Recent Articles

I would do anything for voting reform (but I won’t do that)

Things which the Lib Dems are prepared to support in order to help get a referendum on voting reform:

Raising VAT
Cutting housing benefit and increase homelessness
Capping immigration
Sacking hundreds of thousands of public sector workers
Supporting Michael Gove’s ideological experiment with schools

Things which the Lib Dems are not prepared to support in order to help get a referendum on voting reform:

Having two separate votes in parliament, one on whether or not to have a referendum on voting reform, and the other on the coalition’s plans to change constituency boundaries

Isn’t it time Labour centrists admit they lost the election?

The left of the Labour party is usually caricatured as a homogeneous group that, pre-New Labour, dogmatically stuck to positions that ensured the party stayed out of power. That is, until Tony Blair came along, junked a lot of that dogma and convinced the party that to win power they had to change.

On some issues, particularly Clause 4, I think the Labour centrists were right to drop earlier dogmatic positions.

But here’s the thing: it looks like these Labour centrists, who were pragmatic about the need to respond to changing voter concerns in order to get elected, have become dogmatic themselves. They’ve become so obsessed with avoiding ‘tacking to the left’ that they themselves have become out of touch.
continue reading… »

How Ken will use economy to attack Boris

Ken Livingstone yesterday laid out a somewhat detailed economic policy in which he explained how he would challenge Boris Johnson’s administration, and the issues his campaign would highlight.

He said he was “setting out an alternative approach to protect Londoners”, calling the policy: Defending London’s Living Standards and Economy from the Tories.

On London’s economy the document points out:

* London’s unemployment rate (9.3%) is above the national average (7.9%). The economic inactivity rate in London is 23.7%, which is the worst inactivity rate in the whole of England;

* The need for greater engagement with major economies including India, China and Brazil and the damage caused by Tory government cuts on falling levels of public and private investment in London;

* The mounting cost to Londoners of Boris Johnson’s inaction on issues such as pollution and his vanity projects including the fantasy Thames airport and new bus (over £500 million).

His campaign made several pledges:

1. Holding down bus fares, following a rise in the cost of a single bus fare by a third under Boris Johnson – delivering the lowest possible fares is the biggest contribution that the Mayor can make to protecting Londoners living standards against the effects of the recession;

2. Making the Living Wage a condition of procurement, employment and services within the GLA group and ODA and using every lever to convince London employers to implement the Living Wage;

3. Building a new consensus across London for new infrastructure projects to improve the quality of life in London and create new jobs;

4. Opposing Tory-Lib Dem plans to privatise the Royal Mail and cut housing benefit which threatens thousands of Londoners.

5. Lobbying for a fair taxation system, rejecting Tory calls to lower the top rate of tax to 40%.

He said he was calling for a shift in priorities “from defending bankers’ bonuses” to “defending Londoners from cuts and investing in new jobs”.

I believe it is essential that the Mayor uses every lever to convince London employers to implement the Living Wage and make the Living Wage a condition of procurement, employment and services.

Whilst Boris awards pay hikes to his staff and regards his £250,000 a year salary from the Telegraph as ‘chickenfeed’ millions of Londoners are struggling to make ends meet and need a Mayor who will fight for them.

You can read the Economic Policy from here.

Why does Nick Clegg keep misleading us about the economy?

So Nick Clegg has been lying about what advice he received, or didn’t, from Mervyn King about how to deal with public finances.

Back in June he defended his party’s volte-face on cuts in an interview:

“Our view has shifted,” accepts Clegg. “To be fair to us, it shifted because the world around us changed.” He claims as his alibi “the complete belly-up implosion in Greece”, which made it imperative to demonstrate to the markets that the coalition would make an early start on deficit reduction. Another influence was “a long conversation a day or two after the government was formed” with Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England. “He couldn’t have been more emphatic. He said: ‘If you don’t do this, then because of the deterioration of market conditions it will be even more painful to do it later.’?”

continue reading… »

Why we should welcome Cameron’s comments on Gaza

The only problem with Cameron calling Israel Gaza a massive “prison camp” is that it doesn’t go far enough. Israel is still building illegal settlements that have all but destroyed any chance of Palestinian confidence in their intentions and the chance of peace.

