The Labour campaign in Crewe

The furore over Labour’s ‘Tory Toffs’ campaign tactic in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election has generated a lot of heat but little light. David Cox is delighted that the ‘Bullingdon boys’ are in the ascendancy whilst John Harris believes that Labour’s tactics are in danger of turning it into the ‘nasty’ party. It is certainly true that Labour is making a big issue of the fact that the Conservative candidate for the seat, Edward Timpson, is a wealthy barrister, that he was educated at Uppingham public school and that he is the son of John Timpson, the owner and founder of the multi-million pound Timpson shoe repair and key-cutting empire. What the Labour strategists argue is that it is surely a fair and legitimate question to ask how a person of such immense wealth and privilege can seek to represent the views of people with whom he has so very little in common. Are these really ‘nasty’ tactics? No, of course they aren’t. It is also true that Labour is attacking the Tory opposition (or more accurately flip-flop) to ID cards for all foreign nationals from outside the EU. Most people I have spoken to on the doorstep in Crewe this weekend support the introduction of such cards, indeed many feel that they should have been introduced a long time ago.

It is the ‘Tory boy’ attacks however that have really upset the Conservative campaign team. By focusing on the 'posh' aspects of the Tory candidate's background Labour is hoping to put clear 'red' water between him and their own candidate, Tamsin Dunwoody. Ms Dunwoody was educated in the state sector (as are her own children) and is at pains to point out that she is able to both sympathise and empathise with local people. The bottom line is that Labour's tactics in Crewe trouble the Tories. Why? Because they are all too aware that a significant number of Cameron’s front bench come from privileged and wealthy backgrounds. They (Team Cameron) also know that for many of the Eton educated Tory 'toffs' who presently surround Cameron politics is something of hobby, something to do in conjunction with few non-executive directorships.

The Tory commentator and founder of Conservative Home, Tim Montgomerie, hit the nail on the head last summer when (writing for the Guardian) he suggested that far too many of David Cameron's frontbenchers are part-timers and that they hold 115 outside interests between them. Contrast Cameron’s closest allies with the likes of Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major or even David Davis – it is unlikely that any of them would ever make it into Cameron’s inner circle.

So are Labour right to make ‘class’ an issue in the Crewe by-election? In all honesty Labour has been reluctant to play the 'class' card up to now for one obvious reason - Tony Blair himself went to Fettes College and Oxford. But now that Blair is off the scene, Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy High School and Edinburgh University) need have no such qualms. Nothing is guaranteed to motivate Labour party members more than regular reminders that people like Mr Timpson and his party leader are not the 'ordinary blokes' that they want to be portrayed as. After all David Cameron belonged to an exclusive club whose members paid £400 a head for a meal and then liked to wreck the restaurant immediately after.

Labour strategists know that many voters, especially in seats like Crewe and Nantwich, are still put off by ‘Tory toffs.’ Who can blame them?

Tories in row over 'cash for influence.'

If a company partly funds the private office of a Shadow Minister and if the said company has a direct interest in the portfolio of the said Shadow Minister is there not a potential conflict of interest? I think the simple answer to this question is yes.

The Tories who have taken money from various sources are as follows:

George Osborne
The shadow Chancellor was found to have broken the rules by failing to declare £500,000 which had been channelled through Tory HQ from donors to run his office.

Alan Duncan
The shadow Business Secretary received funds from Ian Taylor, the president and chief executive of Vitol oil company, who is a former colleague of Mr Duncan.

Grant Shapps
The housing spokesman took tens of thousands of pounds in cash from five companies linked to his portfolio.

Andrew Lansley
The shadow Health Secretary received funds from London Secure Services and Julian Schild, who owned a medical equipment company, Huntleigh Technology, the largest manufacturer of NHS beds, until last year.

Jeremy Hunt
The shadow Culture Secretary, whose brief includes tourism, received funds from the chairman of the Conservative Tourism Taskforce, John Lewis, also a former chairman of the British Tourism Authority.

Is it time for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor?

In this week's New Statesman Roy Hattersley writes that in recent years taking sides has been a rather unfashionable political stance. According to Roy:

'Taking sides has been politically unfashionable for years. Labour as a party of principle has disappeared into the soggy centre ground. No sane social democrat wants a lurch to the left. But the voters expect something better than a promise to revise refuse collection charges and the meaningless apologies that so excite weak-minded journalists.'

I think he has a point. If Brown were to make a preferential option for the poor - by the poor I mean financial, social and cultural poverty - would he really need to abandon the middle way?
In the modern world (including Britain) there is still an unjust distribution of goods and services whereby a relative minority of wealthy groups and ruling classes use their power and influence to perpetuate macro-economic and political structures which exploit the labour and lives of the vast majority of the planet’s population.

Brown is well placed both at home and internationally to advance a new politics of liberation, a politics that offers hope – not a jam tomorrow kind of hope, rather the hope that the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard described as the ‘passion for the possible.' Politics that seeks the liberation of people from poverty, injustice and persecution can be a powerful force for change.

