Recent Articles
Is Sadiq Khan right to say that Labour is now the party of civil liberties?
Writing in the New Statesman, Labour Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan brazenly declares that the Liberal Democrat’s record in Government has left Labour as the party of civil liberties. This has kicked of predictable outrage from Lib Dem activists, with most people citing the poor record of the last Labour government.
Despite the Blair Government’s terrible approach to civil liberties and counter-terrorism, its wrong to call Khan a hypocrite.
For starters, he was one of the Labour rebels who voted against Tony Blair’s 90-day detention policy, back in 2005. More recently, he has admitted the party’s mistakes on human rights and civil liberties. Part of his Charter 88 anniversary lecture was a scathing critique of the last Labour Government’s approach:
And I hold up my hands and admit that we did, on occasions, get the balance wrong. On 42 and 90 days, and on ID cards, where the balance was too far away from the rights of citizens… On top of this, we grew less and less comfortable with the constitutional reforms we ourselves had legislated for. On occasions checked by the very constitutional reforms we had brought in to protect people’s rights from being trampled on. But we saw the reforms as an inconvenience, forgetting that their very awkwardness is by design. A check and balance when our policies were deemed to infringe on citizens’ rights.
If an opposition spokesperson says this, I think they ward off the charge of hypocrisy when they subsequently criticise the civil liberties failings of the Governing coalition. Whether the voters believe Labour or not is another matter, but I think the fact that the spokesman is someone who was a Government rebel on 90 days, and who has been a target of surveillance himself, make Labour’s position that little bit more credible.
Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, included similar nostra culpas in her Demos speech on security and surveillance.
Meanwhile, at the Liberal Democrat annual conference, delegates have approved motion F41 [PDF], a reaffirmation of their party’s committment to human rights and the Human Rights Act.
These debates make me happy. What Khan and McNally’s comments show is that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have begun to see the promotion of human rights as a vote winner. This is by no means a given in British politics, and not something to be taken for granted.
Regardless of Labour’s past failures, or the Liberal Democrats’ current, shaky record in office, we should still applaud these commitments to protect the Human Rights Act.
The alternative is the gutting or abolition of the Act, and a withdrawl from the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Conservatives are threatening to do (David Cameron even had a populist pop at the idea of human rights in a conference speech before he became Prime Minister).
When a politician speaks out in defence of human rights, the public need to show their approval of such statements and publicise them widely.
Who knows, if the politicians see that such positions are a vote winner, we may find that Nick Clegg is inspired to fight a little harder for rights and liberties in this parliament… and that Secretary of State Sadiq Khan is emboldened to defend and extend human rights in the next.
Astonishing graphic: how English house prices have shot up
Neal Hudson, a UK housing market analyst for Savills, today made this graphic.
It shows how house prices have risen (from blue to red) as a multiple of income, across the UK.
And this is just from 1997 to 2013, by the way.
.
Another graphic here shows how house prices have risen (in £s) over the same period.
Neal Hudson is on Twitter as @resi_analyst
Why the shop assistant to refused to serve EDL leader showed responsbility
by James Mills
When I saw the video of the Selfridges shop assistant refusing to serve the EDL’s Tommy Robinson my heart rose.
Because whenever we hear about the labour market these days there is a dominant narrative that one should be happy with their lot. In essence, if you have a job, then count yourself lucky.
There is an element of truth to this when there are around two and half million people unemployed. But it means the ethics of the workplace are ignored and replaced with cold managerial speak. Workers are turned into drones, not workers. It is how we arrive at workplace poverty, zero hour contracts; and a Britain where the increase in the latter is viewed as success.
This young man could have just kept his head down and said nothing. But by his actions, he has displayed that no matter where one works you have a social responsibility.
I was a shop assistant too, for a well known, now bankrupt, off-license for around six years. The job was vital to me paying my rent and working my way through university. I could work up to 35-40 hours a week; and I know without that job I probably would not have graduated university. However, on several occasions I risked my job (and potentially my degree).
We were allowed to refuse customers who were drunk, violent, or if we obviously believed they were underage or supplying underage people. But on several occasions I refused to serve people for racist, sexist language and even bad manners. And I banned those customers until they apologised.
