In 2007, when addressing the 50th anniversary convention of his own denomination, the United Church of Christ, the then Senator Barack Obama, argued that the religious right had “hijacked” faith and divided his country by exploiting issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and school prayer. More interestingly he then went onto praise the people of faith who were using their influence to try to unite Americans against problems like poverty, AIDS, the lack of universal health care, Darfur and the effects of climate change.
In the UK we tend to discourage our politicians from talking about faith, we famously ‘don’t do God.’ Why? I believe that it has long been the case that too many people - particularly those who take a left of centre approach to politics - make the mistake of failing to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives. With debate raging about the rise of the far-right and the failure of the body politic I wonder if it isn't time for those who espouse the "progressive" agenda to debate just how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy. Too often politicians try and avoid any discussion about religious values altogether - fearful of offending anyone and claiming that politics and religion should never mix.Yet surely the reality of all political engagement is that we have to meet people where they are - even if we do not agree with or even approve of where they are. If so called ‘progressive’ politicians are to communicate their hopes and values in a way that is relevant to the lives of others, then they cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.In my view secularists are wrong when they ask – more often insist – that believers leave their religion at the door before entering into the arena of public debate.
The majority of great reformers in British history – from Wilberforce to Keir Hardie - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. I recognise that democratic engagement will and should make demands of religious believers. It will demand that those who are religiously motivated act to turn their concerns into universal, rather than faith-specific, values. Democratic engagement will also demand that the values espoused by people of faith be subject to argument and debate.What is needed is a sense of proportion and a willingness – on the part of both believers and non-believers - to engage in public debate openly and fair-mindedly.
Many people in Britain today are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion and politics.This then is the challenge for those who describe themselves as progressive politicians. They too must become more "fair minded" more willing to engage with people of faith so that they might recognise some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of modern Britain.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Compulsory voting?
The next few months (possibly even years) Labour members and supporters will have the time and the space to think through how it can set about renewing its structures, its systems and above all its ideas and policies. One area that will, and must, be debated and discussed at local, regional and national levels is the need for electoral reform. So far we have heard a good deal about PR, AV and House of Lords reform but little about any reforms to the voting process itself. One possibility is to investigate the introduction of compulsory voting. The term 'compulsory voting' is a bit of a misnomer, it really is about compulsory casting of ballots (pedantic I know but important nonetheless).
Personally I am quite attracted by the idea of making ballot casting compulsory, mainly because:
1. It can help improve turnout
2. It leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than focusing huge efforts on 'getting out the vote'. It can also reduce the impact of better finance campaigns and reduce the incidents of negative campaigning.
3. It can help create/enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. It is also a means of reducing social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them.
I know that there are many reasons why we shouldn't make voting compulsory but I do think we need to have the debate nationally, indeed can we afford not to?
Personally I am quite attracted by the idea of making ballot casting compulsory, mainly because:
1. It can help improve turnout
2. It leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than focusing huge efforts on 'getting out the vote'. It can also reduce the impact of better finance campaigns and reduce the incidents of negative campaigning.
3. It can help create/enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. It is also a means of reducing social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them.
I know that there are many reasons why we shouldn't make voting compulsory but I do think we need to have the debate nationally, indeed can we afford not to?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Labour's future
If Labour is to have any chance of returning to government at the first time of asking then it could well benefit from looking closely at how David Cameron and the Tory party successfully used a period in opposition to reposition and ‘rebrand’ itself. Last week’s election result gave a clear and unambiguous message to the Labour party: renew or prepare for yet another long period in the wilderness years.If Labour is to continue to be a major force in British politics then as well as electing a strong visionary leader with a clear sense of direction and purpose the party also needs to look closely at its current image or ‘brand’ and remember that it cannot choose simply between either style or substance as though they are in some way mutually exclusive.However we need to also learn some other lessons from the Tories.
