Before we get overtaken by the detail we should reflect on the bigger picture. What ever the chancellor says on June 26^th it will be an answer to the wrong question. Protecting this and cutting that for one year only isn’t just rearranging the proverbial deckchairs,  its putting up the parasols and setting out the nibbles.

Current spending trajectories particularly in health and social care will soon be unaffordable if they aren’t already. More broadly our patterns of consumption are environmentally and economically unsustainable. Deficit reduction and simple common sense cry out for the prioritization of sustainable solutions above short term crisis management. Now more than ever we need to be reaching for the goals of the governments own fiscal framework – “sustainable public finances… promoting intergenerational fairness”. A one year spending review, driving short term thinking and in year savings will inevitably generate a parade of false economies. This will be the very antithesis of a sustainable approach and exactly not what the Treasury itself was calling for in its spending review framework, published in 2010. Future spending reviews it said must ‘Look beyond near-term pressures to support reforms that better position the UK for meeting long-term demographic, economic, environmental and social challenges, any of which could imperil long-term fiscal stability if left unaddressed.’

This  goal is unachievable without changing a spending review process which sets the parameters for planning and budgeting in government and beyond. It normally takes a three year outlook, better than the one year 2015 folly but still not enough when, as the Review Framework insists, we need policies that add up in the longer term.

We know, for instance, how many 12 and 13 year olds are likely to leave school without basic skills in four or five years time and we know the price of unemployment. We know also the cost of reading recovery programmes and the percentage that succeed. A society that applied a longer term perspective to its public finances would be investing more in literacy work with school age children. In reality spending on reading recovery has always been limited and is falling fast incurring an imminent liability, reducing the nation’s capacity for economic growth, and so contributing to increasing, not decreasing, the national debt. It helps to balance the books in a single year but  is exactly how not to ‘ensure sustainable public finances.’

Labour should commit  to introducing ten year spending plans published in each Spending Review. Each should include firm plans for the first few years, as now, and the implications of every spending decision, over the next ten years. The plans would of course be subject to regular review and updating, as circumstances and governments change but the projections would enable current priorities to be established on the basis of longer term value.

There are precedents. One year spending plans were extended to three in the 1990s, and decisions have often been made with implications beyond elections. However, there is a radical difference between introducing new policies that may have long-term implications and routinely justifying expenditure over ten years.

Of course other factors, particularly the electoral cycle, also contribute to a short term bias in public policy but it is in the processes of government, as much as it is in elections, that choices are framed and, and, almost by default, options constrained and decisions made. Without ten year planning little else will ever change. Spending reviews will come and go but public policy will continue on the unsustainable trajectories that are barely meeting current needs and accumulating impossible liabilities for the future.

No one will mount the barricades for ten year spending plans or list the promise on a pledge card but this simple change – it wouldn’t require legislation – would unleash a measured revolution with profound and lasting benefits.

Related posts:

1. Painful spending choices will happen, even if a future Labour chancellor can avoid an outright cut in expenditure
2. Labour launches review of ‘future challenges for welfare state’
3. Social care is the hidden loser of the Spending Review – and it will hit the most vulnerable
4. Comprehensive Spending Review: Livechat
5. Is the acceptance that government spending cuts are needed being exploited?

The scale of hunger is devastating. There is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry. 2.3 million children every year die from malnutrition – to put that in perspective, that is around 16,000 children every day. Or one child every five seconds.

We need radical change if we are going to stop this global injustice. It’s estimated that a world free from hunger would cost just over $50 billion dollars a year – but to achieve that it will take a commitment by all the G8 countries to meet their 0.7% aid targets, tackle tax havens and tax avoidance and fight for greater transparency.

But so far we have seen little action. George Osborne failed to use the G7 meeting to set out any concrete steps to promote economic growth or tackle tax avoidance. Despite tough words on making tax and transparency priorities, David Cameron has failed to bring serious proposals to the table. The Government have repeatedly refused to close tax loopholes which the evidence shows has a negative impact on developing countries. And we have already seen our Prime Minister, under pressure from the right-wing of his party, break his Manifesto and Coalition agreement promise to legislate for our 0.7% target on aid spending.

