsequently suggested the UK is failing miserably to provide Britain's teenage boys with meaningful occupations, worthy role models or hope for the future. He pinpointed a "bling culture" that encourages young British males to pursue crime as a desperate short cut to wealth in the face of a rapidly changing economy which no longer places a premium on manual jobs - old images and expressions of masculinity are disappearing from society and the relationship between men and their work has undergone a revolution.

Certainly, at the end of a long, deep, British recession – an aching hangover from a sickly culture driven by reckless consumer spending, financial extravagance and personal debt – and man-made climate change spiralling out of control, it’s easy to relate to a notion of a ‘culture of instant gratification’, and a failure to live within our means, regardless of age or social strata.

The fact is that it should not be left to other parts of the world, like Sao Paulo, to take a lead on cleansing social spheres and spaces for the better: this is an area where Labour must lead the way. One thing is for certain, the shrunken, miniature state and two-faced, Thatcherite ideology being pushed by Cast Iron Dave means that he’s powerless to lend a hand.

Atlantic Bridge: the Tory 'think tank' that defies Cameron's 'modernisation'

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:30:02 +0000

By Stephen Newton

On Tuesday, Margaret Thatcher honoured Dr Henry Kissinger with her eponymous Medal of Freedom somewhere in Knightsbridge, the exact location having been kept secret for security reasons. In return, Kissinger delivered the second Margaret Thatcher Lecture.

Baroness Thatcher, the charity’s patron, endowed the Medal of Freedom, along with a lecture in her name, to the Atlantic Bridge in 2007. It is the main event in the Atlantic Bridge calendar, with seats priced at £400 and £750. The first recipient was Rudolph Giuliani, whose meeting Thatcher was regarded as an important stage in his ill-fated campaign for US president. His talk raised more than £50,000.

Founded by Liam Fox and with shadow cabinet members George Osborne, William Hague, Chris Grayling and Michael Gove on its advisory board, the Atlantic Bridge is one of the best connected Tory think tanks and is dedicated to "the simple aim of strengthening the special relationship exemplified by the Reagan-Thatcher partnership of the 1980s."

It also stands in the way of Cameron's attempts to modernise the Conservative Party.

In 2006, Cameron apologised for his party's stance on apartheid. Defending South Africa from sanctions had been a flagship policy of the Reagan-Thatcher partnership. Many hoped he would go further, owning up to other Reagan-Thatcher mistakes such as sponsoring the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and General Pinochet.

Oxymoronic at best, at worst the Margaret Thatcher Medal of Freedom is a grave insult to the victims of those regimes.

Top Tories also remain blind the corruption of the Thatcher years. It should be remembered that while many of us were giving pocket money to Live Aid, Britain’s aid budget was being used not to boost development, but to subsidise the arms trade and businesses who donated to the Conservative Party. And Thatcher went further, using overseas aid money to support the career of her arms dealer son, a man who may not enter the USA because he has been convicted of a terrorism-related offence.

Money raised by the Atlantic Bridge is used to help top Conservatives bond and plot with their allies on the Republic's radical right. Yet this think tank, which has yet to publish a single thought, claims to be a charity and currently receives generous tax relief on donations.

We now face a turning point in this unwinnable war

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:40:12 +0000

By Jeremy Corbyn MP

Last Sunday at War memorials all over the country, ceremonies recalled the horror of the millions slain in the two world wars, and in other more recent conflicts. The events inevitably encourage discussion on the role of the military, the purposes of war and of those who pay the ultimate price.

As the news of further losses of British soldiers in Afghanistan came out in the instant news fashion we are now accustomed to, the debate inevitably turned to why British troops are there at all.

Remembrance Sunday news coverage variously focused on Gordon Brown’s handwriting, his abilities at bowing his head, and a series of statements by former military chiefs who choose to blame all the problems of the military on equipment and thus the Government. The same process is going on in the USA.

British deaths are rising rapidly and the BBC website takes up a full twenty three pages of pictures of all the young men who have died in Afghanistan since 2001. As the bodies come home and the families grieve and politicians and generals alike mouth platitudes about fighting for their country and making our streets safer, many think rather more deeply about it.

Opinion polls taken for Remembrance Sunday show that nearly two thirds of the people questioned do not support the war and want the British troops home. Perhaps more tellingly, about half do not understand what the war is for. Indeed the more questions that are put to successive defence ministers on the purpose of the troop deployment, the more vague are the answers.

This is now the ninth year that British troops have been in Afghanistan, longer than the two world wars, and longer than any other conflict of the twentieth century excepting Northern Ireland. The best estimate from any of the military is that on current strategy, they could leave in five years; some talk of thirty years.

In 2001 the World Trade Centre was attacked and collapsed, and over three thousand people died. George Bush and the US military decided that Afghanistan was the spiritual and military home of Al Qaeda, and after a perfunctory attempt to show a diplomatic effort which might enable the extradition of Osama Bin Laden, an attack on Afghanistan was launched.

Not surprisingly the Afghan army was quickly defeated and the country occupied. A coalition of war lords and pro-western loyalists formed a Government of sorts, millions of dollars were poured in for “reconstruction”, and the country was meant to become a Western democracy.

Clearly this whole strategy is a failure; thousands of wholly innocent Afghan people have died, drug production is at record levels, the warlords are in the government buildings and support for various groups of Taleban fighters is rapidly rising. The Western forces largely rely on air support to move around as the roads are too dangerous.

Karzai’s proclaimed re-election is a travesty of any democratic process, and the Western public are supposed to believe that there are successes in nation building.

The political problems of withdrawal are a smokescreen for the real purposes of being there.
The Bush doctrine of the Project for a New American Century used the Afghan military effort of 2001 to not only invade that country, but also to create a ring of bases and military capability all over central Asia; issues of oil pipelines to the sea and the huge untapped mineral potential of the country were, and remain, major considerations.

The argument about changing Afghanistan is clearly seriously flawed as the war has spread into Pakistan, and increasingly potential a civil war situation is developing there. The post colonial border has always been the subject of dispute; yet another legacy of Britain’s division of colonial India.

