Floods.

I am watching the scenes of flooding in Keswick on the News, I cant imagine how horrible it is for the residents of these flooding hot spots, to have to deal with all of this over and again. Many have wondered if this is an example of how climate change change affects everyday people in Western countries. I'm not sure, my grasp of Climatology is shaky at best and I'm sure the experts would even argue amongst themselves on weather you could blame C02 emissions for flooding in the midlands!
My main thoughts when I see these images, are could we do anything to prevent this? Mechanically, structurally, is there anything we could do to mitigate the impact of rising waters in residential areas most at risk? Ive read brief articles before, where I cant really remember, that spoke of planting hemp around rivers, or some kind of filtration system that may have involved digging holes?! Anyway, the details are irrelevant, that's the job for the guys with the technical know how on taming rivers. My point is, that this is a problem that affects many British people on a regular basis, and surely we should be dedicating some resources to try and find out what can be done to protect people from the destructive effects of flooding.
The other issue is how Insurance companies respond to people in need of assistance. Everyone knows what its like trying to deal with an Insurance company, when you lose your phone for example, and they do everything in their power to avoid giving you the assistance you paid them for! Imagine if the assistance you needed was to rebuild your home that has been destroyed by extreme weather, along with a fair share of your belongings. I hope my cynicism is uncalled for, but if Insurance companies do deny help to these people when they most obviously need it, then I think it raises interesting questions on how the Insurance industry operates and what role the State should play in its affairs.

Compass becomes embroiled in fresh leadership rumours.

I was troubled to hear more rumours several hours ago, of another potential leadership challenge against the Prime Minister. Since the failure of the half arsed Blairite mutiny during the EU elections, most people had dismissed another leadership challenge as unlikely. Although I am not a massive fan of the Prime Minister, I am fearful of the electorate viewing the Party as divided and riddled with sectarian in fighting. Polling data has shown that this is traditionally very unpopular with a lot of voters, and the lass thing we want to do is increase the possibility of a Tory Government any more.
It is this article in the guardian which has sparked the rumours, apparently most members of the Compass Management Committee feel that the Prime Minister should step down before the election. I don't see any point in this, if the person who replaces Brown is just going to continue the same kind of agenda. The thing that troubled me about this was the fact that senior members of Compass apparently see Alan Johnson or David Miliband as suitable replacements.
Ive held high opinions of a lot of the work done by Compass but as Ive said before I am unsure about the intentions of some of its leadership. They've established themselves as a well organised, progressive policy outlet, but is there really anything progressive about Johnson or Miliband? Most on the left of the Party will remember Johnson as the only Union leader on the NEC who supported the removal of Clause IV from the Party's constitution, only to be parachuted into a safe Parliamentary seat for the '97 election, after Stuart Randall unexpectedly stood down and was soon elevated to the House of Lords.
As for Miliband, I do think he did good work on Climate Change during his time as Environment Secretary, but some of his efforts (or lack of) as Foreign Secretary, on issues such as Gaza or extraordinary rendition just enforce my opinion that he's no different to any of the other Blairites. Even those who sing his praises note that he could be "the next generation" of Blairite Minister, without any hint of what this might entail.
The article did note however, that there was no consensus within the Compass leadership as to who might be a suitable heir to Brown, but I would guess that Jon Cruddas, Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband are a few of the names being floated. Jon Cruddas is one of the people I'm not sure about, a lot of what he says resonates well with me, but when it comes to action, such as the crucial Commons vote on the Welfare Reform Bill, hes nowhere to be seen. I don't really have anything bad to say about Harriet Harman, but I cant really think of anything good to say either. Ed Miliband however, could be a much more interesting choice than his brother. His speech to Party conference was one of the best I heard. His remarks about taking the transition to a green economy, as an opportunity to rebuild British manufacturing, was received as genuine and sincere. If this would be the kind of thing he intended to bring to the debate, then Id say hes the most palatable of potential candidates who actually have a good shot at winning.
I hope the article is right about the lack of consensus within Compass, and that Alan Johnson particularly is not a favourite candidate, in my opinion hes exactly the kind of candidate we don't need. But I really hope, that people don't make any badly planned moves on the leadership so close to the election, especially without a clear vision of what might come next and how this would benefit and engage the rest of the Party. If there was another bungled Coup attempt that ends with embarrassed Minsters fleeing the Cabinet in shame and in the midst of yet another re-shuffle, then this would surely ruin any hope of us fending off Cameron in May. Lets hope that the people starting these rumours have considered the potentially disastrous implications.