Can we really trust the Government to bring forward the changes we need?

That is why last week I launched the Labour Party’s G8 Campaign calling on David Cameron to use Britain’s Presidency of the G8 to take action on aid, tax and transparency to move towards a world free from hunger.

Not only do we need G8 countries to match the UK’s commitment to aid spending and fulfil their international obligations, but we need to ensure we are acting on the structural causes of poverty and hunger.

According to OECD figures, developing countries lose three times more to tax havens than they receive in aid each year. As Ed Miliband and Ed Balls made clear this week Labour is putting forward five steps to tackle tax avoidance. A form of country-by-country reporting so that large multinational companies should have to publish the key pieces of information which people need to assess the amount of tax they pay. Extending the regime requiring tax avoidance schemes to be declared to cover global transactions. Opening up tax havens. Challenging the Government to properly assess the impact of Corporation Tax changes on developing countries. And fundamental reform of the Corporation Tax system because the shifting of profits and use of tax havens is the symptom of a system which is failing to keep up with global economic developments.

Developing countries will never be able to lift themselves out of poverty if they cannot collect taxes to fund their own services. These measures would be a boost for developing countries enabling them to increasing their tax revenues and reduce their dependency on aid.

The Last time the UK hosted the G8 in 2005, Labour brokered ambitious commitments on climate change, investment, debt relief and trade for development. Labour can make a difference this time.

Join me and the 5000 other people who have already signed up in calling on David Cameron to use this opportunity to make a difference and take action on aid, tax and transparency for a world free from hunger.

Sign up here: action.labour.org.uk/G8-campaign

Ivan Lewis is Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and MP for Bury South

Related posts:

1. Tax avoidance hurts both Britain and developing countries
2. It’s politics that will deliver a successful G8
3. A call for action on youth crime
4. London Young Labour – Our call to action
5. Why we can’t pull up the aid drawbridge

TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run

“The TUC along with its international equivalent – the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – is calling on UEFA to address the appalling treatment of workers and players in Qatar and back calls for FIFA to re-run the vote for the 2022 tournament should the Qatari government fail to take any action. Harsh treatment of migrant workers in Qatar and its government’s failure to improve employment rights are the unions’ main concerns. Low rates of pay, excessive working hours, a ban on joining unions, poor safety standards and numerous abuses under the country’s strict visa sponsorship system have led to accusations that Qatar is acting like a 21st century slave state.” - PoliticsHome

Rochdale council under fire over grooming

“The review, following the high-profile conviction of nine Asian men for grooming offences in May last year, investigated Rochdale Council’s response to child sex exploitation in the borough. The 137-page report identified “a lack of consistent senior leadership, or a lack of vision and direction in relation to child sexual exploitation (CSE),” and that frontline staff “did not know what to do about CSE and how to deal with it”. The council concedes some children were let down, that their own performance was “poor” and admits senior managers failed to show leadership or take responsibility. Simon Danczuk, Rochdale’s Labour MP, said: “All they needed to do was listen to the victims. “A combination of dismissive attitudes, a toxic culture that viewed rape victims as making lifestyle choices and excessive bureaucracy that was bereft of common sense allowed horrible abuse to go on in our borough for far too long.”” - Telegraph

Other highlights

• The Muslim faith does not turn men  to terror - Mehdi Hasan, Telegraph
• The government’s pension changes aren’t fir for purpose - Gregg McClymont

Related posts:

1. UKIP to give Labour a bloody nose in South Shields? – Media roundup: May 2nd, 2013
2. Brittle Tory unity cracks again – Media roundup: April 26th, 2013
3. Miliband says General Strike is a “terrible idea” – Media and blog roundup, April 24th 2013
4. 450 public sector jobs lost daily – Media and blog roundup: April 17th 2013
5. Huhne: Another Lib Dem cover up? – Media and Blog roundup: March 8th 2013