On one occasion someone threw their money on the counter when buying chewing gum, so I decided to throw the chewing gum and their change directly at them.
There are things more important than one’s personal ambitions and needs. This is an ethic that sadly is ignored when we talk about employment these days; and is seeping away from the workplace.
This week sees the launch of a new documentary, Nae Pasaran, recognising how 40 years ago shop floor workers at an aircraft engine repair factory in East Kilbride refused to work on plane engines of fascist dictator General Pinochet, after he seized power in a coup.
It is sadly something which seems unimaginable these days, until I saw that video.
Not only did these workers, like this shop assistant, refuse to supply their labour to the benefit of fascists, but they had an intrinsic knowledge that a workplace is not an inanimate location; it is somewhere from which we all have a responsibility to our work colleagues, but also to our communities.
Nae Pasan trailer
—
James Mills did the cross-party Save EMA campaign; and runs the Labour Diversity Fund campaign
David Attenborough and other food facts about Africa you probably didn’t know
by Jonathan Kent
Many, but by no means all Greens are worried about population. It’s a multiplier on many of the problems we face. But it’s a very sensitive subject, as David Attenborough has discovered.
When I heard Attenborough say: “what are all these famines in Ethiopia, what are they about? They’re about too many people for too little piece of land. That’s what it’s about,” I hear the echoes of generations-old, lazy thinking about Africa and Africans summed up in the notion of the White Man’s Burden.
A little while ago there was a row about whether Green World, the magazine for Green Party members, should take an ad from the group Population Matters of which Attenborough is a prominent supporter. I argued, quite vociferously that it should; I dislike any attempt to stifle debate.
The anti-Population Matters lobby, among them Lib-Con regular Adam Ramsay, pointed out that the carbon footprint of a country like Mali is so small compared to Western nations that the population could double, treble or more without having much impact on the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
True, though unless we keep Malians poor or we can roll out clean energy fast that may not remain the case. And every African needs to eat the same minimum as every European, and even people in the rich West can only eat so much. Over-population results in countries hitting a food production buffer long before they hit an energy buffer.
But David Attenborough and others also need to stop blinding ourselves with stereotypes about Africa.
Firstly, in simple terms of density sub-Saharan Africa is far less populated than North West Europe, the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan.
Then, when one looks at which nations import and which export food, an even more interesting picture emerges. Many West and East African nations are net food exporters – Ethiopia included.
What do they export? Well next time you pick up a packet of mange-tout check out its origin. Chances are it’ll come from Kenya along with cut flowers and other products that drink up water and use valuable agricultural land.
Yes, populations outstripping the ability of the land to support them is a problem; but not in Africa. It’s a problem in Japan, and Saudi Arabia and Russia. It’s a problem in South East England and potentially across most of Europe too. But those are wealthy countries, so we don’t tell people there to stop having children.
Africa’s problem, on the other hand, is one of economics and justice; debt, balance of payments, the need for foreign currency and poverty. It’s about foreign governments and corporations (the Chinese prominent amongst them) buying up land because they know that rich nations consume more food than they can.
If only David Attenborough were as knowledgeable about the human as he is about the animal world he might have talked about the Black Man’s Burden – part of which involves feeding Europeans who are quick to advise, slow to listen and who, for the most part, simply don’t seem to care.
—
Jonathan Kent blogs here.
Labour moves much closer to repealing Bedroom Tax
On reports that 50,000 Britons are facing eviction over the Bedroom Tax, last night Liam Byrne MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, released this statement:
These appalling figures prove once and for all that while this government stands up for a privileged few, a debt bombshell is exploding for a generation of people.
While the nation’s millionaires get a huge tax cut, thousands more now confront arrears and eviction from which they’ll never recover. This is final proof as if we needed it, that the hated tax must be dropped and dropped now.
This is the strongest sign I’ve seen so far by the Labour leadership that they’re planning to announce a repealing of the tax if they come into power, in 2015.
I suspect that Ed Balls MP has kept everyone’s hands tied back, so Labour cannot yet announce this policy until they’ve laid out a proper budget.
Maybe it will be in the Labour leader’s speech at conference.