The legacy of the whole Afghanistan adventure is a combination of horror for the people, losses of young soldiers from the USA, Britain and other counties, and enormous damage to international law and civil rights.

Afghanistan brought us Bagram air base, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay and in the USA the dubious concept of “homeland security”; on this side of the Atlantic we now have the anti terror legislation that undermines the independence of the judiciary.

President Obama seems mired in a debate he cannot win. Having allowed General McChrystal to make public demands for 40,000 troops and envisaging a process of saturation coverage of the country, with embedding troops in every town and village, will surely gobble up thousands more. In Europe the opposition to the war is intensifying. In Britain our 9,000 troops are due to increase by another 500.

This is a turning point. If the McCrhystal formula is adopted, the losses will rise, the costs will rise, and the likelihood of an ever more humiliating withdrawal a few years down the line increases.
Vietnam cost the lives of millions of Vietnamese and 50,000 Americans. Afghanistan, more high technology on both sides, is an equally unwinnable conflict and an indication, as if one were needed, of the terrible to dangers to the whole planet of the thinking of the Bush administration in 2001.

This article was first published in the Morning Star.

Congratulations to Willie Bain - now to create momentum

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:01:44 +0000

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

Congratulations to Willie Bain, Labour's new MP for Glasgow North East.

As with defeat, there are important lessons to be learned from victories - and this was an expected, though reassuring, success.

Labour devised and stuck to a strong strategy in Glasgow. With a local candidate and a lively grassroots campaign, it played to Willie Bain's strengths - and the party's. It was built around Willie's personal narrative and won through comfortably in the end.

Glasgow's was a much better campaign than the one in Norwich North, where much of the message was anti-Tory and top-down; this was a campaign much more based on local issues and local people.

The result was that, in continued difficult circumstances nationally - and in spite of early fear that this could be another swing away from Labour of Glasgow East proportions - Labour held one of its safer seats with a majority of 8,111 and nearly 60% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Tories were unable to make any ground in Scotland.

But there are worrying signs, too. Turnout was just 33%, low even for a by-election, and the lowest turnout in Scottish by-election history. If Labour cannot come up with the policy to mobilise its base in the general election, we will have severe problems.

And the BNP have gained more traction than in any previous Parliamentary election in Scotland, with over 1,000 votes.

So we cannot pretend that this victory constitutes a turning point: the national polls remain dire for Labour; Glasgow is after all a traditional Labour heartland; and seats like this will not in any case decide the general election.

But what this win does do is to open the general election campaign proper on a very positive and motivating note. It shows that Labour can still generate passionate activism on the ground - and translate that into votes when it matters. In a longer, more considered campaign than the snap-elections in Glasgow East and Norwich North, Labour prevailed. It should be used as a springboard for energy toward the big one next spring.

Willie Bain said yesterday that his victory was a "great endorsement for Gordon Brown in his efforts to set the economy back on track and it shows election is very much game on."

Few would wholeheartedly agree that this was a full endorsement of Labour or the party's economic policies - but it is certainly game on.

Greg Mulholland snaps over ReplyAll-gate

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:43:45 +0000

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

When Mark Pritchard sent an email to hundreds of MPs and Peers across both Houses of Parliament to inquire as to the feasibility of a new All Party Parliamentary Group, little did he suspect that, minute by minute, member by member would - infuriatingly for some honourable friends - hit "reply all".

After a couple of subtle requests for the backs and forths to end, Greg Mulholland eventualy snapped, replying in huge red font "NO MORE REPLY ALL".

The Times' Sam Coates has pipped me to this story by a few minutes, but it remains a remarkable insight into the workings (or not) of Parliament - especially considering the subject of the email was: NEW APPG on CYBER-SECURITY - and perhaps how out of touch a few of our representatives, particularly in the Lords, are.

Here's the thread:

Wednesday, 11th November, 2009

Subject: NEW APPG on CYBER-SECURITY.

From: Mark Pritchard

To: All Members across both Houses

Dear Colleagues,

Given the increasing importance of cyber-security for the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure, industry, and the UK’s intelligence and military platforms, I thought it would be helpful to establish a new All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyber-Security.

If this is something you think you would like to support and/or participate in, then please do let me know.

The inaugural meeting will take place on Monday 7th December - in Room N, Portcullis House, at 5pm.

Kind regards,

Mark Pritchard

Wednesday, 17:15

I think we have enough APPG in this area - Eurim. Pitcom and the APP Comms group.

Derek Wyatt MP

Wednesday, 20:21

Is there really a ned for yet another APPG, surely this could be brought under the wing of one or other of existing groups. Has there been any consultation with other groups who could take on this remit?
John

John Austin MP

Thursday, 08:45
I agree with Derek

John Robertson MP

Thursday, 10:33
I agree, few parliamentarians turn up at existing APPGs and the whole system needs reform rather than any more being added, in any area of activity!
Baroness Howarth

Thursday, 10:44
I agree no need for additional APPG. David Clark

Lord Clark

--

Thursday, 10:45
FROM: ATTLEE, Earl

Dear All,

I agree with David and others. In the next Parliament there will be a lot of new MPs all wanting to chiar something, Anything! I am also concerned that many of us are being listed as being a member of an APPG when we may even not want to have anything to do with the group.

I think that official or listed members of an APPG should have to pay a £5 membership fee by cheque. If one is interested in the issue this will be no impediment but I think that it would cut out a lot of problems.

John

Thursday, 10:54
FROM: ERROLL, Earl

I also agree with Derek and am concerned that we don’t dissipate the enthusiasm of the few who have a real interest in this area.

--

Thursday, 10:57
FROM: FALKNER, Baroness

I have to agree with all others who have opposed the creation of yet another APPG. Among ‘security geeks’ there is sufficient knowledge to bring it into the wider debate rather than deal with it as a discrete sub-area.
Kishwer Falkner

Thursday, 11:00
FROM: GARDNER, Baroness

yes too many APPGs already. TG

Thursday, 11:15
FROM: WHITEHEADPATELY, Tarasyn

I also agree with Derek, I think we have enough APPG in this area.