But whilst we’re flagellating ourselves over our inability to perform south of the Watford gap (outside of London), we should remember that the political divisions within our nation run both ways. If Labour is weak in the South, then the Tories are hopelessly weak in the North. Not just in terms of MPs or councillors, but just in terms of being a socially acceptable option to vote for. Growing up in Gateshead I don’t think I ever heard anyone have anything positive to say about the Tories, nevermind admit voting for them. After the Miner’s Strike, the closure of the shipyards and the region being left to wither on the vine, it’s fair to say that people in the North East weren’t open to what the Tories were saying.

And they still aren’t, and in all likelihood won’t until the Tories apologise for the wilful destruction of the North in the Thatcher years. I think pigs flying over the Tyne Bridge sounds more likely at present.

Yet that doesn’t stop the Tories deluding themselves as to their prospects. Their candidate in the recent South Shields by-election told ConHome recently:

“I want to look only at this result in the context of South Shields and the North East. The May 2nd result actually returned a 35.7% centre-right vote share, leaving Labour with a 3,648 majority only due to the low turnout.”

So despite the fact that the Tory vote share halved from 2010 to 2013, and despite trying to cobble together a theoretical vote by adding Tory and UKIP votes together, and despite the turnout being low – Labour still won by thousands of votes. This is spun as a sign of hope for the Tories in the North East. It’s in fact a worse result than that achieved by Labour in Eastleigh (where Labours vote share actually increased). It’s a sign of just how toxic the Tory Party is in the North – people who would never dream of voting Tory will happily vote UKIP.

But if the Tories want a sign of hope in the North East, one does exist, in the guise of someone who knows just how far from victory the Tories are in the North. David Skelton is the former Deputy Director of Policy Exchange, but recently moved on to set up an organisation designed to explain why the Tories aren’t winning the working class and ethnic minority votes – especially in the North – and encourage them to take the steps needed to do so. This is a Tory with a deep understanding of the North as a community and the psyche of the place. This is a Tory who praises the Durham Miners Gala, and says they need to embrace the unions. This is a Tory who understands that in the part of the country he comes from, his party are deeply unpopular. Sure, he’s also advocated some policies that will fail in the North - like regional pay –  but this is a Tory who knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the North, and is committed to ensuring his party understand it too.

And because of that, he’s a Tory that we should be afraid of.

I hope his party don’t take any notice of him.

Related posts:

1. Tory MP says Tory messages work better in the North – but mixes up Blackpool and Manchester
2. Northern where…? Tory MP says he’s following his minister to “Northern Island”
3. The North is suffering – how do we release the potential of the Northern economy?
4. Is it time for Northern Independence?
5. Who’s afraid of the big bad tory wolf?

Woolwich is my nearest big town centre, where I shop and go to meet friends. In the last few days, for many people, its name has come to mean the location of a terror attack. On Twitter and in much of the press, “Woolwich” signifies poverty and violence. It’s a picture of the place I don’t recognize, which we need to fight. The real life of this town is very different.

The attack on Wednesday wasn’t aimed at Woolwich. It wasn’t about this place, or even this man. It was an evil, abstract kind of violence, an act by rootless men who care no more for real Muslim men and women than the person they murdered.

Our response needs to celebrate exactly what the murderers denied: our relationships with each other, and to this place.

Woolwich is a town with a deep sense of history. It has strong, self-organised institutions. Once the arsenal factory. Now the Royal Artillery Barracks. Vibrant churches, mosques, temples, where people spill onto the street to talk after prayers. Small businesses where people stop and chat. It’s a place where immigrants have moved to create a life together with old residents, first Irish and Scottish, then Nigerian, Ghanaian, Somali, Indian, Nepali.