It took the Conservative party two lost elections before enough people were willing to back meaningful change. If Labour really is serious about getting swiftly back into government then it cannot afford to go through a long, painful and potentially damaging process of internal dissension. The truth is that many Labour members and supporters will have opposing interpretations of why we lost or about the direction we now need to take if we are to regain much of our lost support. Some will want the party to be more passionately principled whilst others will stress the need for sensible pragmatism. There will be calls for the new leader to champion the state whilst at the same time allowing market forces to operate with minimal impunity; to attack the causes of poverty but to also be the party that promotes aspiration. The longer these conflicting priorities are debated and discussed the longer we are likely to spend in opposition. Our core message should be simple and unambiguous: our values have not changed and our mission as a party is a clear today as it was a century ago – we really are stronger as a nation when we come together than we can ever be apart. Therefore Labour’s next leader should only propose change for a purpose and that purpose should centre on renewing the party's policies, its systems and structures in order to ensure that we are properly equipped to exploit the opportunities to reconnect with our traditional supporters and with the millions of voters who feel so badly let down by the duplicitous Liberal Democrats.
If Labour is to learn from this defeat then it will need to be more proactive in its consultation and dialogue. For too long ordinary party members have felt ignored and removed from the leadership. The new leader should recognise that members want to be heard and they want to be listened to. Perhaps even more important though is the need for the party to be more proactive in consulting and engaging local communities. It is only when local parties reach out and get involved in their communities that people will see Labour politics as a way of helping them deal with their problems and realising their hopes for a better future. A renewed Labour party should be the natural place for people to turn to when they want to change things because a party that gets things done locally – and nationally – is a party that will keep winning elections.A renewed labour party will need to reflect the aspirations of ordinary people but it will also need to be realistic about the challenges that lie ahead. The forces of conservatism are not confined to our new coalition government, they exist within our own party and it will be up to those of us who believe passionately in the core values of our movement to take on the cynics and the pessimists within our own ranks, to become the change we want to see – be it in our party or in our country.
Who we are is who we were. Labour's core values can and must inform any future 'rebranding' of the party but we should not be afraid to do things differently. New Labour may well be over but Labour renewed is alive with possibility.
It took the Conservative party two lost elections before enough people were willing to back meaningful change. If Labour really is serious about getting swiftly back into government then it cannot afford to go through a long, painful and potentially damaging process of internal dissension. The truth is that many Labour members and supporters will have opposing interpretations of why we lost or about the direction we now need to take if we are to regain much of our lost support. Some will want the party to be more passionately principled whilst others will stress the need for sensible pragmatism. There will be calls for the new leader to champion the state whilst at the same time allowing market forces to operate with minimal impunity; to attack the causes of poverty but to also be the party that promotes aspiration. The longer these conflicting priorities are debated and discussed the longer we are likely to spend in opposition. Our core message should be simple and unambiguous: our values have not changed and our mission as a party is a clear today as it was a century ago – we really are stronger as a nation when we come together than we can ever be apart. Therefore Labour’s next leader should only propose change for a purpose and that purpose should centre on renewing the party's policies, its systems and structures in order to ensure that we are properly equipped to exploit the opportunities to reconnect with our traditional supporters and with the millions of voters who feel so badly let down by the duplicitous Liberal Democrats.
If Labour is to learn from this defeat then it will need to be more proactive in its consultation and dialogue. For too long ordinary party members have felt ignored and removed from the leadership. The new leader should recognise that members want to be heard and they want to be listened to. Perhaps even more important though is the need for the party to be more proactive in consulting and engaging local communities. It is only when local parties reach out and get involved in their communities that people will see Labour politics as a way of helping them deal with their problems and realising their hopes for a better future. A renewed Labour party should be the natural place for people to turn to when they want to change things because a party that gets things done locally – and nationally – is a party that will keep winning elections.A renewed labour party will need to reflect the aspirations of ordinary people but it will also need to be realistic about the challenges that lie ahead. The forces of conservatism are not confined to our new coalition government, they exist within our own party and it will be up to those of us who believe passionately in the core values of our movement to take on the cynics and the pessimists within our own ranks, to become the change we want to see – be it in our party or in our country.
Who we are is who we were. Labour's core values can and must inform any future 'rebranding' of the party but we should not be afraid to do things differently. New Labour may well be over but Labour renewed is alive with possibility.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Ed Miliband for Labour Leader
Ed has been busy the past few setting up his campaign and articulating his vision for Labour's future. Click on the link to watch his iterview with Andrew Marr or read his article in today's Daily Mirror.