Thursday, 12:31
FROM: ELTON, Lord

I also take the view that we already have too many APPGs and that newcomers to the field should find an existing group that they can persuade to take their concerns on board. RE

Thursday, 12:37
FROM: BRIDGEMAN, VISCOUNT

i agree word for word with Elton.

Thursday, 12:38
FROM: SMITH, Robert

These emails are also very large. I have moved the carbon copies into the blind carbon copies to see if that makes them less cumbersome.

--

Thursday, 12:42
FROM: RAMSBOTHAM, Lord

So do I.

Thursday, 12:46
Would the originator of this message please remove it from my email system pronto. Charles Kennedy.

--
Thursday, 12:52
FROM: TEATHER, Sarah

Please stop inundating every office in both houses with this discussion. Send your comments to Mark Pritchard direct, not to the rest of us please.

--

Thursday, 15:16
FROM: REA, Lord

Dear Sarah

I agree. I think youv’e spoken for most of us!

Nic Rea

--
Thursday, 15:36
Dear Mark

Interest by any colleague in Internet and IT issues, including Internet-related crime and security issues, is extremely welcome because there are about nine or ten of us who beaver away at it – and it can get quite lonely given that there is surprisingly little wider interest amongst Parliamentarians in the detail of this work.

However, the last thing we need is yet another all-party group.

You will find a warm welcome in PITCOM, Eurim and ApComms meetings. There are specialist sub-groups on issues like security which bring interested Parliamentarians and Industry players together. For the past two years the three groups have been working together in order to complement each other’s work rather than duplicating activities and effort …………… Indeed ApComms is a group formed by the merger of three previous groups precisely because the territory was so over-populated !

All the best

Alun Michael

--
Thursday, 16:06
FROM: GRENFELL, Lord

Hear! Hear!

--
Thursday, 16:08
FROM: ELTON, Lord

I also take the view that we already have too many APPGs and that newcomers to the field should find an existing group that they can persuade to take their concerns on board. RE
--

Thursday, 16:11
FROM: KELLY, Gail (researcher)

Hear Hear also

(in reply to Lord Grenfell)

--
Thursday, 16:13
FROM: BAKER, Norman

Can everyone please stop sending emails about this.

Thursday, 12th November, 2009

Subject: NEW APPG on CYBER-SECURITY.

From: Greg Mulholland

To: All Members across both Houses
IF I GET ANOTHER UNSOLICTED EMAIL ABOUT THIS CR*P I WILL BE MAKING A COMPLAINT.

PUT YOUR BRAINS IN GEAR AND STOP BOTHERING ALL MPs and PEERS WITH THIS!!!!

NO MORE REPLY ALL

What's the EU ever done for us?

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:20:55 +0000

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

An amusing take on the classic Life of Brian skit, rejecting the notion that the EU is an expensive talking shop. Hat tip to the always-excellent Left Foot Forward.

The glamorous life of a PPC: a sleeping bag, a cardboard box and a mug of soup

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:31:04 +0000

By Ruth Smeeth / @RuthSmeeth

For those of you that have met me, you’ll know that I am a Burton related bore. I love the town, the community and I am proud to be their Labour PPC. For me, the best thing about being a candidate is getting to know the people, who do really amazing things for the local community, from running the local Royal British Legion to volunteering at community events – like the recent fireworks displays.

One of the biggest projects in Burton, initiated by volunteers from the local churches, has been a temporary homeless shelter run over the last four years. The shelter was initially staffed only by volunteers, and provided a safe place to sleep and a hot meal over the winter months. Over the last four years, dozens of the most vulnerable people in Burton and the surrounding area have been helped – both into more permanent housing and with social and practical issues.

Such was the demand on both the temporary shelter and the volunteers that it quickly became evident that we needed a more permanent facility which could work with local homeless people in a safe environment and which was open 24-7, 365 days a year. Whilst this created a political debate locally (and for the record the Labour Party supported this initiative from day 1) earlier this year the YMCA received planning permission for a new building.

So in order to support the project and all those people who have given their time and energy over the last four years, tomorrow (Friday 13th!) I will be joining a team of local community activists and will be sleeping rough for the night. 10 hours in the cold and (according to the Met Office) wet, with a cardboard box and a sleeping bag.

So please take pity on me, dig deep, support a fantastic cause and I promise pictures, tweets and Facebook updates to show I really did sleep rough for an incredibly deserving charity.

Please sponsor me at http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/RuthSmeeth.

In Swindon, the Tories have the audacity to question Labour's education priorities - but then get their own numbers wrong!

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:14:58 +0000

By Matthew Rhodes

Like many Councils across the country, Swindon Borough Council is now controlled by a monopoly of Tories. Since they took control in 2003 the people of Swindon have seen a Park and Ride site close, a Women’s Refuge shut down, local libraries closed and funding to a number of community groups slashed.

So when it comes to Tory motions at Full Council you would expect them to focus on what the administration is doing to improve services and make Swindon a better place. Not in Swindon. In Swindon we have an administration that indulges in political point scoring and attacking the town’s two Labour MPs, Anne Snelgrove MP and Michael Wills MP. Forget the fact that they don’t have the decency to speak with the MPs face-to-face for a second; surely this is missing the point of the Council’s responsibilities.

This week is no different. Two Tory backbenchers have tabled a motion regarding per pupil funding in Swindon, claiming that children in Swindon are funded significantly worse than others in England.

Firstly, there is the sheer audacity of the Tories in complaining about education funding when in 1997 per pupil funding in Swindon stood at £2,960 compared with today’s figure of £3,913, rising to £4,079 next year.

Secondly, they can’t even get the figures right! The motion reads:

“This council further notes with regret that under a Labour Government Swindon receives among the lowest funding per pupil for education in the country, the 17th lowest funding per pupil for education in England, only £3,913 guaranteed funding per pupil against an average of £5,410 last year in England, with some London Boroughs in excess of £6,000 per pupil.”