LRC Conference and things to come.

It was an interesting day of debate this Saturday in London, the LRC Conference was kicked off with a inspirational speech from Tony Benn, who never fails to impress! We heard from Mick Shaw of the Fire Brigades Union, who warned Conference of the threat the Trade Union movement faced from a potential Tory Government, who seem to want to make it illegal for Public Sector workers to take industrial action. We were reminded by John McDonnell why it is so vital that we defend Socialist candidates in the General Election, if we are to have any hope of retaining Socialist Representation in Parliament, although I was worried that John didn't go a step further and call for Conference to support all Labour MP's in the fight against the Tories.
One thing John pointed out stuck with me, and I really hadn't considered this until he mentioned it. He noted, that in the event of a tiny Labour majority, the 20 or so MP's in the Socialist Campaign Group, could find themselves in a unfamiliar position of power. If we retain a majority of 15-20 seats then these MP's would be in an impressive bargaining position and could no doubt use this to help advance certain issues on the legislative agenda. If people were disillusioned with their local MP, then go and campaign for a member of the Campaign Group seems to be the message, which will be big part of us retaining Socialist MP's no doubt, but personally I will also be campaigning for my local MP's, who don't have the greatest records on some issues, but are still a damn site better than a Tory!
Some people on the Left of the Labour Party are currently feeling quite disillusioned with the LRC, which worries me. I agree with some of these criticisms, I don't feel the LRC is doing all it can to engage with other Party members who don't necessarily agree with us, and whilst we may not agree on everything, we should be doing all we can to retain a dialogue with the rest of the Party so we can continue to try and make the case for a change in direction. But I also think that the LRC has taken part in some important and successful campaigns. The Peoples Charter being the most obvious, which now has the backing of the TUC, and several of the big Unions.
The critics have made me wonder, what kind of tactics would be most beneficial to our cause? One Comrade at the Conference suggested that we should reclaim traditional speaking areas in our communities, and make speeches to the passing public about why more Socialist policies would help the country. I liked this recommendation, and I think that using megaphones and setting up stalls in Town Centres are a good way of gathering support for our campaigns, and with the use of petitions we can show our fellow Labour Party members who aren't yet convinced, that Socialist policies are popular amongst the general public. I think that we have a great opportunity with the Peoples Charter, to show that the public can get behind the type of policies we support, and as Christine Shawcroft pointed out she had great responses from people on the doorstep whilst trying to round up support for the Charter.
In my opinion, what we really need to be doing, is building links with other Labour Party groups , such as Save the Labour Party, Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, the Co-Op Party and Compass to name a few. I'm not talking of an organisational combination, more of a productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the activists of these organisations. Compass is one group that's seems to be treated with a lot of suspicion from some people within the LRC, but I know from personal experience, that many Compass activists share a lot of our views on the New Labour project and the current state of the Party. Compass have made similar demands to that of the LRC, opposing spending cuts, calling for re-nationalisation of the Railways and stopping the PFI schemes to name a few. What I would like to see, is all these groups uniting around the issues on which we share common ground, pooling our activists and trying to win support both from the general public, and members of the Labour Party. We don't all have to agree on every single issue, but when we do agree we should work together as much as possible to make our demands a reality.
This is exactly the kind of co-operation I intend to promote in my new capacity as a member of the LRC's National Committee. I also intend to try and convince fellow Socialists to join the Labour Party and fight for its future, many people have left the Party in disgust at the pursuit of Neo-Liberal policies and the deterioration of Party Democracy, but people shouldn't be giving in, they should be showing up at every CLP meeting, holding their heads high and making the arguments for change. We know it sometimes feels like an upward struggle, but if this isn't a battle worth fighting then what is? We need to continue our efforts to put Left of Centre candidates onto the NEC, such as Susan Press and Christine Shawcroft, who were selected as the LRC's candidates for the Grass Roots Alliance slate. The rule changes for the NPF have improved our chances of getting decent grass roots activists onto the National Policy Forum, and these are exactly the kind of things we should be aiming for. People always go on about how we face opposition from the Party organs, well lets put people into these positions, the sooner we create a left wing presence on bodies such as the NEC the sooner we will start succeeding within the Party. We need to get involved as possible in every level of Party activity or else we will simply fade into the abyss. I hope people are ready for the challenges our movement faces in the coming months, because there is no doubt whatsoever, it's going to be one hell of a fight!