To visit Ed's campaign website click here.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Why I believe Ed Miliband should be the next Leader of the Labour Party
I am delighted that Ed Miliband has decided to throw his hat in the ring and will contest the race to become leader of the Labour party and I will be actively supporting his campaign in any way I can. I admire Ed enormously and feel that he is a man of real moral stature and courage and I am confident that he will have broad appeal both across the party and the country.
I am firmly of the view that Ed Miliband is the candidate who is best placed to help shape the future direction of our party. Ed is a conviction politician. He has proved himself as an effective and hard working MP and as an outstanding Government Minister. I am backing Ed because I want my party to be led by someone who will listen to ordinary party members, people who are driven not by personal ambition but by an ambitious agenda for our nation. Ed will be a leader who will challenge us - individually and collectively - not to have more but to be more and he is someone who is capable of inspiring trust and confidence across the political spectrum.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
At our best when at our boldest?
What is needed is 'stable' government - this, at least, is one thing that all of the main parties are agreed upon. But what exactly does it mean? It is clear that a Con-Dem pact would provide stability in terms of a majority government that could ensure that it gets its business done. But how long would this stability last? Does anyone seriously expect that Mr Cameron would not go to the country as soon as he felt it was advantageous for him and his party? Stability in Tory terms could easily end up being a year or eighteen months at best.
Listening to John Reid and David Blunkett the main worries over any Lib-Lab agreement appear to centre around the stability question - there simple aren't the votes there to deliver strong, stable government. I am not so sure about that. In my view what Labour should do is make clear that stability in terms of a Lab-Lib coalition is the next twelve months. Stability that can:
1. Focus on securing the recovery by implementing the first part of a budget deficit recovery plan.
2. Deliver a referendum on fundamental electoral reform.
3. Prepare the country for a second general election in May 2011.
Would the nation accept it? In my judgement they would - just about. Most people understand that there will need to be a general election sooner rather than later and would welcome the clarity of a plan that provides the stability that is needed whilst at the same time providing a road map for badly needed electoral and political reform. As to the advent of a new Labour Leader and therefore de facto a new Prime Minister again it would be easier to sell to the electorate if the commitment is for this new leader to seek his or her own mandate by holding an election at the earliest possible date.
'Stability' is important but we need to be honest as to what the reality of this modern cliche really is. A stable, focused, progressive and radical left of centre government that rules for the next twelve months is better surely than a Tory government that could well end up implementing a savage series of cuts that would put the recovery at risk and end up hitting hardest the very people that Labour has traditionally sought to defend and protect.
Listening to John Reid and David Blunkett the main worries over any Lib-Lab agreement appear to centre around the stability question - there simple aren't the votes there to deliver strong, stable government. I am not so sure about that. In my view what Labour should do is make clear that stability in terms of a Lab-Lib coalition is the next twelve months. Stability that can:
1. Focus on securing the recovery by implementing the first part of a budget deficit recovery plan.
2. Deliver a referendum on fundamental electoral reform.
3. Prepare the country for a second general election in May 2011.
Would the nation accept it? In my judgement they would - just about. Most people understand that there will need to be a general election sooner rather than later and would welcome the clarity of a plan that provides the stability that is needed whilst at the same time providing a road map for badly needed electoral and political reform. As to the advent of a new Labour Leader and therefore de facto a new Prime Minister again it would be easier to sell to the electorate if the commitment is for this new leader to seek his or her own mandate by holding an election at the earliest possible date.
'Stability' is important but we need to be honest as to what the reality of this modern cliche really is. A stable, focused, progressive and radical left of centre government that rules for the next twelve months is better surely than a Tory government that could well end up implementing a savage series of cuts that would put the recovery at risk and end up hitting hardest the very people that Labour has traditionally sought to defend and protect.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sunday, May 09, 2010
If Clegg sides with Cameron he will turn the Lib Dems into political eunuchs
Anyone who espouses the politics of fairness, equity and progress should read Will Hutton's excellent piece in today's Observer. Hutton argues that:
'real power and it comes but once a generation. It is power to insist on a referendum on proportional representation. Power to break up the banking system and reconstruct British finance. Power to insist on civil liberties and repeal of the legislation on ID cards. Power to require that British newspapers are owned by EU, if not British, nationals who pay UK tax and conform to British competition policy. Clegg has been so roughed up by News International and the Telegraph that at the very least Mr Murdoch and the Barclays brothers should pay tax for the privilege. The Liberal Democrats can be political eunuchs or they can use the moment to effect the change that brought them into politics.'