Well, the figure they quote as an England average is actually the figure for the average in the UK. This includes Scotland and Wales, which the Westminster Government has no control over. The actual figure for the average per pupil funding in England in 2009 is £4,218, a lot closer to Swindon’s figure.

Swindon’s grant has also increased by 13.4% since 2007 which is the 31st highest increase out of 149 local authorities. The grant is worked out based on the deprivation in an area and population density, Swindon suffers with pockets of deprivation and it is ludicrous to compare it with London Boroughs like Tower Hamlets and Hackney that rightly receive higher funding.

Swindon Labour Group’s Education spokesperson, Councillor Fay Howard, sums it up well:

"This motion could make it more difficult for Swindon to get funding. It is potentially damaging and based on flawed figures."

What really sticks in the throat about this is that on the one hand we have a Labour Government that has built 18 new schools in Swindon since 1997, refurbished many more and will have increased funding by over £1,000 per pupil by next year, while on the other hand we have the Tories who reveal with mouth-watering glee that they will slash 10% from the education budget, close two Sure Start Centres in Swindon and the two Tory candidates in Swindon are opposed to building a University.

Our children’s education is only safe in Labour’s hands, if for no better reason than the Tories can’t even count!

A referendum on UK's EU membership? Please not yet!

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:32:44 +0000

By Brian Barder / @BrianLB

In an eloquent article on Our Kingdom, David Marquand, the academic, former Labour MP and later chief adviser (1977-78) to Roy Jenkins as President of the European Commission, laments that the Britain he’s proud of, the Britain that “stood alone against Nazi Germany for twelve long months”, that welcomed foreign exiles and was a beacon of free speech and peaceful protest, no longer exists. Despite having consistently supported UK membership of the European Union, Mr Marquand is:

"now getting more and more favourable to a referendum – not on the Lisbon Treaty, which is a side issue, but on the one question that really matters: in or out? I’m pretty sure that the Europhobes would lose, just as they did in 1975, but even if they won there would be a silver lining. British secession from the EU would be a disaster for Britain, but it would be a good thing for Europe. Its progress towards federalism would still be slow and halting, but at least the UK would no longer be there, throwing spanners in the works at every opportunity. And – a bigger bonus – the UK would probably break up. Scotland and (probably) Wales would not want to leave their continent, even if England did. I’ve always been against the break-up of Britain, championed so brilliantly by Tom Nairn, but I’m increasingly coming to feel that it offers Wales, where I was born, and Scotland, where both my grandmothers were born, their best hope of escape from the deadly UK mixture of authoritarian illiberalism, gross inequality and small-minded insularity."

It’s a tempting idea, but the temptation needs to be resisted: unless it’s a rhetorical trope, it’s a death wish. I have posted this comment on David Marquand’s article:

“I’m proud to be European as well as British and English and a Londoner. It’s obvious to me that Britain’s future lies either in Europe or else in rapid decline and obscurity. The ravings of the Europhobes are incomprehensible: why should anyone take seriously the paranoid xenophobic lies of the Sun, the Murdoch press and the Conservative party? The prospect of at least five and possibly ten years of a Tory government under Cameron and Hague, oscillating between Europhobia and Euroscepticism, constantly dragging its feet in Brussels, constantly whingeing about wanting to claw back its ‘right’ to treat British workers worse than anyone else in Europe, constantly trying to extract petty chauvinist advantage by blackmailing our European partners with the threat of an obstructive veto, constantly blaming every national failure on Europe, constantly undermining our standing in Washington and the rest of the world by puerile displays of vindictiveness and disloyalty in Brussels — doesn’t that prospect depress you?

“If it does, then I can see how the idea of an In/Out referendum, almost certainly in my view resulting in the UK’s withdrawal (or expulsion) from the European Union (”It was The Sun Wot Won It“), might have a kind of masochistic attraction. As Marquand rightly says, it would be a disaster for Britain. If it led to the disintegration of the United Kingdom, with Scotland and perhaps Wales seceding and rejoining the EU, (and Northern Ireland probably joining the Republic of Ireland), leaving England to sink without trace, it would be not just a disaster but a catastrophe. But the luxury of being able to tell the swivel-eyed Europhobes and Eurosceptics that it served them right, and would teach them a salutary lesson, would be pitifully small compensation for seeing our once proud country swirl relentlessly down the drain.

“If we must have a referendum on UK membership of the EU, let it be preceded by a period of several years in which an enlightened British government awakens from its torpor and starts to play an active and constructive role in Europe, not fatuously claiming a “leadership” role (who else in Europe these days accepts Britain as a leader?) but engaging seriously and whole-heartedly with the French and the Germans and the Poles and Spanish to put yet more flesh on the bones of the great European idea, to develop its benign identity in world affairs and to help it to play as effective a role in tackling the world’s horrendous problems as the United States, Russia, India, China and Brazil. Before we hold this referendum, let’s have a government that shouts from the rooftops that as partners in Europe we’re part of an exciting and imaginative enterprise of a kind never seen before, a new kind of partnership among sovereign states which transcends nationality yet preserves and safeguards all that’s best in national identity. Before that referendum, let’s have a government that recites five times every day before breakfast the enormous benefits that flow to our economy, our culture and our way of life from our European membership card. Let’s see a great national crusade to expose and kill with ridicule the tawdry lies and psychotic scaremongering and Europhobic ranting of the tabloids and their Eurosceptic groupies. Only then, when national awareness of what’s at stake has been raised to a moderately mature and adult level, can we dare to risk that referendum. Until then, it would be a form of national suicide, a victory for ignorance, prejudice, chauvinism, xenophobia, cowardice and a shameful failure of vision. For all our shortcomings and failures of courage and optimism, we surely don’t deserve that. It’s far too early for us Europeans to surrender to defeatism.