Woolwich is place of joiners and doers, where people get together and organize to improve their common life. It has the kind of town centre where people talk to strangers. It’s a town with a sense of energy and amazing local pride.

Woolwich has had its hard knocks. The riots. The IRA bombing. Like many northern industrial towns, it’s growth came from industries that a century of bad political leadership allowed to close down. The Royal Ordinance, the Siemens factory, the Woolwich Building Society are all empty buildings or the site of shiny new blocks of flats. Bolder politicians and more imaginative businesspeople could have made sure their high-skilled employees had work in successful enterprises.

But the story of Woolwich is of resilience in the face of hardship. The spirit that created the Arsenal Coop was there the day after the riots, as residents got their brooms out to clear up the streets. It’s there as the town gets back to business, and talks about how to respond to this vicious attack. It’s there in the call of community leaders, now, to better support the sense of hope and possibility Woolwich’s young people have.

As local Labour member Janet Turner told Vanessa Feltz yesterday morning, Woolwich is a place that rose, after the riots, like a phoenix from the ashes. With a rebuilt civic centre and new coffee shops, housing developments and a big Tescos, the place has a new buzz about it.

With the recession and decades of industrial decline accelerated by this Tory-led government, it’ll take hard work to make Woolwich a place where everyone leads good, comfortable lives. But with its history and vitality and strong sense of place, the people of Woolwich will come together to do just that.

The lesson for Labour is that our politics needs to start with the places we live. One Nation is something that needs to be built town by town, city by city. It needs to begin, first of all, with a sense of local pride, from our connections with the people and institutions around us.

Which is why we need to say, very loud, why we love Woolwich.

Related posts:

1. Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion
2. Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack
3. The theories that will occupy security forces after Woolwich – Media roundup: May 23rd, 2013
4. Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder
5. Nick Raynsford to stand down as Greenwich and Woolwich MP

But that assumes technology is just something for geeks to worry about, and that Ed is a techie.

Neither are true.

What we saw on Wednesday was a leader with the courage to tell Google straight that it should live up to its founding principles on the issue of tax avoidance. Google has about half of all internet advertising revenue – it should pay something for the Government services that educate their staff, provide a transport infrastructure for them to get to work and looks after them if they get sick.

But if Ed turned out to be less of a geek than some think, he is also someone who thinks technology is central to an economic recovery made by the many and rebuilding Britain as a country where everyone can play their part.

So it is important that what he said in his speech on Wednesday on tax avoidance does not obscure what he said about the opportunities and challenges of the digital age.

He understands that this is a time rich with opportunities, loaded with threats and that Governments cannot leave it to Google, Amazon and Apple to fight it out in a tax free cloud as to who shapes our future.

It needs active Government and Ed has shown he is thinking through the policy implications.

The last Labour Government saw the potential to do more for less by moving from expensive paper based bureaucracy to digital services. It knew that to make those savings it needed more people online and paid Online Centres to fix it in conjunction with Martha Lane Fox as digital champion. This Government has continued that work, taken forward the open data agenda that began under Gordon Brown and commissioned the Hargreaves Review to examine the UK’s complex intellectual property framework.

But where is the complete strategy?

No major economy has a bigger proportion of GDP generated on online. The UK is a leader in creating and designing digitally – from Tim Berners-Lee to Jony Ive. It has the ideas and the consumers and yet UK digital businesses still have to go to the US to find the private equity investors to help them grow into global businesses. The City of London wants to remain a leading global financial centre but it doesn’t “get” digital. Where is the future in that? Labour’s proposals for a British Investment Bank, supported by a network of regional banks, will begin to fill this gap.

As well as finance the digital economy will need skills. Coding skills are an important gap. But employees also now need high levels of creativity, collaboration and communication because of the disruptive effect of technology on industry. The digital world needs a flexibility that the industrial world designed out. And yet, as Ed Miliband argued on Wednesday, our education system remains ever more firmly rooted in the needs of the Industrial Age, with ever more narrowing of the curriculum and the stifling of creativity and lateral thinking.

