Home » Posts tagged 'Fabian Society'
Tag Archives: Fabian Society
The BBC and Conservatives – are they "stirring" on the Marr Show?
The BBC ran a new story that resulted in me receiving a lot of offensive abuse saying that Ed was trying to distance himself from the unions and scrap EMA. I am simply totally disgusted about how irresponsibly the BBC have reported this, and led to losing friendships.
The story is here.
The EMA story
In his BBC interview, Mr Miliband said he had been talking to Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes about the coalition’s scrapping of the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for teenagers in England.
This introductory statement is incredibly misleading, such that people wrote to me saying that Ed Miliband was in collusion over scrapping of the EMA. This is completely untrue. Given that some Liberal Democrats like the Labour Party find it abhorrent that such support for students is being taken away, Andy Burnham is tabling an amendment such that its successor in some form can support students financially. I understand that Simon Hughes and Andy Burnham behind the scenes are working very hard to make this happen. Here is the video I took at the Fabian Society New Year Conference on Saturday.
The ASLEF story
From the ASLEF website
This is clearly written on the ASLEF website.
Royal wedding: Tube strike
10 Jan 2011
ASLEF’s General Secretary Keith Norman said today that the question of possible industrial action on the day of the Royal Wedding has not even been discussed by the union’s executive.
The union’s London officer Steve Grant stressed that no ballot had been held and the union and the management were due to resume negotiations about compensation for all Bank Holiday working by London Underground tube drivers.
‘The story is premature to say the least,’ Keith added
The link is here.
Here is a screenshot in case it disappears for some reason.
The report by the BBC and the amount of shit-stirring by David Cameron on this has been obscene.
There have been reports of transport and public sector strikes on 29 April, but unions have played down the idea in recent days.
The reports have come from the right-wing press and the BBC. ASLEF have been trying to deny them vigorously.
London Underground drivers in the Aslef union had been considering walking out on the day of Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton, but the threat has been removed as talks with Transport for London officials take place.
Read the statement above by ASLEF. So that you don’t think ASLEF are a bunch of thugs, I’d like to remind you of a picture of the equivalent of ASLEF members from yesteryear.
The BBC should report the news fairly, not be in the business as usual of sensational scaremongering. The BBC News in fact as usual simply disgusts me in how incompetent it is.
http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/121663/royal_wedding__tube_strike/
'Yes to AV' referendum and the new politics
One of the sessions at the 2011 New Year Conference of the Fabian Society today, held at the Institute of Education, looked at the ‘Yes to AV’ referendum in the context of new progressive politics. The contributors made a number of very interesting contributions.
John Denham MP, Shadow Business Secretary, says that he ‘has settled more into the AV camp’ because it sits well with the achievable aim of a constitutional House of Lords within the next few months. He further added that, under the current electoral system, small parties can exert a disproportionate degree of political influence.
Anthony Barnett, Founder of openDemocracy, considers the AV referendum to be at the end of a cycle of electoral reform, which is part of the “new politics”. The recent anti-cuts movement including criticism of progressive marketization of education is considered by Anthony to be progressive, and to be part of the “new politics”. (John Denham instead proposed that there had been various ‘waves’ of new politics across the years, but that 2015 was unlikely to offer a profound ideological shift.) Anthony felt that an AV system might mobilize people to vote at all; parliamentary sovereignty lends itself to corporate media lobbying having undue influence on the executive, and an AV system makes a highly centralized state much more likely and more democratic state much more likely.
Jessica Assato, Director of the ‘Labour Yes to AV Campaign’, argued that the AV referendum must be decided upon the arguments presented of either sticking to the ‘status quo’ or a change to AV producing a better, progressive democracy. Jessica believes that it will represent a better style of politics, less dependence on the core voters and greater motivation to find voters further afield, allow individuals to vote for positively for people, and that it will minimize the chances of minority political parties including fascists being elected. Jessica felt that there is a case for more proportional representation at local level as well, giving members of the community more community involvement, for example through new technologies (such as “38 Degrees”). Finally, a new AV system would allow voters to indicate what sort of coalition partners they would prefer in the event of a hung parliament; Jessica argued that many voters were indeed dissatisfied with the outcome of the 2010 UK General Election.
Lord Michael Wills believes in the AV referendum passionately, for non-tribal politics to succeed, and hopes that the referendum will produce a ‘yes vote’.
Insecurity and fairness
The Fabians discussed this morning insecurity and inequality.
Whilst these are huge topics, I was impressed with the amount of breadth and depth of the discussion.
Whatever the economic solution to the global financial crisis is, and whether it will work in this country, we still have an on-going problem that has existed for the whole of this century in England.
The Fabian meeting was a starting-point for discussing some of these issues, this morning at breakfast.
Politically, the issue has been thrust to the front of the Labour agenda through the Fabian Society. Many blame Labour for not doing anything over the banking crisis, as regards the huge salaries of certain CEOs of banks. Economists on the whole appear to believe that the extra revenue that would have be gained from a high rate of taxing the bankers would not make a massive amount to the revenue of the Governnment. At the other end of the scale, despite the welfare state, there are still people living in relative poverty.