“And, by the way, what is this plucky little Britain that “stood alone against Nazi Germany for twelve long months”? Better ask the Canadians, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the South Africans, the Free Poles, the Indians, the East and West Africans and the West Indians, the Free French, and a host of other tough and welcome allies. I bet their memories won’t be as short and flaky as ours seem to be. It’s fashionable and politically correct now to sneer at the Empire. I’m old enought to remember, though, that we weren’t sneering at the Empire in 1940. How shaming that it’s now their turn to sneer at us!”

Immigration: Labour's great conundrum

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:30:34 +0000

By Marjorie Smith

It's the issue that seems to be top of the political agenda in many areas of Britain; a multi-faceted political issue that has no easy answers, no easy solutions and creates differing political tensions amongst many Labour party supporters and wavering voters. It also seems to be a policy area 'that dare not speak its name' in polite Labour society - until Gordon Brown's speech this morning.

The right and centre-right spotted the political benefit of hyping immigration as a stick to beat Labour with several years ago. The drip, drip, drip of political poison over this issue has been led by the obnoxious Daily Express and the right-wing pressure group Migration Watch over the past several years.

The rest of the right's media forces have also realised the potency of the issue and have waded in on the issue, blithely swallowing any press release issued by Migration Watch as indisputable fact. The Daily Mail recently even went so far as to spin a story that claimed that mass immigration was a secret Labour plot to change the face of Britain.

What is worse is that the Tories have employed a strategy that allows them to keep themselves at arm's length whilst pretending to be "compassionate Conservatives". They have used well-funded pressure groups such as The Taxpayers Alliance and Migration Watch as attack dogs on public expenditure and immigration policy to distort the political debate in this country so as to paint the Labour party as weak and compliant. Of course this then has the effect of burnishing the Tory party's image as reasonable and decisive.

Immigration was always going to be potentially embarrassing issue for Labour as its internationalist principles would leave it instinctively in a defensive posture when confronted. Despite the public hard line approach of Jack Straw and David Blunkett as Home Secretaries as well as a Number 10 edict to radically reduce the number of asylum seekers appealing against Home Office decisions, it is apparent that Labour remains uniquely vulnerable on immigration policy. It also goes a long way to explain the success of the BNP in exploiting this issue.

The Tories have learnt from New Labour's adoption of triangulation. By not commenting consistently on the issue they have allowed the far right to dominate the response from the right. In giving the BNP political space they have managed to give the far-right a modicum of political impact, yet know that this would never be translated into any prospects of success at a general election under the First Past the Post system and that it would have very, very limited impact on their voter share. However, the Tories' main benefit is that it will allow them to present themselves as the reasonable face of a tolerant Britain that will take steps to (reluctantly, as they claim) 'properly' control immigration. This will be presented as a necessary step that has to be taken, otherwise the BNP would prosper as a result of Labour weakness.

The main political question is what is the strength of feeling on the issue in marginals as well as the rest of the country; what sort of response should the party should develop; and what arguments can it deploy on the doorsteps in order to convince voters (and the more reasonable media outlets) that scare stories about immigration should be treated with the contempt they deserve?

It does appear that the issue is a hot potato on the doorsteps both in working and middle class areas and that it is the subject of chatter across the country. It seems to currently inform perceptions of the character of the main political parties and could be a pivotal issue as to how voters make their electoral choices.

From both apocryphal feedback in the mainstream media as well as opinion polls and expert analysis, it appears that the only policy area that the BNP has found traction is in the area of immigration. At moment, the more the BNP agitate on the issue and Labour isn't perceived to have a coherent response, the more votes are lost in both working and middle class areas. It's not the BNP who benefit in the main from the seepage of Labour support; it's the Tories, content to keep quiet as votes swing their way.

Thus, the issue needs to be addressed at several levels to be able to formulate a distinct message on the doorstep and in radio and television studios over the next 6 months leading up to the election.

This requires three different approaches to three very different patterns of immigration. Intra-EU movement of people; economic migration from outside of the EU; and asylum seekers.

Firstly, let us nail the lie that we are being swamped by Poles, Lithuanians tc and others from the rest of the EU who take advantage of free movement to move to the UK. Many of the Polish migrants work here for a relatively short time and then return home, the vast majority paying taxes and national insurance; very few claim benefits of any kind.

The consequences of closing our borders to citizens of other EU countries (which would require withdrawal from the EU) would have devastating consequences for millions of UK citizens. Not only would UK citizens be unable to work in the rest of the EU, unlike now, but the hundreds of thousands of Britons who live in Spain, France and the rest of the EU would lose their residency rights. Furthermore, the dreams and aspirations of many hoping to own their own little place in the sun would be shattered. Malaga or Margate, anybody? Immigration from the rest of the EU and emigration to there also, is clearly a two-way street, where the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

If we turn in on ourselves our horizons dramatically shrink. It should also be noted that if we ever pulled up the drawbridge with the rest of the EU, then France, Belgium, Holland would have little if any incentive to stop people trying to enter the UK.

Secondly is the thorniest problem of all: economic migration. Much of this is initially driven by desperation and despair. People from sub-Saharan Africa, from Turkey, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the poorest parts of China, etc., all arrive with a legitimate reason to believe that their lives would be improved if they could enter the UK. Most have a case on hardship grounds alone to merit consideration. The age-old problem is where do you draw the line?

Thirdly, the UK also 'suffers' from a unique combination of circumstances concerning immigration. Not only do we have a large number of immigrant communities already based in the UK that can act as a support group to new arrivals. We also have a historical link with many countries as the aftermath of Empire, when we rapaciously plundered such places.

These immigration 'drivers' mean that the UK would likely be the preferred destination of choice for many economic immigrants aiming to enter the EU when compared with many other Member States (although France shares many similarities with its former colonies also being a catalyst). Hence, even if we were the most compassionate people on earth, an open door policy is unworkable.

Therefore, immigration controls are a necessity and the more that is done to dissuade immigrants even setting off on perilous journeys across continents, the better. There is nothing wrong in rigorous but fair immigration controls. They reward the legitimate immigrant who goes through the system, and deter criminal gangs who exploit the weak and the vulnerable for their own ends.