Watch: presenter mistakes paper stack for iPad
BBC news presenter Simon McCoy left viewers baffled today when he presented a report while carrying a stack of photocopier paper – after mistaking it for an iPad
(via @joshhalliday)
Remember when Lib Dems opposed Free School Meals?
Today Nick Clegg will announce that every child at infant school in England will receive free lunches from next September.
This has already been policy at several Labour-controlled councils across London.
Amusingly, the same policy was repeatedly attacked by Lib Dems in the past.
Here are Islington Lib Dems
Islington Liberal Democrat councillors have slammed Labour’s plans for taxpayer-funded school meals in the borough as expensive and not helping those most in need.
Liberal Democrats have identified the following problems with Labour’s plans to introduce taxpayer-funded meals for primary children:
- the Labour Government won’t fund a pilot scheme as Islington doesn’t meet its criteria so local taxpayers will have to pick up the whole tab.
- it does nothing for secondary school children for whom there is much greater need.
- will lead to a dramatic drop in Government schools funding for Islington as it is based on number of people who sign-up for free school meals
- will give taxpayer-funded school meals to families who can afford to pay for them.
- will mean subsidising families living in other boroughs using local schools.
Last year, Southwark Lib Dems too called on Labour to scrap Free School Meals for primary pupils.
And there are MPs too!
Simon Hughes attacks Labour-run #Southwark council for "wasting extraordinary amounts" on #freeschoolmeals pic.twitter.com/P4Zw62pZTu
— Susie Mesure (@susiemesure) September 17, 2013
It’s going to be interesting to see how Lib Dems spin this.
The Lib Dems are planning to stop Labour from power in 2015, but is Miliband watching?
The political press famously paid little attention to Liberal Democrat conferences before the Coalition in 2010. Even now, as Westminster is watching more closely, there is a lingering feeling in the air that says, ‘what’s the point? You’re heading for a meltdown anyway‘.
But this would be missing the point, and the Labour leadership in particular should be paying close attention because the Lib Dem strategy is clever and could deny Ed Miliband a chance at power after the next General Election.
Let’s look at this week’s events. It started with Tim Farron love-bombing Ed Miliband. Then we had advance newspaper briefings about raising the minimum wage, banning plastic bags and dealing with climate change. Major speeches at the conference by Ed Davey, Vince Cable, Jeremy Browne and even Danny Alexander veered to the left, focusing on raising taxes on the wealthy, helping the poor and dealing with climate change. Nick Clegg’s key announcement has been on free school meals. There are even motions on betting shops!
There’s a reason for this. Voters who opted for the Lib Dems in 2010 but are now veering towards Labour are central to Ed Miliband’s success in 2015. These people are disillusioned with the Lib Dems, highly unlikely to vote Conservative and favourable to Labour. They are the reason Labour is polling in the high 30s rather than low 30s and should be easier to keep on side than people who haven’t voted for the party recently.
But if the Lib Dem conference has one central message, it’s that the yellows aren’t about to give them up without a fight.
Of course, in many cases Lib Dems are arguing against policies they voted for earlier.
But voters are notoriously fickle who remember headlines more than voting records. They mostly just remember big betrayals (like the tripling of tuition fees), and given enough time will forgive those too (as many have done with Labour and Iraq).
The Lib Dems have three main arguments to ensure they don’t collapse in 2015.
First, ‘we had no choice in 2010′. The Lib Dems pledged to join the largest party in 2010 to stabilise the British economy. They were a minority partner so they didn’t get everything but they managed to push some key Libdem policies.
Second, ‘Ed Miliband’s Labour is the same as Gordon Brown’s Labour’. They’ll point out closer to the election that Labour have said little on civil liberties, the environment or taxes on low earners. At least the Lib Dems fought in government to make that happen, they will add.
Third, ‘we restrain the extreme ends of both Labour and the Tories’. They will say that voting Lib Dem is not longer a protest vote but a vote to ensure that neither Labour nor Tories realise their wild excesses in government.
These three arguments will almost certainly soften up the Labour vote even further and start tempting back ex-Lib Dems. As Fabian research has shown, Labour voters are “much more vulnerable to apathy and disenchantment” and desert the party before an election. Labour’s jump in support after 2010 showed how bad the party is at hanging on to sympathetic voters.