At home and abroad perhaps it is time for Brown to be Brown and for Labour to make a preferential for the poor. Is it time for us all to get back to taking sides and end the political cross-dressing of the 1990s?

Gareth Butler, history and shaping the future

Gareth Butler, who died in late February of this year, was, according to his BBC colleague Jon Sopel 'one of the cleverest, most knowledgeable and likeable people in broadcasting.' His wife, Jessica, has established a charitable trust in his memory - the Gareth Butler History Trust - with the simple aim helping to fund school history trips for lower income students in state schools.

Jess has set up a blog to track the progress of the trust and is keen to hear from potential endorsers and donors. Please think about linking to Jess's blog or better still putting her in touch with some high profile endorsers or donors.

Well done Darling

Alistair Darling announcement of a £120 tax break for low paid workers is a smart move and should help on the doorstep in Crewe (I am due to visit this weekend so I shall find out). It will be interesting to see how the press reacts.

If Gordon can have a 'good' PMQs and there are some eye-catching proposals in tomorrow's draft Queen's speech it might just help bring some long needed stability and give Labour members and supporters a lift.

Tory Toffs?

If you have forgotten what the Tories are really like remind yourself by watching this...

If Labour hold Crewe, the economy holds up and Gordon 'softens up'...

Some of my fellow Labour bloggers, party activists and members have short memories. Less than 12 months ago the Tories were disintegrating over academic selection and Labour was 14% ahead in the polls. The next election is not due for another 24 months, the economy is probably over the worst and Gordon Brown - though he admits that he has made mistakes - is not stupid.

If Labour hold Crewe, the economy remains reasonably stable and if Gordon loses the PR men and allows himself to be, well Gordon, then things just might begin to change. Cameron is 'likeable' but not really liked or trusted (particularly by his own party) and he is happy to come across as a leader who is all style but no substance. Once the Tory lead in the polls starts to close in Labour's favour the press will turn on Cameron and the 'traditional' tendency in his own party will start to make rumblings about how he needs to move further to the right etc.

A week really is a long time in politics - two years is a lifetime.

Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign

Above is one of the leaflets being used by Labour in the Crewe by-election. Personally I think it is OK and let me tell you why...

David Cameron’s Tory party (and particularly his parliamentary party) is increasingly becoming populated by the ‘right kind of people’, his people – ex-public school and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of their friends and backers - i.e. those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views.

News from Burma

As per the protests in Burma of last September it is often difficult to find out exactly what is going on. Below are links some of the blogs/news outlets reporting from inside Burma itself or from a bordering country.

The Irrawaddy News: Rolling news updates and photos

Narinjara: Recent photos and up-to-date news.

Burma Digest - lots of reports about the effects of the cyclone and the response by the military.

The Tories, the media and the poor

Reading the papers and various blogs and websites during the past week I have been struck by how many left-leaning commentators have been at pains to point out that the likes of David Cameron and Boris Johnson aren’t too bad and that if we do end up with a Tory government in a couple of years time it wouldn’t be such a disaster after all.

What worries me is that there is hint of decadence about some middle-class voters who will place punishing the government for its ‘failings’ above the reality of the very real improvements to the lives and life chances of whole communities that were abandoned by the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s. The truth is that for the middle classes it is a luxury to vote Tory, or Lib Dem or to abstain. Why? Because the middle classes can afford to not have a Labour government in office but the poor cannot. Labour has a good record in terms of fighting poverty over the past decade. The facts are that over 600,000 children have been lifted out of poverty since 1997, the poorest fifth of families will be £4000 a year better off by 2009 and the winter fuel allowance, pensioner credit and increases to the state pension have taken over 2 million pensioners out of poverty. The recent 10p tax fiasco was not a deliberate attempt by Labour to penalise the low paid, neither was it a calculated, cavalier act designed to appease middle England. It was, quite simply, a mistake – nothing more and nothing less.

The ‘talk left but act right’ tendency that is so prevalent in much of Britain’s media appears to have decided that Labour does not deserve another term. They are apparently untroubled by the fact that so many of the changes made since 1997 could end up being rolled back by a Cameron led, rightwing Tory government that could easily dismantle most, if not all, of the things that have been achieved. If Labour does fail in winning a fourth term and is therefore unable to introduce further reform of public services then the Tories will find it almost impossible to resist the ideological temptation to demolish the very ethos on which they are built - with more charging, less investment, good services for the well-off middle classes and second-class services for the poor.

Labour used to be the party that gave comfort to the afflicted whilst afflicting the conscience of the comfortable. It needs to regain its sense of identity and purpose and above all it needs to remind people that under the Tories it is unlikely that things would get better but they could get a whole lot worse.

Tories 26% points ahead in latest poll

According to Mike Smithson over at PB.com You Gov are reporting a 26% lead for the Tories in their latest poll.