Google has been at the forefront of the open source movement and has in turn opened up access to knowledge and information in a revolutionary way. That is to be welcomed and is giving people the ability to understand more, to design new products and services, to innovate. At the same time the very creativity and innovation that is stimulated by open source is at risk from achieving scale by the piracy of intellectual property that our regulation struggles or keep up with. The music industry is more worried about Google’s YouTube than anything else. The protection of intellectual property needs very sensitive handling.

And finally we need to guard the public interest as the new digital establishment emerges from the disruption of the analogue establishment. According to Moody’s last month, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Pfizer are the five leading tech companies holding cash reserves amounting to $347 billion. The UK’s in 2011 were $94.5 billion. The Government should be doing more to secure international agreement on re-writing the tax rules for these footloose multinational corporations. And Ed is right to say that Labour would act unilaterally on this issue of tax avoidance if there is no agreement.

Jim Knight is a Labour member of the House of Lords and Chair of the Online Centres Foundation

Related posts:

1. More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…
2. Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?
3. Miliband hits out at Google over tax avoidance – whilst their Chief Exec advises Cameron
4. Technology is levelling the playing field for protesters
5. Technology solutions to climate change can be hugely effective – and do not need to be expensive

“right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose” - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett

Only 24 hours ago, news began to trickle through about a barbarous crime, committed on the streets of our capital city, in broad daylight. It seems that the murderers who attacked and brutally murdered a soldier felt they were acting in a way endorsed by their religious beliefs and their god. But to try and divine reason from such monstrous acts is to try and read the minds of madmen.

The cause of this crime wasn’t Islam – but it was perhaps the warped justification. As George Eaton rightly noted over at the New Statesman earlier today, Muslims “bear no more responsibility for jihadism than Christians do for the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church (or, more pertinently, than the English do for the EDL)”. Many British people of Muslim faith have sought to distance themselves from the lunatic horror conducted by the attackers, but they no more need to than I, or any other citizen does.

And speaking of British citizens, they have certainly risen to the occasion following the Woolwich atrocity. Whilst the EDL and the BNP tried to make sick political capital out of it, and another deeply deranged lunatic tried to attack a Mosque in Essex, the overwhelming majority of the public carried on regardless. And those who bore witness to the attack and its aftermath behaved more remarkably still – especially Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, whose remarkable eye witness report of the murder, and her immediate reaction to the attack, have been deservedly lauded.

Seeing the men with knifes, machetes and a meat cleaver, she got off her bus, and walked straight towards the attackers. Talked to them. Tried to distract them. Tried to keep others from harm. She gave no thought for her own safety as she acted instinctively to try and stop further carnage.

Her bravery – her immediate and impulsive bravery – is completely breathtaking. Whilst the debate rages over whether or not today’s front pages were appropriate (and for what it’s worth, I think they are exactly the sort of propaganda that the attackers wanted) – the photo I’d have liked to have seen gracing the front pages was that of her extreme bravery, rather than that of the savagery of the attackers.

That the situation has not spiralled out of control in the intervening twenty four hours – and become a “war”, as both murderers and the EDL might have wished – is something that our politicians, of all stripes, deserve credit for. I cannot fault David Cameron’s initial response to the attacks, his decision to return immediately to London or his statement today. All were steely, thoughtful and refused to speculate or knee jerk. Ed Miliband similarly handled himself in a way that was completely appropriate and supportive. Boris Johnson’s early appeal to avoid speculation was welcome, necessary and statesmanlike. And Nigel Farage – who I have often upbraided for his questionable rhetoric – was one of the first major politicians to call for calm and note that this was likely an isoltaed incident.

It is easy to sneer at politicians, question their motives and accuse them of countless venal, self-serving acts. God knows I do it every day. But yesterday, and today, they have helped set a public mood that is united against barbarism, stoic in the face of attack, and refuses to succumb to the hate, reprisal and outright war that was the intended aim of such a vile crime.