It doesn’t matter what their voting record is, from here until 2015 the Lib Dems will make loud left-leaning noises to appeal their abandoned base, hoping enough of them will return after reassurances.
The mistake for Labour would be to treat ex-Lib Dem voters like tribal Labour voters. These people may be sympathetic but they are also suspicious of Labour leaders and unlikely to just take them on their word. They won’t nod along at any criticism of Clegg by Labour MPs.
Labour has to fight for them and appeal to these voters too, rather than just hoping Britons will see through it. They won’t. Enough of them could go back the Lib Dems at the last minute and deny Ed Miliband any chance of power in 2015.
UPDATE: As I said, the Lib Dems are aggressively courting Labour voters…
Only Lab supporters favour free #schoolmeals for ALL children. Opposition highest among Con @YouGov #stat2watch pic.twitter.com/s4D23vRizK
— Joe Twyman (@JoeTwyman) September 17, 2013
The questions no one is asking about the Royal Mail Pensions sell-off
by Paddy Briggs
From time to time a good Pensions trustee should have an ‘emperor has no clothes’ moment. This is when there is something about which there seems a pretty solid agreement, often with the wraparound of ‘we’ve always done it like this’. Generally when you press you find that something is done the way it is because it is the best way.
But just occasionally a challenge will reveal an opportunity to change or improve established behaviours for the benefit of the Pension fund and its members.
I was pondering this recently when the news about the government’s decision on the Royal Mail Pension Plan began to emerge. This decision is that this fund, the third largest in the UK with assets under management of some £31 billion at the end of 2011, should be wound up and its assets be requisitioned by the Treasury.
I was so astonished about this that I wrote a letter to The Times expressing my surprise that the pensions world had been so sanguine about what seemed to be an extraordinary and unprecedented action, which I said was “almost Maxwellian in its audacity”.
The conventional wisdom about the Royal Mail Pension Plan decision is that it is in the interests of members. The interests of these members are protected, so the argument goes, because the fund’s members will become like most other public sector employees – their pensions will not be funded but will be a long-term charge on the treasury.
This is to the advantage of members because they go from the uncertainty of being in a fund whose funding ratio is a weak 76% to having their pensions guaranteed by government.
But what about those huge assets which employees, the sponsor and trustees have built up over the years? Surely it is the members’ money and only they have a right to it? It is not being set aside into a special pot to help provide for future pension payments – it is being sequestered to help reduce the UK’s budget deficit.
And is the transfer of members from a funded trust into the status of being an unfunded liability on the public finances really necessarily in their interests? Governments can and do change the basis of public sector pensions at their discretion and there is little that anyone can do to stop them.
A pensions trust provides legal protection to its members and has trustees to exercise that protective role. At a stroke Royal Mail fund members will lose that security and no longer have trustees acting in their interests.
Was there an alternative to the decision that the government has taken?
The Royal Mail is to be privatised and self-evidently no buyer would wish to assume sponsor responsibility for its £40 billion of liabilities. But could the funding ratio gap not have been closed partly out of the proceeds of privatisation and partly from the exchequer and the fund given an assured long-term future, as an independent pension entity, by such payments?
And why should the taxpayers of the future have to provide for the pensions of a further 430,000 people over and on top of the public sector pensions obligations they already have? These may be ‘emperor has no clothes’ types of questions – but they should be asked.
—
This article was originally published here.
EDL supporter calls for shooting at Muslims, on FB
An EDL supporter, angry about “the islamification of our country” calls for people on the English Defence League’s page to shoot at Muslims. For that he gets ‘Likes’ rather than having the comment deleted.
What’s ironic is that he doesn’t even live in the UK, having moved to Thailand permanently. Link to the comment (via @exposetweets)
.
Of course, EDL supporters are not violent at all.
35 Comments
48 Comments
21 Comments
49 Comments
4 Comments14 Comments
27 Comments
16 Comments34 Comments
65 Comments
36 Comments
17 Comments1 Comment19 Comments
46 Comments
53 Comments
64 Comments
28 Comments
12 Comments5 CommentsNEWS ARTICLES ARCHIVE