If true it will almost certainly result in further calls for Gordon Brown to change tack or indeed 'consider his position.'

More later...

Great news: The BNP really are paranoid

Below is the text of an email sent by the 'legal' officer of the BNP - a Mr Lee John Barnes - about their new 'MP' and about how the BNP is on the verge of an historic victory in Europe. Mr Barnes denies ever sending it (he would wouldn't he) and is clearly a little upset about the whole affair.


Dear Fellow Nationalist Activist


Following a senior high level conference between senior high level BNP officials earlier today to discuss among other issues the security of our new MP Richard Barnbrook in the wake of serious threats to his person by far leftist cowards as he travels to and from the London Assembly I have been instructed to inform you of a bogus and illegal leadership challenge and the disciplinary measures we are now putting in place to squash this diversionary and divisive activity in the bud. This is a deceitful and cynical attempt to divert the party’s attention away from the historical victory last week in London and to derail the activist’s attention away from the all important European Elections next June.

This is a sham nothing and more than a forged challenge devised by the liars, thieves and splitters who tried to wreck the party in December 2007 before their unsuccessful coup was successfully thwarted by quick action from the Party’s own security, legal and intelligence departments. The challenger claims is to be Councilor Colin Autty from Kirkless in Yorkshire, a decent man who is known to many of you but he is being used as a puupet by the gang of malcontents who stole party emails, stole party property, stole thousand of pounds of party monies, spread malicious rumours about the Chairman, myself and other senior party officers on bogus Blogs and through a series of bogus bulletins which they prepared using stolen membership lists which they then passed on to our enemies in MI5, The Special Branch, The Labour Party and the Searchlight organisation. They then tried unsuccessfully to set up a rival political party. It is a cylical attempt by our enemies to try and derail the Party and to stop activities to get BNP members electd to the European Parliament.

The Party is on the edge of a historical victory in Europe next year. Nothing must stand in the way of getting the democractically elected Chairman and others elected to the European Parliament in Europe next year.

Aiding and abeting these people is an offence under the Party Constitution 10th edition.

Anyone who has already signed or is thinking of signing or intending to sign the nomination forms for Colin Autty will be suspended from Party membership pending an internal dispclinary tribunal where members will be tried for conspiracy and treason as per the Constitutition Section 6. (3) Section 7 – failure to use the correct channels to express concerns, 8 - spreading false and malicious rumours about Party officials and members, and behaviour likely to bring the Party into disrepute. Those found guilty of conspiracy and treason will be expelled from the Party and proscibred for life.

The laugable attempt to portray themselves as trying to 'save the party' is directly contradicted by the fact that they have spent since Christmas undermining the party, attacking the party, spreading lies about the Chairman, myself and other party activists, inciting dissent in the party and actively encouraging party activists not to stand in elections or assist party candidates in the elections.

This is not a game we are playing, this is a war and in times of war unquestionable obedience and loyalty to the commander in the field must come first, The 'First Law Of Nationalism' is - If you work with the enemy, then you are the enemy.

Yours for the greater good


Lee John Barnes (LLB Hons)
Director of BNP Legal Department

Abortion debate - keep party politics out of it.

When shadow Health Secretary, Dr Liam Fox appeared to suggest that the Tories should become the anti-abortion party. In 2001 Fox was quoted in the Conservative Christian Fellowship prayerbook as saying that the UK's 'pro-abortion laws' should be scrapped. In 2005 Michael Howard almost made abortion a general election issue when, towards to start of the campaign, he told Cosmopolitan magazine 'I believe abortion should be available to everyone, but the law should be changed. In the past I voted for a restriction to 22 weeks, and I would be prepared to go down to 20.'

It is because of examples like this that I am just a little sceptical about the new campaign launched yesterday by the Tory MP Nadine Dorries. A former nurse, Ms Dorries is leading a parliamentary campaign to reduce the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in the Commons later this month. The last time the law on abortion was amended was in 1990 – given the fact that both medicine and science have advanced significantly one cannot agree that a review of abortion legislation is long overdue.

At present, all legislation on abortion in Britain is considered as a matter of conscience and decided under a free vote. What worries me is that some MPs and campaigners may use the forthcoming debate as a means of polarising attitudes where the issue of abortion is seen only of terms of being a vote winner, or a vote loser. Yesterday’s Daily Mail led on the launch of Ms Dorries’ campaign and will no doubt be a strong advocate of the need for a change in the present law. Britain has a long and enviable record of allowing its elected representatives to make up their own minds in matters of conscience. The danger, as I see it, is that some of Ms Dorries’ colleagues may well be tempted to frame the debate about abortion in such a way that it heralds the first tentative steps to try and establish a political arm for the Christian right in Britain.

Ms Dorries has stated that the campaign is not a religious campaign (yet 6 out of the 10 organisations linked to it are backed by Christian evangelicals) nor, we are told, is it politically motivated. Let’s hope it stays that way.