Against the Odds!

I was pleased to hear this morning that Labour Party HQ had announced that the "Against the Odds" video will be used as a Party Political Broadcast in the General Election. For those who haven't already heard, this decision was due to a campaign carried out by Party members on social networking sites Twitter and Facebook, that called for the video to be used during the campaign.

The video is a powerful piece of imagery that highlights how the Labour Party achieved sensational achievements such as the NHS, just a matter a years after Working Class people first achieved political representation.

It is very rare that you get to say that the grass roots of the Party have successfully influenced the actions of Party HQ, so I think this campaign has set an interesting precedent for the use of the Internet in political campaigning. The fact that sites such as Twitter can help spread a message so quickly and so far afield makes me wonder what else could be achieved.

As soon as I saw people on Twitter celebrating this victory today my initial reaction was, wouldn't it be nice if all those people used the same tactics to influence party policy?! What if the campaign title was #buildmorecouncilhouses or #saynotocuts, and the amount of people showing support for such measures forced the Government to reconsider their position? Now that would be a major victory!

Sites such as Twitter allow us to connect with lots of people, and in doing so we can explain to them why we support the Labour Party and try and spread the values which we hold dear. But in my opinion, this forum all too often offers up uncritical support to the current leadership, and misses a vital opportunity to make our voices heard on key issues. Of course we should support our Party publicly, but we should not be scared to challenge the leaders when they are in the wrong either, that after all is a vital aspect of democracy.

So I am left genuinely wondering, If people put the same amount of effort as they did into the against the odds campaign, into a Twitter campaign to build more council houses, bring back the 10p tax band or to create a high pay commission, then would it enjoy similar success?

The against the odds video can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA3H07Se0ZQ it really does put a lump in your throat.

Is there anything wrong with New Labour?

In 1997 the country embraced the Labour Party. Tony Blair strolled into Downing St. with a landslide majority of 179, promising a new direction (for both the country and the party) that would bring much needed social justice after 18 years of devastating Tory rule.

So now, 12 years into the future, with an election looming, and people in the Party want to talk about our achievements. We should be screaming them from the rooftops is the message, we can't let people forget about Sure Start, the National minimum wage, mass investment in Schools and Hospitals to name but a few. But the topic of discussion that many believe to be far more important, is the one being shunned by many in the Party ranks.

Whilst I agree with the above achievements, and the idea that advertising them is a vital aspect of the fight against the Tories. I also believe that we should not neglect to discuss our failures, and start a debate on what we've done wrong in the last 12 years, as well as what we have done right.

But apparently this is counter productive, or so I'm told by several fans of Tony Blair, one of which believes he "saved the labour party". Discussing problems with the New Labour project is apparently a bit of a faux pas, and will lead to nothing except us appearing sectarian and divided, or even worse a return to the "unelectable" kind of policies of the past, such as those in Michael Foot's '83 manifesto.