We should be proud to be British today. Proud that we have neither lurched for legislation or knee jerk attacks. Proud that the British people have carried on with their lives without fear. Proud of Ingrid Loyau-Kennett.

And proud too, of our politicians.

Related posts:

1. Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack
2. Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder
3. The British people don’t just want to take part, they want to win
4. A gulf has opened up between politicians and the people
5. Ed Miliband: People see politicians shouting at each other in the Commons, but the web is a direct way we can talk with people

• The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success.
• The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former Obama ‘wonk’, had been tasked with compiling a report on the party’s current capabilities and proposals for developing those further which will come to the next meeting of the NEC for consideration. The Party’s last, excellent in my view, Party Election Broadcast was produced in-house and it was hoped that this would be the first of many enhancements to our technical capabilities.
• On a related issue we discussed the progress of developing NationBuilder for Party use. This is the web based campaign/volunteer management tool that we committed resource to as part of Refounding Labour to fundamentally change our web-based interface with members, supporters and activists. It is the tool that brought us the YourKen website and was trialled, with good results, in Scotland in their most recent elections. This is an off the shelf product – we know that both the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have used it in the past – the effectiveness of which therefore relies on good backroom development and customisation. Our team in HQ have been in negotiations with the developers to create bespoke commands that will allow us to completely integrate the system with our membership system and Contact Creator. This will give the national party, and additionally individual CLPs who sign up to it, a website that is easy to use with much better functionality in terms of sharing and creating membership/supporter lists and better intelligence and tailoring of issues to individual preference. It is hoped that the new site and CLP functionality will be ready in time for it to be launched at conference. CLPs will be invited to apply for the new functionality (so giving them their own site and list integration as well obviously as access to the party’s revamped national site and Membersnet). Whilst the whole work is being heavily subsidised by the national Party it looked like the cost to individual CLPs that signed up would be £200 per CLP per year – the existing website package for CLPs is £400 so this represents a reduction of half the cost for the 150 or so that are already signed up to that. I raised a concern, along with Ann Black, about the amount CLPs would be asked to contribute given we only recently delivered the CLP re-financing initiative which saw some funds being redistributed by the centre to those with greater need. I’m pleased that as a result of our representations we have achieved a reduction of 50% in the cost to those CLPs with fewer than 200 members (so if they sign up they will only be charged £100 per year).
• It was noted that the recruitment of new trainee organisers was progressing well with 500 applicants for 16 positions and over 170 applicants attending the recent assessment centre in Stoke Rochford.
• It was agreed that Arnie Graff will be attending the next meeting of the NEC to update us on his work with party staff, trainee organisers and members.
• The selection of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates is also progressing well with another 4 PPCs being selected over the weekend and another round of Future Candidates Training taking place next weekend.

Deputy Leader’s Report

Harriet spoke about the serious challenges posed to all parties by UKIP and the rise of the ‘anti-politics’ vote. She spoke of the necessity for the party to put the positive case for Europe, to articulate solutions to the concerns that people have about migration and expose UKIP for what they are.

Leaders Report

Ed Miliband thanked members, party staff and activists for their work in the recent elections. In discussing those elections Ed noted that the results demonstrated good progress in those areas which would not normally be deemed natural Labour territory. He was clear that there was further to go in terms of preparing the ground for 2015 and part of that is the crucial policy development work that is ongoing.

Ed also spoke of the challenge of the ‘anti-politics’ vote and of UKIP he said three things: we will not let them dictate the terms of the debate, we will not be afraid to talk about people’s concerns because only by engaging with them will we be able to address them; we will give people an alternative that will demonstrate we can improve their lives and; we will do politics differently. On this it was noted that Ed’s recent ‘town-square meeting tour’ was overwhelmingly well received in every area he visited.