But nevertheless, even such a small move is important, and unless it is loudly supported by those who want peace in the Middle East, Cameron will only hear pro-Israel frothing from the Tories and Labour.

That will only make him retreat. If we want him to go further, we must support even the baby steps.
continue reading… »

Hughes wanted Lab coalition instead

The most senior Libdem MP outside of government, Simon Hughes, has said he would have preferred a deal with Labour instead of the Conservatives.

We have been forwarded an email Simon Hughes sent in reply to a voter, in which he explains why the party went into a deal with Labour.

In the email Simon Hughes says:

People sometimes argue that we were wrong to enter a coalition with the Conservatives, and should have done a deal with Labour. Many people know that that was my first instinct and would have been more logical given the historic Liberal position as a left of centre party.

In the event such a coalition just proved impossible. The total number of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs did not come to a majority and arrangements with other parties would have at best produced a precarious coalition with a small majority.

There was a great danger that this would not have given confidence to the country that there would be a stable government over the next few years to deal with the sever economic problems which we faced. In addition it was increasingly clear during the negotiations that many senior members of the Labour party did not want a coalition with us and preferred the option of going into opposition.

Finally in the negotiations Labour were unwilling to make significant compromises in our direction on matters of real importance to us, such as the repeal of the legislation on identity cards. In the end a deal with Labour proved impossible.

And I am clear that the only other remaining alternative – which was to allow the Conservatives to run a minority government would have had all of the disadvantages of a conservative only government with none of the advantages of coalition.

In addition they would have for certain called an early election with a great probability of obtaining a majority for the Conservatives for the following five years. In a coalition by contrast many of the policies and much of the influence comes from the progressive Liberal Democrat tradition.

This is an excerpt from an email that focuses primarily on why Hughes supported raising VAT.

Conservative council makes the vulnerable face most cuts

Adult care is a highly pressured area of local government spending at the best of times, with councils racking up overspends even as public spending grew. Now this unfashionable area of public spending is increasingly taking a hit.

Take a bow, London Borough of Havering. With its Conservative-run council trying to save £19m over the next three years – and possibly £50m over five years – adult care users are being told to chip in.

The increased charges were approved at a recent council cabinet meeting (item 8 here) and will now go out to consultation.
continue reading… »

Elton does Orwell? Sorry, that’s just wrong

Elton John’s first professional gig was with a blues band that covered Memphis Slim and Muddy Waters. But he quit that outfit in 1967, and pianistically speaking, it has been downhill all the way ever since.

Now we read that the third most successful recording artist of all time has teamed up with the guy who wrote Billy Elliot to work on a musical version of Animal Farm. Whatever next? The Saturdays do Grundrisse? Atlas Shrugged, soundtrack courtesy of Meatloaf?

The news comes just weeks after George Galloway – a man whose gifts with song were long unsuspected by many – unveiled his plans for a similar treatment of the life of noted lesbian songstress Dusty Springfield.

Some may detect a certain incongruity here, at least in so far as it must be presumed that Dusty would have been immune to the cigar smoking charms of the former Respect MP, although that dimension may simply add to the charm of the project.

continue reading… »

Having a better immigration system also means returning immigrants

contribution by Tim Finch

You know government policy is in trouble when on the same day it is attacked by both a High Court judge and its own independent inspector.

That is what happened yesterday to the Home Office over important aspects of their returns policy – with the High Court ruling the fast track deportation process ‘unlawful’ and the Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency criticising the use of dawn raids and the treatment of families.

But it is just too easy for people who want a more sympathetic approach towards migrants to greet these developments as victories against those ‘nasty’ people in the Home Office.
continue reading… »

Why Labour should support AV while opposing the Bill

I want to see the electoral system changed – and look forward to campaigning for the Alternative Vote at a referendum soon, even if the date seems very much subject to confirmation.

But, beyond AV, I think the government’s bill is badly flawed. Labour reformers must advocate that Labour oppose the Bill in a constructive way.

I would be interested what other pro-reform voices think the best approach to the conundrum of this hybrid legislative proposal should be, as I am personally still thinking through what it would mean.
continue reading… »