But the fact of the matter is, there have been many mistakes, and if we are to have any hope of existing as a relevant political force after the next election, then we have to admit to those mistakes and ensure we have a plan that prevents us from making them again.

The fact's speak for themselves, under New Labour, the key measures of inequality haven't changed and in some cases have worsened. Since '97 we have built less Social Housing than any Government since 1945, even though there are over 3 million people on waiting lists, and record numbers of families seeking shelter in temporary accommodation.

Although we introduced the National Minimum Wage, and ensured that it is regularly reviewed, the highest 10% of earners have seen an increase in earnings far greater than those earning Minimum Wage. The richest 10% of the population take 40% of annual income, with the bottom 90% receiving the remaining 60%, meaning that income equality is at its highest since the 40's, higher even than when Thatcher was in power!

Thatchers Neo Liberal policy of Privatization was continued under Blair, and sometimes accelerated, meaning that the super rich have been allowed to get richer as they take control of more and more of thecountry's productive assets. As Peter Mandelson once said, "we don't have a problem with people getting filthy rich anymore". This is clear from the statistics, 50% of wealth in Britain is now controlled by the richest 10% of the population! With the bottom half of the nation owning just 6%!

One of these Blairites actually tried to tell me that this is the best we can hope for in a modern Globalised Economy, and that initiatives such as Tax Credits are the best thing we can do to take the edge off a system that inevitably creates such inequalities.

It makes me sick that someone could actually take such a defeatist attitude. These people claim to fight for equality yet simultaneously pronounce that it isn't possible, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is some kind of wild eyed Trot, intent on dragging us back to the kind of real Socialist policies that many people believe would be the solution to these inequalities. These same unelectable policies, returning public transport to public ownership for example, seem very popular in polls, and you'd think with Labour doing as badly as we are in the polls, the leadership would jump on theopportunity to bring in some popular policies before the election!

The bottom line for me, is that our overall macroeconomic policy has not changed much since Thatcher! And it's these kind of policies that cause the inequalities that I've mentioned above. I'm no expert in policy formulation, but it is obvious that something needs to change if we are to do anything about these deeply rooted social problems. It makes you wonder what kind of equality those who have promoted the current agenda believe in, do they agree with my Blairite friend who believes we are powerless in the face of overwhelming global economic forces? Many would seem to agree that this is the case, and it is these kind of realisations that provide explanation for the Party's decline in active membership and support, because ridding the country of these ills is the reason most people got involved in the Labour Party in the first place!

I truly believe that these problems can be dealt with, but to do so we must embrace a truly pragmatic and pluralistic approach to our politics, and be willing to accept that policies we have previously supported are not working. To do otherwise will bedisastrous, both for the party and the country. I just hope that the sense of defeatism I have encountered does not spread.

The Grifin showdown!

Twitter and the blogosphere are alive with discussion regarding the appearance of BNP fuhrer Nick Griffin on Question Time this Thursday.
My views on this sensational event are mixed. I believe that the BNP’s vile politics have no place in a civilised society, and that allowing people who spout such hatred a platform such as Question time is wrong.
But, as seen as he is going to appear, people need to accept it and ensure that he is exposed. With the right questions being poised, Nick Griffin will lose any veneer of credibility with those decent people, who do not really understand what the BNP really stands for.
At meetings regarding anti fascist campaigning people have often debated the no platform policy often to the distaste of the majority, who cite historical incidents to support isolation of the fascists. They remind us of how sections of the German left tried to debate the fascists in the hope of discrediting them, and look where that got them! Maybe they’re right and that concept is as relevant today as it was in the 1930’s, or ma it will be different in 2009.
Maybe Nick Griffin will make such a tit of himself that his errors will be transmitted via youtube, twitter and facebook for months to come, with accompanying arguments for why his ideology is so wrong, and the BNP will suffer a devastating blow to its chances as an active political entity. Obviously there is the possibility that those appearing beside him will make a mess of it and make him look like a victim, which is why I am not happy about the appearance of Jack Straw and Baroness Warsi. Two people who could prove to be a disastrous liability.
I am not happy about Griffin’s appearance on Question Time, but he is going to be there, and as long as those taking part are prepared the BNP could be dealt a brutal PR blow. With this in mind I was pleased to see this article on the guardian website that outlines what kind of questions will be of most use. If those going into this debate are ready to hit Griffin with question after question on their links to white supremacists, their views on gay rights, their senior members dismissal of rape as “not that serious”, then the chance of things going against him are much better, I cant see him being able to squirm his way out of that.
I rest assured that there will be plenty of people in the audience on Thursday ready to ask just the right questions, and hopefully the majority if the British public will see him for what he really is. If they don’t, then people who supported his engagement will have to seriously reconsider any future invitations. And its not a question of believing in freedom of speech. He has freedom of speech, when his party post vile dvd’s through your door or when they stick their badly made election broadcasts on the TV. As long as he doesn’t attempt to incite violence he can say what he wants where he wants. But should an institution like the BBC really be providing such a highly respected platform, to someone who is anything but respectable?