Hutton is right. What is on offer from the Tories is a pale imitation of what a Lib-Lab coalition could achieve. This opportunity will not come again Nick - pick up the phone and talk to Gordon.
'real power and it comes but once a generation. It is power to insist on a referendum on proportional representation. Power to break up the banking system and reconstruct British finance. Power to insist on civil liberties and repeal of the legislation on ID cards. Power to require that British newspapers are owned by EU, if not British, nationals who pay UK tax and conform to British competition policy. Clegg has been so roughed up by News International and the Telegraph that at the very least Mr Murdoch and the Barclays brothers should pay tax for the privilege. The Liberal Democrats can be political eunuchs or they can use the moment to effect the change that brought them into politics.'
Hutton is right. What is on offer from the Tories is a pale imitation of what a Lib-Lab coalition could achieve. This opportunity will not come again Nick - pick up the phone and talk to Gordon.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
God bless UKIP!
In the following seats it looks as though the votes for UKIP resulted in the Tories NOT gaining the seat. Yes, I know we cannot assume that had they not of stood all of their votes would have gone to the Tories but they clearly contributed to Mr Cameron not gaining an overall majority. Good old UKIP - whoever called them a bunch of "loons and fruitcakes'" should be ashamed of himself!
Bolton West: Labour 18,329; Conservative 18,235; UKIP 1,901
Derby North: Labour 14,896; Conservative 14,283; UKIP 829
Derbyshire NE: Labour 17,948: Conservative 15,503; UKIP 2,636
Dorset mid & Poole: Labour 21,100; Conservative 20,831; UKIP 2,109
Dudley North: Labour 14,923; Conservative 14,274; UKIP 3,267
Great Grimsby: Labour 10,777: Conservative 10,063: UKIP 2,043
Hampstead & Kilburn: Labour 17,332; Conservative 17,290; UKIP 408
Middlesbrough South: Labour 18,138; Conservative 16,461; UKIP 1,881
Morley: Labour 18,365; Conservatives 17,264; UKIP 1,506
Newcastle-Under-Lyme: Labour 16,393; Conservatives 14,841; UKIP 3,491
Plymouth Moor View: Labour 15,433; Conservatives 13,845; UKIP 3,188
Solihull: Liberal 23,635; Conservatives 23,460; UKIP 1,200
Somerton & Frome: Liberal 28,793; Conservatives 26,976; UKIP 1,932
Southampton Itchen: Labour 16,326; Conservatives 16,134; UKIP 1,928
St Austell & Newquay: Liberal 20,189; Conservatives 18,877; UKIP 1,757
St Ives: Liberal 19,619; Conservatives 17,900; UKIP 2,560
Telford: Labour 15,977; Conservatives 14,996; UKIP 2,428
Walsall North: Labour 13,385; Conservatives 12,395; UKIP 1,737
Walsall South: Labour 16,211; Conservatives 14,456; UKIP 3,449
Wells: Liberal 24,560; Conservatives 23,760; UKIP 1,711
Wirral South: Labour 16,276; Conservatives 15,745; UKIP 1,274
Bolton West: Labour 18,329; Conservative 18,235; UKIP 1,901
Derby North: Labour 14,896; Conservative 14,283; UKIP 829
Derbyshire NE: Labour 17,948: Conservative 15,503; UKIP 2,636
Dorset mid & Poole: Labour 21,100; Conservative 20,831; UKIP 2,109
Dudley North: Labour 14,923; Conservative 14,274; UKIP 3,267
Great Grimsby: Labour 10,777: Conservative 10,063: UKIP 2,043
Hampstead & Kilburn: Labour 17,332; Conservative 17,290; UKIP 408
Middlesbrough South: Labour 18,138; Conservative 16,461; UKIP 1,881
Morley: Labour 18,365; Conservatives 17,264; UKIP 1,506
Newcastle-Under-Lyme: Labour 16,393; Conservatives 14,841; UKIP 3,491
Plymouth Moor View: Labour 15,433; Conservatives 13,845; UKIP 3,188
Solihull: Liberal 23,635; Conservatives 23,460; UKIP 1,200
Somerton & Frome: Liberal 28,793; Conservatives 26,976; UKIP 1,932
Southampton Itchen: Labour 16,326; Conservatives 16,134; UKIP 1,928
St Austell & Newquay: Liberal 20,189; Conservatives 18,877; UKIP 1,757
St Ives: Liberal 19,619; Conservatives 17,900; UKIP 2,560
Telford: Labour 15,977; Conservatives 14,996; UKIP 2,428
Walsall North: Labour 13,385; Conservatives 12,395; UKIP 1,737
Walsall South: Labour 16,211; Conservatives 14,456; UKIP 3,449
Wells: Liberal 24,560; Conservatives 23,760; UKIP 1,711
Wirral South: Labour 16,276; Conservatives 15,745; UKIP 1,274
Don't do it Nick!