Labour has a good story to tell on immigration. It is a story of fairness, compassion and understanding. But this has to be allied to a recognition that only in times of sustained economic prosperity can entry be granted to those who have the skills or who will fill jobs nobody else wants to do. It is also a fact of life, that as the UK population ages, we will need a radically improved birth rate (unlikely) or significant immigration in order, for example, to keep our pensions sustainable and our hospitals and care homes running, as well as the wider economy performing well.

The asylum system has been abused. Let's admit it, desperate people do desperate things. Yet it is Labour who have introduced a high degree of rationality into the system and it is only through perseverance that an asylum system built on intelligent fairness be embedded.

Make no mistake, even under a rabid right-wing Government in the UK, illegal immigration and asylum seeking wouldn't disappear, it wouldn't even decline. Labour doesn't need to allow itself to be tarred with this brush. As for workers from other EU Member States, that is a zero sum game where we stand to lose a lot more than we could theoretically gain.

An alternative version of this post first appeared on Marjorie's blog, Left Wing Polemics.

Election day: updates from Glasgow North East

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:59:07 +0000

By Alex Smith/ @alexsmith1982

UPDATE: My analysis of what the result means.

UPDATE: The results are in:

Willie Bain (Lab): 12,231

David Kerr (SNP): 4,120

Ruth Davidson (Con): 1,075

Charlie Bailey (BNP): 1,013

Eileen Baxendale (Lib Dems): 474

Total votes: 20,638

Turnout: 33%

Labour majority: 8,111

UPDATE: 1.45am - still no results; they're expected before 2am.

UPDATE: Wille Bain: "This is a great endorsement for Gordon Brown in his efforts to set the economy back on track and it shows the election is very much game on." Steady on, Willie.

UPDATE: It looks certain that Wille Bain will be the next MP for Glasgow North East now, with the SNP in second and - perhaps - BNP in third. The key aspects still to come will be the scale of the victory, the turnout and the majority; that's where the real meaning lies in this election.

UPDATE: SNP concede defeat, according to Sky News.

UPDATE: Radio Scotland says Tories think Labour majority may be 6,000; Lib Dem sources "expect" to lose deposit. Sky News also reporting a likely 5,000+ majority for Labour.

UPDATE: 35% turnout, according to Radio Scotland; 17,000 votes.

UPDATE: Turnout is likely to be between 35-40%, the lowest ever in Scotland.

UPDATE: The SNP are privately conceding defeat. Privately, of course.

UPDATE: Severin Carell of the Guardian says the SNP "fear the pensioner vote...out early and voting Labour". He also says that the BNP's vote is likely to be in the low hundreds - and that they may lose their deposit.

UPDATE: Guido has £100 on Labour to win.

UPDATE: No one really knows exactly what time the results are expected. I initially heard midnight, but am now hearing 2.30am. Could that be a sign of a higher turnout than initially expected?

UPDATE: Turnout in the 2005 general election here was 45.8% and in this year's Norwich North by-election it was 45.9%. The Glasgow Evening Times predicts nothing more than 35% today in Glasgow, Mike Smithson suggests it might be more.

UPDATE: Labour Students are still out in force in Glasgow, as they have been over the past few weeks.

UPDATE: LocalNewsGlasgow says (via Paul Owen):

"Willie Bain's Labour HQ is bustling with party workers and campaigners. There is an expectant and excited yet nervous buzz about the place... From a huddle of red-jacketed canvassers I hear one man in his 30s tell a younger gang of activists; "If you don't know what to say then just tell them; Vote Willie Bain, Vote Willie Bain, Vote Willie Bain!" …"

UPDATE: It's been overcast all day in Glasgow. Now rain's looking likely.

UPDATE: Mike Smithson considers what the turnout might be today.

UPDATE: Alex Salmond cagey on the result.

UPDATE: Ladbrokes' latest odds:

Labour: 1/6
SNP: 4/1
Jury Team: 101/1
BNP: 101/1
Conservatives: 101/1
Greens: 101/1
Liberal Democrats: 101/1

UPDATE: 2005 general election result:

Michael Martin (Speaker-Lab): 15,153
John McLaughlin (SNP): 5,019
Doris Kelly (Socialist Labour): 4,036
Graham Campbell (Scottish Socialist): 1,402
Daniel Houston (Scottish Unionist): 1,266
Scott McLean (BNP): 920
Joe Chambers (Ind): 622

The battle for Glasgow North East culminates today with the long-awaited by-election. Labour's candidate Wille Bain is expected to win, but no doubt there'll be several ups, downs and other news stories coming out of Glasgow today. I'll be updating this post with news from the frontline throughout the day and evening.

In the meantime, have a look over Willie's PPC Profile, his campaign diary over the past three weeks and Freeman of the city of Glasgow Alex Ferguson's endorsement.

John Harris has been out speaking to local people in Glasgow, and has put together an interesting video featuring Willie, as well as a confrontation with the BNP and conversation with John Smeaton.

You can also watch Willie's campaign video below and join his team for the last crucial hours.

20 years on, it's still easy to remember how deeply the Cold War and Thatcherism permeated our culture

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:34:54 +0000

The Paul Richards Column

Last week I wrote about the pop music that influenced me, and many others, in the Labour Party in the 1980s. Since then, I’ve been reflecting on the television dramas which guided a generation towards left-wing politics in the same decade. For me, there were three BBC dramas which stood out in the decade that gave us Breakfast TV and Treasure Hunt.

For a generation of Labour activists whose party had been out of power for a decade 'A Very British Coup', shown on the BBC in 1989, was a huge morale booster. It was set in a not-too-distant future when there was a Labour government. It was based, loosely, on a book by Chris Mullin, but with Alan Plater’s screenplay it came alive. Harry Perkins is the Labour Prime Minister. A former Sheffield steel-worker, unilateral nuclear disarmer, and trade unionist, Perkins represented the Bennite’s dream: a genuine proletarian left-winger with a northern accent. Surrounded by plots and betrayal, Perkins delivers full employment and starts to dismantle Britain’s nuclear arsenal. But the forces of the CIA, civil service, media and right-wing of the Labour Party combine to force his resignation. As he is about to read his resignation statement live on air, he throws away the prepared script and calls an immediate general election. The drama closes with the ominous sound of helicopters, suggesting a military coup is being launched.