I asked Ed if he would like to comment on our membership in light of recent press reports stating that senior advisors of David Cameron had referred to Conservative members as ‘swivel-eyed loons’. My point to him was two-fold – firstly that any political party ignores its base at its peril and secondly that this issue goes to the heart of the divisions which exist within the Conservative Party, will run and run because of it and it isolates and is extremely damaging for Cameron. I was pleased that in his response Ed stated he had the utmost respect for our Labour members and the work that they do. He also re-stated his long-held view that if our members had been listened to more in the past we might have taken different decisions on some issues. I also lobbied Ed again on the ‘Good Work’ agenda and called on him to ensure that the government’s degradation of employment rights – including the forthcoming introduction of employment tribunal fees – and our alternative is well publicised.

NPF Chair’s report

• Angela Eagle reported on the continuing work of the policy commissions and it was noted that their latest round of policy papers have now been published on the YourBritain website for consultation. Please do log on here and give us your views!
• It was noted that the YourBritain site had now received 30k visits and over a thousand individual submissions.
• Jon Cruddas was not able to attend but we asked again if we could see the Shadow Cabinet Policy Review papers and for clarity in terms of how these will link in to the work of the National Policy Forum. Angela reported on the work that she and Jon were doing jointly to bring these two policy strands together and referenced their recent joint article on LabourList where this objective is clearly stated.
• It was noted that the next meeting of the National Policy Forum would be on the 22/23^rd June and a further report on this will be given then.

Campaign Organisers Report

Tom Watson reported on the good performance at the recent elections, particularly noting: that we had exceeded our previous expectations of 250 gains and now have 2,000 more councilors than we had in 2010 and control of more councils than at any time since 2002; based on those results 26 of our battleground seats would have been won; there was good performance in our defensive marginals; our print and on-line content was sharper in these elections and would become more so; we had better doorstep scripts for activists and we were more directional re Shadow Cabinet visits which helped motivate and mobilise activists in key areas. It was noted that having PPCs in early was also making a hugely positive difference so it is good that this selections work is progressing apace. It was noted that the Field Operations team have been commissioned to produce a detailed analysis of what was happening to our vote in the key battleground seats, for consideration at our next meeting, so that can feed into our 2015 General Election preparation.

Other issues;

• It was noted that the LGA Labour Group has convened a conference for Labour Groups on 7^th June to discuss the role of local government in responding to the devastating effects of the bedroom tax.
• Congratulations and thanks were expressed to MEP colleagues for their excellent work in securing the backing of the European Parliament for a new initiative on removing asbestos from public buildings across the EU. Given this is the single greatest cause of work-related death in the UK (around 4,000 people die in the UK every year due to asbestos related illnesses) this is a great achievement. It was noted that the only opposition to the action came from UKIP MEPs and their allies, who voted against it.
• At our meeting of the Organisation Sub-committee the previous day I requested a review of our Selection Procedures for selecting MEP candidates and was pleased to secure agreement to this. Please do therefore send me any specific amendments you would wish this review to consider and I will do my best to reflect those views in to the review.
• I was also pleased to support calls for an amendment to the Westminster Selection Procedure which reduces the timetable from 12 weeks to 8 weeks. This is important in trying to level the playing field between candidates who have substantial financial backing and those that do not – something which is crucial if we are really to ensure that we get more representative candidates coming forward and through selections.

This is my personal account of this meeting and should not be taken as the official record but please do pass on to other Labour members who may be interested.

Keeping in touch…

Since my last report I have been delighted to see and talk with members at The Politics of One Nation Labour conference at Queen Mary University of London, Scottish Labour Conference, East Dulwhich BLP Fundraising dinner, Chesham & Amersham CLP, Progress Conference and Chelmsford CLP. I have also been busy coordinating the selection procedure and interviews for candidates looking to stand in the 2014 local elections in Southwark where we had 98 candidates put themselves forward. Other LCF Procedural secretaries have my sincere sympathies…I feel your pain! And today I’ve just landed in Valencia to talk to Labour International CLP at their meeting tomorrow – the furthest I’ve travelled to meet members of our party. If you’d like me to visit your constituency to provide an NEC report or facilitate a policy discussion please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Related posts:

1. NEC meeting report – 19th March 2013
2. NEC Report – January 2013
3. NEC Report – November 27th, 2012
4. NEC Report – September 25th 2012
5. NEC Report – March 29th

“The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community.