Don't do it Nick. You and your party have nothing in common with the likes of Mr Cameron, Mr Osborne or the reactionary Mr Grayling. Do you really want to go down in history as the man who surrendered Britain's future to Cameron’s Tories? Have you forgotten how the public sector experienced massive, near-fatal under-investment during 18 years of Tory rule in the 1980s and 1990s? In your heart you know that the advent of a Tory government will inevitably see the return of a two-tier system in terms of public services with, for example, the ‘best’ schools being either private or in the most affluent areas and access to the best healthcare determined not by need but by wealth. Let me remind you that under the Tories the highest crime areas were in the lowest-income neighbourhoods; public transport was most deficient in serving the most deprived housing estates. Should he gain office it is likely that in Cameron’s Britain the affluent and the well educated will be given the choice to buy their way out of failing or inadequate provision and universal services will be replaced by services for the poor which will inevitably result in poor services. Is this the 'fairness' that you want to see? No, of course it isn't.If you really want to place Britain on the road to becoming a fairer and more equal society then pick up the phone and talk to Gordon. Here are two things that you might talk about:
1. How best can Labour and the Lib Dems set about establishing a coalition government of national unity that can offer a stable and strong government that is focused primarily on securing the recovery and restoring trust in the body politic?
2. What concrete proposals can we put into the Queen's speech on May 25th regarding the holding of a national referendum on electoral reform in the autumn of 2010.
The sooner you place that call the better.
1. How best can Labour and the Lib Dems set about establishing a coalition government of national unity that can offer a stable and strong government that is focused primarily on securing the recovery and restoring trust in the body politic?
2. What concrete proposals can we put into the Queen's speech on May 25th regarding the holding of a national referendum on electoral reform in the autumn of 2010.
The sooner you place that call the better.
Friday, May 07, 2010
So what next?
The nation has spoken and sadly nobody quite understands exactly what has been said. So what should happen next? Below is my own personal view as to what should, or could happen in the next few days.
1. Gordon Brown invites the Lib Dems to form a coalition government of national unity and promises legislation on electoral reform to be included in the Queen's Speech on May 25th.
2. The new government holds a national referendum on electoral reform in the autumn of this year with a promise that, if the nation chooses to move to a more proportional system, an election will be held in May 2011.
3. Gordon Brown makes clear his intention to stand down this autumn following the Labour Party conference and the outcome of the referendum.
What do you think? Can this work? What are the alternatives?
1. Gordon Brown invites the Lib Dems to form a coalition government of national unity and promises legislation on electoral reform to be included in the Queen's Speech on May 25th.
2. The new government holds a national referendum on electoral reform in the autumn of this year with a promise that, if the nation chooses to move to a more proportional system, an election will be held in May 2011.
3. Gordon Brown makes clear his intention to stand down this autumn following the Labour Party conference and the outcome of the referendum.
What do you think? Can this work? What are the alternatives?
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Monday, May 03, 2010
Should Labour voters vote Lib Dem where Labour is in third place?
According to Ed Balls in Lib Dem-Conservative marginals Labour voters should consider voting for Liberal Democrats. Is he right? Can it work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)