'A Very British Coup' starred Ray McAnally as Perkins, with appearances by Keith Allen (now perhaps better known as father of Lily) as a scruffy former journalist-turned-spin doctor in the mould of a Alistair Campbell or Joe Haines, and Tim McInnerny (from Blackadder) as the super-smooth MI5 agent determined to bring down the Labour Government. It played to the general 80s sense of paranoia about ‘the establishment’ and the ‘Tory press’. It depicted, at the height of the ‘policy review’ reforms under Kinnock, an uncompromising left-wing Labour Government, bailed out by the National Bank of Moscow, which somehow was also popular with the voters. The scenes of Perkins’ victorious journey from Sheffield to London by train having won an election were a tonic to real Labour members who had just lost three in a row. When asked by the press if Labour would abolish first-class travel, Perkins answers that he intends to abolish second-class travel. The action rose and fell to the sound of Mozart’s Mass in C Minor, which added to the dramatic impact.

Labour Party members loved it. You could buy ‘Harry Perkins for Leader’ badges in the Labour Party’s shop at our Walworth Road headquarters. Hard to believe that Labour ran a shop, a library and a magazine in those days.

When scriptwriter Troy Kennedy Martin died in September this year, his obituaries mentioned his masterpiece 'Edge of Darkness'. It was aired in the winter of 1985, and had an immediate impact. The story was about the murder of a policeman’s daughter (played by Joanne Whalley) but really it was a dark warning about the perils of the nuclear energy industry (Ed Miliband take note). Bob Peck played the cop who ends up on the side of the environmentalists who had attempted to expose a fictional nuclear firm, and were drowned in a deep mineshaft. Bizarrely, Michael Meacher appears in the first episode, playing a left-wing MP addressing a student union (so not much of a stretch). Tim McInnerney pops up in this one too, as a Trotskyist paper-seller and police informant. He ends up sharing a bath with an electric toaster. Joe Don Baker steals the show as Jedburgh, the rogue CIA agent who sees himself as a teutonic knight, defending good against evil. 'Edge of Darkness' was perfect for its time – the cold war, Thatcher in no. 10, the miners’ strike a recent memory. Like 'A Very British Coup', it appealed to the lefty world-view. It also introduced environmental themes to a mainstream BBC audience. I watched it again on DVD the other day, and it’s still brilliant viewing. And Michael Meacher hasn’t changed much either.

'Threads' was single-handedly responsible for terrifying a whole generation of youngsters, me included. It was the War Game for our generation. It showed what would happen to Sheffield in a nuclear war. The build-up to war is hardly noticed: the Russians invading Iran, the US retaliating with battle-field tactical nuclear weapons. The people of Sheffield don’t really notice until the Russians drop a large nuclear missile on them. It won’t be giving too much away if you haven’t seen it if I tell you everybody dies; some straightaway, some slowly, in ludicrous shelters made from doors and sandbags. The council officials, in their bunker under Sheffield Town Hall, try to keep civil order, until they realise they are trapped under the rubble of the town hall. Their bodies are discovered weeks later.

‘Protect and Survive’ was the official advice brochure, and I seem to remember you had to paint your windows white to deflect the blast, and remember to pack a tin opener. The most terrifying part of 'Threads', which was aired in 1984, was a glimpse into the post-nuclear future, where a tiny population of survivors is engaged in subsistence farming, blighted by hideous genetic deformities. Barry Hines (who also wrote Kes) won a BAFTA for the screenplay. As a true son of Barnsley, it was Sheffield that Hines gets nuked!

The cold war cast a huge political and cultural shadow over the 80s. Like most people growing up in that decade you were aware of the threat of nuclear war. You doodled mushroom clouds on your school books. Only when the Berlin Wall came down, 20 years ago this week, did the immediate sense of impending doom diminish, but before the final blocks of concrete had hit the ground, we all had other things to worry about.

An expelled councillor: is this the best the Sheffield Tories can do?

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:15:30 +0000

By Jack Scott / @Jack_Scott

On Saturday, the Sheffield Conservatives picked their candidates for the General Election (from 5 men and one woman). The results show just how much further the Conservatives have got to go.

Sheffield is the fifth largest City in England. Like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle it has not a single Conservative councillor. Frankly, it doesn’t need any, given the economic lasisez-faire attitude of the Sheffield Lib Dems, epitomised by MP for Sheffield Hallam Nick Clegg, who has never shown the slightest bit of interest in Sheffield. Proof for this comes from his own website: it has only one entry concerning Sheffield, from July this year.

But before 1997, Sheffield Hallam had only ever been Conservative; it is the second most affluent constituency outside of London. A higher proportion of Sheffield Hallam’s young people go on to University than anywhere else in Britain. Coupled with some of the highest property prices in Britain, the lack of Tory councillors raises important questions for Project Dave and its inability, even now, to generate any affection.

Unsurprisingly, the Tories want to start making progress here. Indeed, they have to: according to UK Polling Report, Sheffield Hallam is Tory target 157. This means that if the Tories are to have an overall majority of above about 30 or more, they need to win Sheffield Hallam and finish off Nick Clegg. Electoral Calculus also has the seat down as non-safe.

You would think that this scenario – a vulnerable party leader, ripe for decapitation and the need to regain a traditionally safe Tory seat – would mean Sheffield Hallam attracted an ‘A –list’ candidate or equivalent.

Not so. Sheffield Conservatives have decided that residents of Sheffield Hallam are to be offered the chance to send Daniel Gage to Parliament. Mr Gage was previously a member of Dronfield Town Council, but has now been automatically expelled for non-attendance. Mr Gage is said to be “heartbroken” that he has been ejected from his seat. He doesn’t have anything to say to the residents he failed during his six months of non-attendance or hint at any contrition for the fact that he didn’t turn up: he calls this an “administrative error”, but gives no indication as to what the error actually is.