I suppose part of the problem for me is that the welfare state is not meant to be simply a desperate measure for those who’ve fallen off the edge of the cliff. It should support the successful, as indeed the NHS does support the acute medical care of all the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet. Labour’s inequality divide, we all know, got massively worse under Blair and Brown, and this is not a record that socialists should be proud of. The recent experience of the Swedes, possibly, is that socialism is not seen as a relevant solution in this global modern economy. Taking this in its wider context, socialism should be for the good times as well as the bad, but the Conservatives attempt to shatter this notion through their repetitive chant that ‘we always fix the broken economy by Labour’.
Fairness is incredibly difficult to define. I have only seen attempts by the Law Lords in cases concerning grounds of judicial review, such as legitimate expectation or procedural impropriety. I actually have never seen it discussed at length in relation to a more obvious candidate, the Human Rights Act. Of course, we are yet to see how the case law of the Equality Act will develop. Insecurity, I sensed, was likely to be exacerbated when voters felt that circumstances were out of their control, akin to learned helplessness in depression. There are two scenarios I can immediately think of where this lack of predictability in events might lead to insecurity; the increasing globalisation of the jobs market (and immigration), and (b) the global financial crisis. Gillian Duffy, and many like her, may feel insecure about her family’s jobs, but in fairness to her (pardon the pun), in law there might be a proportional check on the freedom of movement – and that is a right to work in your domestic country – however contentious that would be.
A new flame
Ed Miliband’s parting words in his important interview with Andy Marr this morning was, “New generation, not new Labour”. There is indeed a sense that a ‘new flame’ has come. Indeed, with this new flame, I believe it is now time for Labour to unite,
Unity is our watchword, as well as humility - Alastair Campbell, Lord Mandelson and Tony Blair did not back Ed Miliband, please note. You’re still Grandees, but not everyone’s listening as carefully any more.
The idea of where Ed has come from ideologically come from can be easily put in a soundbite. It’s clear that the latest attempt by the Sun, their first real attempt, has failed. The idea of Ed Miliband being ‘Red Ed’ is ludicrous, but is a sign that the Tory press have lost it. I do indeed think that Ed Miliband will develop an audacity of renewal, and my hunch is that he’s much more right-wing than people give him credit for.
There could be massive problems with the cuts, and the media are likely to play up that Ed Miliband got a big leadership vote, and therefore could be in the ‘pockets of the unions’. Ed Miliband gave out the clear message that a ‘right to strike’ should be a ‘last resort’, and responsibility from the government and the Unions is important. I have previously adopted much more left-wing view, but it is a practicality already that the fire services will be going on the strike. Critically, Ed does not want to be part of ‘loudhaler politicis’, which is the complete anthesis of David Cameron screaming at Gordon Brown at Prime Minister’s Question over the BA strike.
Finally, Ed Miliband is possibly right in arguing that the branding of “New Labour” was right at the time, in the sense that it wished to appeal to all sections of society. However, it is a formula for the 1990s that is unsuitable for the 2010s. People are alarmed about the worsening of inequality that happened under Labour. I’m glad to see that inequality is at the top of agenda, including the responsibilities at the low end of the income scale, as well as rich bankers. There are ways in which high pays could be in theory could be reduced, for example David Miliband’s idea of having an ordinary worker on the executive board of big companies. However, the easy approach is to do banker bashing which indeed successful populism. It is what Vince Clegg has been doing to divert attention away from his proven ‘unfair policies’, which are far from Liberal ideals and values historically. It goes to the heart of recognising poverty and the working class, as indeed William Beveridge, David Lloyd-George and Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree recognised all those years. A genuine coalition of ideas that brought real results for this country. Labour (and the Fabian Society) must reassume the moral high ground on this.
And I am inspired? Very much so…
On Ed Balls.
How’s the coalition doing these days? Well, considering. Cameron seems confident, and ‘on top of his game’ at the moment. He has a clear idea of how he can lead the country as well as his Party, which is no mean feat. Meanwhile, Labour seems to go on with its neverending shambles which is the leadership election, with Ed Balls revealing today that he disagreed with Gordon Brown and how he could now work with the Liberal Democrats.”
Here is Ed’s latest account of where things went wrong with him at the helm: Indy article
Gordon Brown fudged Labour message, says Ed Balls
“I could have chosen to have broken away in an emphatic and decisive way from Gordon in the last few years, and I didn’t,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.”
Why not? Of course, the traditional arguments are ‘collective responsibility’ and ‘loyalty’, but this admission goes to the heart of how exactly decisions were made in Gordon Brown’s government. The impression that, “If Gordon didn’t like it, tough”, seems to be getting stronger and stronger everyday, with the publication of a new set of political memoirs (e.g. “The Third Man”, or “The Journey”).