Ed Miliband and the tale of Tony Blairs mother in law!

I was irritated this Friday evening by a post from Ed Miliband on Twitter. He was announcing his appearance at the Calder Valley CLP to speak on behalf of their PPC, Tony Blair's Mother in Law, Stephanie Booth.

Now I like Ed Miliband, we would probably disagree on many things, but I believe he is a sincere and competent politician. It wasn't his appearance that annoyed me, it was because I had been reminded of the events leading up to Ms. Booth's selection as a PPC.

Stephanie Booth was not Calder Valley's original choice as PPC, in fact a local woman called Janet Oosthuysen had already won the ballot. It is safe to say that Janet Oosthuysen is firmly on the left of the Party, and she makes no secret of this. She has been involved in numerous campaigns in her local area and her candidacy provoked interest from young people in the area who never had any interest in politics, but decided they would be willing to vote for a woman who they know and like from working behind the bar in their local pub.

Now the reason that these young men will not be able to vote for the candidate that had given them their original interest in the democratic process, was because the National Executive Committee refused to endorse her as a Labour Party candidate. The stated reason was that she had a Police caution for scratching an ex partners car some time ago! I am not aware of any part of the party rule book that says people with criminal convictions, yet alone cautions, can be prevented from standing for office.

That is what is troubling, is this really about a caution from the Police? Or is it because the person in question has repeatedly criticised the current leadership and their policies? If it is the latter then it is clear there is something to worry about, and poses a whole host of questions about our internal democracy and what kind of people we want to put into Parliament. Should the NEC even be allowed to disregard the will of the democratic ballot of a local party? I think the answer is obvious.

There was plenty of opposition from those who had chosen Janet Oosthuysen, and to avoid Stephanie Booth (who if you haven't guessed was a favourite of the leadership) being selected unopposed in the second round, local Cllr Susan Press (Vice Chair of the LRC) also decided to stand. At the hustings, Susan Press received 52 votes compared to Mrs. Booth's 22 votes. So the vote was decided by postal ballots, of which Mrs. Booth gained 73 compared to 17 cast for Susan Press.

Now for me this is troubling, people who cast votes for a candidate should surely have to attend the hustings and hear what the candidates have to say, unless they have a very good reason not to attend. There are also accusations that supporters of Mrs. Booth helped people fill in their ballot papers at their home! Something that arouses suspicions about people trying to interfere or at least unduly influence the ballot.

The whole episode raises serious questions for grass roots members who wish to stand for public office and the obstacles they may face if they are not willing to tow the party line. Does an opponent of the leadership have a fair chance of winning a selection against someone being parachuted in by Party apparatchiks, when the vote can so overwhelmingly be decided through a postal ballot?

So, when Ed Miliband asked the good people of the Twitter community for a good joke to tell during his visit to the Calder Valley CLP, my response was simple. Just talk about their selection process, only problem is it isn't very funny!