According to the minutes, the last council meeting Gage attended was 5th May. It is not yet clear whether he has claimed any allowances or expenses since then. Mr. Gage gave his apologies for one meeting, but failed to do so for five others. This begs the question: Why did Mr. Gage not check the minutes of the meetings he hadn’t attended? Did he not think it was important to see what had happened at those Council meetings? If he had checked them, he would have been able to correct his own “administrative errors”.

There is a broader point to be made here: What confidence can people in Sheffield Hallam have that someone who can’t even check these details will be able to effectively scrutinise legislation? Does David Cameron really want to have an MP who can’t follow a very simple rule and who appears to think that turning up for meetings and votes is unworthy of him? Nick Clegg has been AWOL in Sheffield Hallam since he got elected in 2005. The last thing we need is another person who thinks the hard slog of a diligent constituency MP is beneath him.

This coming election presents the clearest choice in a generation: Labour or Tory, with radically different perspectives, diagnoses and prescriptions. The people of Sheffield Hallam deserve a half-decent Tory candidate who can articulate those differences, not someone who appears to have fallen foul of the simplest and easiest requirements of being a Councillor: turn up once every six months. They are entitled to ask if this is the best David Cameron and his Conservatives can do.

Will the real David Cameron please stand up?

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:55:22 +0000

The Labour Movement column

by Anthony Painter/ @anthonypainter

Back in October a neo-Thatcherite leader of the Conservative party, self-confidently told his party conference:

“It is more government that got us into this mess.

Why is our economy broken? Not just because Labour wrongly thought they'd abolished boom and bust. But because government got too big, spent too much and doubled the national debt.

Why is our society broken? Because government got too big, did too much and undermined responsibility.

Why are our politics broken? Because government got too big, promised too much and pretended it had all the answers.”

Last night, an equally self-confident, leader of the Conservative party delivered the Hugo Young lecture and called it The Big Society. Only this time he wasn’t neo-Thatcherite. You might even, in parts, describe the speech as Merkel-esque christian democracy:

“Galvanising, catalysing, prompting, encouraging and agitating for community engagement and social renewal. It must help families, individuals, charities and communities come together to solve problems.

We must use the state to remake society.”

David Cameron must be afflicted with a very bad state of cognitive dissonance this morning. It is just inconceivable that you can at once blame government for every ill in our society and at the same time call for more government to cure these ills. The damage caused by a little poison can’t be undone by drinking more if that’s your take on things.

And yet, last night’s speech was reminder of a David Cameron that has disappeared from the political scene. There was a time when he was interesting to listen to, constantly challenging, never letting the left settle intellectually. That all went out the window with the collapse of Northern Rock.

Before that rupture, you got a sense that he was trying to understand the nature of being progressive in a way that many of his colleagues, George Osborne being a case in point, just couldn’t. They used the language while it seemed that David Cameron might be trying to grasp the meaning.

And of course there was a large amount of intellectual dishonesty in the speech last night. In fairness, it’s politics and it’s just a few months before a general election so you probably wouldn’t expect anything else. For example, his analysis of what has happened to poverty under Labour was completely misleading- and deliberately so. For example, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has rejected the usefulness of ‘severe poverty’ as a measure as Left Foot Forward has explained. David Cameron stuck steadfastly to the concept despite knowing this.

The simple fact is that, according to the same IFS report, though 4 million children remain in relative poverty, it’s 300,000 fewer than in 1997. 900,000 pensioners had been taken out of poverty by 2008. It is true that the non-working, childless poor have been hit harder but that is partly a logic of active welfare- an approach that the Tories support.

But there is a sense beyond this that the David Cameron we heard last night does genuinely believe in some form of equality of opportunity- one that goes beyond the traditional Thatcherite notion of an equal opportunity to be unequal. He committed himself to early years provision for the poorest families; better education as a fall back for when families fail; and better adult education.

That’s all good stuff. Anyone who really believes that inequality is a severe hindrance to life chances and well-being would want to go much further than anything contemplated by the Leader of the Opposition. He bemoans poverty and inequality but is there really anything in his speech that confronts them in any meaningful sense? His re-orientation of the state could well improve things and there are some good ideas like bringing in the third sector where possible (and some ideas blatantly cribbed from Labour like performance-by-results welfare.)

The simple reality though is that poverty and deprivation are structural. They come down to things like class, your life chances heavily influenced by where you (or your parents) start off in the game of life.

Things like resources, assets, social capital, education, and political power all matter. The fashionable term for all this is capabilities. Equality of opportunity is fine but it is nowhere near enough. Even if a Conservative government did improve schools, invest more in skills, and provide early years support- much as the current government has done- it would fall short. A smarter, more responsive state that is more engaged with civil society in order to galvanise it towards social change sounds excellent. Unfortunately, the business of eliminating poverty and exclusion is far more onerous and expensive than that.

And because of this, it is also impossible to consider the social and political vision outlined by David Cameron last night without also mentioning his economic policy. One sure-fire way to empower the dark conference David Cameron over the light Hugo Young Lecture David Cameron is faltering growth. And yet, that is the risk that he would face if George Osborne followed through on his over-zealous and probably mistimed fiscal consolidation. The economy is likely to tank and that will be that other than for administrative reform.

Cognitive dissonance must at some point resolve itself in a consonance of some description. It is difficult to see the pre-September 2007 Cameron ultimately winning out. The Osborne-Coulson-Fox-Hague nexus will just be too strong. The fundamental challenges faced by economic circumstance- not least those engendered by his Chancellor- would be too great.

If the worst does happen and the Conservatives do win the next election, one very small consolation will be that somewhere, deep down, their Leader may just have a bit more intellectual sophistication than his colleagues- inadequate though that is. Which Cameron will emerge? I know where I’d place my bet. But you just never know.