“I disagreed strongly with Gordon on the 10p tax rate cut, I thought we should have gone for the election in 2007, I felt that he trimmed and fudged his message to try to keep the Daily Mail happy in a way which meant that people didn’t know where we stood. I said that to him many times.”
Well, there’s disagreement and there’s disagreement isn’t there? As a junior member of the Fabians, I believe strongly that Labour government under both Blair and Brown screwed up on poverty. Poverty and inequality aren’t even mentioned in Blair’s index. Whatever your views on capital gains tax and corporation tax, the issue about the 10p tax (and the top rate of tax) still raises more questions than answers.
So, whilst Kerry is right to emphasise our achievements, we still have a lot of soul-searching to do. For what it’s worth, I don’t feel Ed Balls MP is the right man at the right time. He wasn’t then, and he isn’t now.
Meanwhile, Guido Fawkes has revealed interesting information about Ed Ball’s leadership chances from his research.
39% of Guido’s Readers Want Ed Balls to Lead Labour Party
Here are Guido’s findings.
“Ed Balls liked to tell the hustings that he was the one the Tories feared most, hence the attacks on him from the right-wing media. Guido takes the opposite view, he is the one that opponents of the Labour Party most badly want to win the Labour leadership because he would be as disastrous as his mentor was for Labour. Today”
Tony Blair – The Journey : A failure to tackle inequality is a dangerous precedent for Labour
Actually, reading a book with such a careful index is like reading the abstract of a scientific paper. You can easily miss out the best bits, and get such a soupçon that you totally miss out on the real flavour. This could be the detriment of understanding Tony Blair, or possibly be an advantage. Despite my protestations which principally come from the Andrew Marr interview on the BBC, I went into the journey with an open mind, I hope..
The thing I instantly liked about “The Journey” is that it is easy to underestimate the nadir from which Labour actually came at the height of Margaret Thatcher’s popularity. I remember in my 20s what a disaster the Conservatives had become internally, and how they had virtually imploded on the issue of Europe (a topic which still threatens their infrastructure today). So, it was for me as Blair described indeed, having lived through the experience that Tony Blair talks about. I feel that I can actually empathise with his account, even though I have zero emotional intelligence, arguably, myself.
I had got used to defeat myself, I didn’t expect Blair to win, when I was at the age of 23, having experienced so many defeats in the past for me during the Thatcher generation. Quite early on in the book, Tony Blair seems to have an acknowledgement of not making his writing too self-congratulatory. Whether he’s actually succeeded on this I feel is a very tough call. His prosaic style varies from being candid emotionally, to being rather unemotional, as if he is talking in ‘legal speak’. However, the sense of excitement is there, as well as some sense of expectation management.
Some things in the book are pretty predictable. For example, the glowing reference of Alastair Campbell shines through. However, I find Blair very unclear on obvious certain failures of domestic policy. For example, I don’t feel that Tony Blair really tackles head-on the equality (inequality) divide. An epiphenomenon of this is that neither ‘poverty’ or ‘inequality’ are words are in the index, which I am sure that Tony Blair didn’t compile. There is an appearance of lip service to the Fabian Society, on a somewhat academic footing, with a surprising acknowledgement of Tony Benn and Tony Crossland at the University of Oxford. Blair seems to identify the problem:
“Once so altered, [Benn and Crossland] became staunch advocates of social action and of the party of the trade unions and the working class whose lives had to be liberated from the conditions of poor housing, poor education and poor health care.”
Critically, there is no explanation – or even an attempt at an explanation – of whether improvements in social indequality were achieved. However, it does seem that the culture of Blair, with the emphasis on September 11th, Gordon Brown, Alastair Campbell Iraq and Islam, seems to have somewhat overshadowed all this, and this really shows in the book. These topics have been described extensively elsewhere, so I won’t mention them. However what I did find incredibly interesting that a much publicised move was that of Gordon Brown to reduce the capital gains tax to a rate of 15%. Even Blair calls this move by Brown as heralded by politics than any real conviction, so the overwhelming impression for the reader like me is that Gordon Brown deliberately wished to court the city against any notion of anti-business rather than having thought carefully about the social and economic sequelae. Robert Peston has indeed cited this as a reason where the Blair/Brown axis failed, and I agree. Was the Labour government successful on this single issue, irrespective of Iraq or Afghanistan, more school and nurses, etc.? No.
This is a big deal, because parties tend to lose when they systematically alienate groups of people. I noticed this with Margaret Thatcher first of all, but I have latterly felt that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair did this with the working, middle and upper classes. “Somethings got to give” as Marilyn Monroe said, and it must before the next election, in addition to Labour formulating a coherent response to the effect of cuts on the economy and real people.
Is he a great leader? Well, he certainly achieved a lot, but it’s a moot point whether he made his domestic policies so toxic so as to make them rather uninspirational. Thankfully, there are other features of a good leader, such as intelligence, passion, focus, risk-taking and enthusiasm, and you can conceivably argue that Blair had all of these in abundance.