“At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to express our horror and revulsion at this horrible crime. Along with our colleagues on the London Assembly our thoughts are with the victim’s family and his colleagues in the armed forces.

“During this difficult time we call for calm, obviously people are angry but we need to deal with this appropriately. Wild speculation is not helpful, the police and authorities need to be given the time and space to carry out their investigations so that those responsible can be brought to justice. The scenes last night in Woolwich of a small number of far-right protesters was sickening, now is the time for everybody in our local area, London and across the country to come together and defeat hatred and terror in all its forms.”

Related posts:

1. The theories that will occupy security forces after Woolwich – Media roundup: May 23rd, 2013
2. Labour needs a new leader for London to take the attack to Boris
3. Christine Quigley announced as latest London Assembly Labour candidate
4. Labour announces London Assembly candidates
5. Labour begins London Assembly selection process

On that basis, it’s disappointing to be able to award the Coalition Government a prevention score of just 24%. Worse, there was even a zero mark for the work being done in schools, which was found to be “patchy and done without coordinating leadership from the Department for Education”. We have today written to the Prime Minister with the results and, like any bad school report, we hope it will lead to a better standard of work in future.

And the lessons to be learned from this apply to Labour too. This is not to deny the importance of champions like Yvette Cooper and Stella Creasy, for example during this year’s One Billion Rising campaign. In light of the disappointing performance of the Department for Education, the women’s sector were particularly delighted by Cooper’s call for statutory sex and relationships education in schools, which we hope to see develop into a fully-fledged manifesto commitment.

But if a winning Labour government in 2015 is to continue this record, then Labour and Ed Miliband still have work to do. This should start with a recognition (internally at least) of the ways in which the Coalition has in fact made real advances, such as the cross-departmental action plan to tackle all forms violence against women and girls, from domestic violence to sexual exploitation to forced marriage, under the leadership of Theresa May . May has shown a commitment to a joined-up approach from the outset, at a time when Labour ‘s vision, though clear and focused, still treated different forms of gendered violence in a narrower and more fragmented way .

Similarly, though Boris Johnson may seem an unlikely feminist, London’s Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, The Way Forward, has been repeatedly recognised as a global high-water mark in nuanced and connected thinking on tacking violence, despite – or perhaps because of – the divided and often dangerous nature of our capital. If Labour is serious about this issue, it must ensure its 2016 candidate and their team do not row back on this achievement.

In the same vein, Labour’s current interest in reclaiming some of the values of the past, for example a renewed focus on the family must be explicit about the fact that women’s equality and rights to be safe from abuse are non-negotiable. Pro-family choices must also be equal choices, for men and women – made out of love, and not the socially and economically enforced dependence of women. Blue Labour thinkers must not wear rose-tinted glasses.

In this climate, it was immensely encouraging that Diane Abbot’s recent speech on masculinity argues for society to do better by boys in a way that rejects “a lack of respect for women’s autonomy” as the answer, and seeks to move beyond the “adversarial gender politics” that would sacrifice women’s equality, including their safety. And other Labour voices are also making the case for Labour to keep women’s equality central in 2015.

It’s vital that not only the Government, but those at the very top of the Labour Party are listening to women and the women’s sector. And then they should be speaking out, against the idea that violence against women and girls is inevitable, separate from the business of government, or a lesser priority in the age of austerity. If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women.

Ellie Cumbo is Prevention Coordinator at EVAW

Related posts:

1. Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment
2. How we build One Nation Labour
3. Is the government listening to women?
4. Equal Pay: 40 years on it still matters
5. The candidates’ commitment to a fully-funded Women’s Conference will build a stronger party