Mike Ion

Why Labour must make 16 a progressive number

2012-01-17T17:00:00.002Z

The voting age in Britain was last reduced nearly 40 years ago. Since then, there have been major changes in society's expectations of young people, and in young people's contribution to their local communities and wider society.

Currently, 16 and 17 year-olds can work, pay taxes, join the armed forces and get married. They are often invited to set up school councils and youth councils, urged to take part in consultations, sit on local government and Ministerial boards, volunteer in their local community, keep out of trouble and work hard at school. Many will have caring responsibilities, a lot will have a job, some will be parents, and a minority will be leaving care or custody but they cannot elect those who govern them.

A few years ago the Electoral Commission carried out a public consultation on the voting age and found that 72% of respondents favoured a lowering of the voting age to 16. Interestingly the consultation attracted huge participation including 8,000 young people which suggests that when made relevant to them, young people are more likely to vote and engage in issues of public importance.

The next general election will be decided in super-marginals like the my own constituency of The Wrekin. Motivating younger voters is therefore both the right thing to do and it could make the difference between Labour winning and losing the next time round. That is why I strongly believe that as a party we must take young voters much more seriously. Rather than young people being uninterested in politics (as opposed to voting), we seem to have become uninterested in them. We bolt on campaigns for young voters rather than build them into what we do. This needs to change, and we now have a once in a generation chance to make that change and listen to what young people are saying.

Young people’s belief in politics could be helped by them knowing that they had a direct influence in choosing who represents them. In Austria - where they recently lowered the voting age to 16 - in local and regional elections the turnout amongst 16and 17 year olds was close to 75%.

The Labour party was founded on principles of fairness and responsibility and out of a desire to look to the future not live in the past. 16 is a progressive number, young people are our future and we should allow them a greater say in how it is shaped.

Shropshire hospitals pay private firm £10,000 per week to administer car parks

2012-01-17T16:52:00.003Z

My recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust has revealed that it collected £1,314,035 in the last financial year from car park charges.

The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (RSH) collected £751,944 and the Princess Royal £546,776 with £15,315 being collected via fine enforcements. It also reveals that the private company that administers both car parks was paid £526,677 for its services.

I will be writing to the PRH Trust asking for all charges to be capped at £1 per visit until 2013 and for the Trust to bring forward proposals to scrap the charge altogether by 2014.

The founding principle of the NHS was that it would offer free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare. Surely this should apply whether you go to hospital as a patient, as a visitor or a member of staff. For patients attending the PRH for out-patient treatment and visitors concerned with the health of their families, worrying about the cost of parking is the last thing they need, and as hospital procedures are notoriously unpredictable, having to rush out after a couple of hours to move their car will in many cases just not be possible.

The present charges constitute a tax on the sick and I seriously question whether paying a private company over £500,000 to administer both car parks constitutes good value for money.

Compulsory voting?

2011-11-16T13:31:00.001Z

A period of opposition provides Labour members and supporters 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 continue to 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?

Faith and politics can mix, indeed they must

2011-11-14T21:07:00.003Z

A couple of years ago Michael Sandel delivered his excellent second Reith Lecture and looked at the relationship between morality and politics, more specifically the interaction between religiously inspired morality and politics. He argued, correctly in my view, that you cannot remove morality from political discourse and so it is far better to have it out in public.

As the recent protests outside St Paul's have demonstrated, in the UK we tend to discourage our clergymen from talking about politics and 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.

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.

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.

Time for a new liberation theology

2011-11-01T11:02:00.003Z

Watching events unfold around the protests near to St Paul's Cathedral in London one could be forgiven for believing that faith is mainly about escapism and that it can rarely be a force for good in society. I am not so sure. The strap line to my blog reads as follows: "Aspire not to have more but to be more." These were the words of Oscar Romero, the archbishop of San Salvador, who was assassinated in 1980 by the pro-US military junta who then ran El Salvador.

Romero was an advocate of what became known as liberation theology, a movement which took root throughout Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s and focused on helping the poor and oppressed, even if that meant confronting political powers. It was a theology that was later to be severely criticised as a "fundamental threat" to the church by one Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now better known as Pope Benedict XVI.

In the past few years I have become something of an "armchair" Catholic. Why? Mainly because when I do attend mass I hear a good deal about the evils of gay adoption or about why I should no longer support Amnesty International but rarely do I hear any talk about the need for "preferential option for the poor." Our present Pope is, in my view, all to keen on encouraging his flock to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". So too with some of the clergy associated with St Paul's who appear to openly advocate the view that politics and faith are separate arenas and that the two cannot, indeed should not, mix. This results in the Christian faith becoming increasingly irrelevant to the life of the modern man.

By modern man I, of course, mean the "poor man". It is easy to forget that the vast majority of people who inhabit the planet with us live below the poverty line, in poor housing with no access to proper health care and a life expectancy that is decades shorter than that of the minority who live in the affluent west. In today's economic climate there is an even greater need for the voices of liberation to be heard. The present global distribution of goods and services allows a relatively small minority of wealthy groups and ruling classes to 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.

Or take the deep and widespread oppression of women, along with the elderly, and children dependent upon women, in all patriarchal societies around the globe where women and their dependants are dehumanised and depersonalised. Are the Christian churches working to further liberate women in these settings, or do they silently support the structures that keep things as they are?

So we either need a new liberation theology or we need the church to be liberated. We need a church 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". We need a church that can show that it understands that what people need is to believe that things will, and can, be better. In other words, we need the church to renew itself and we need a theology that will actively seek and proclaim the liberation of people from poverty, injustice and persecution – all people, regardless of their faith or their background.

The true message of liberation will always result in some people feeling uneasy. To side, as many liberation theologians in the 1960s and 1970s did, against injustice, to commit one's life to the poor is not a political stance but a moral one.

The true message of hope, of a promise that the world can be fairer, more just and less divided often results in giving comfort to the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. If that was what I could hear and reflect on each week I would have no problem getting up out from my armchair!

Poppy pride or Poppy fascism?

2011-10-13T07:51:00.002+01:00

In recent years Jon Snow, the excellent Channel 4 News presenter, has created a huge stir regarding his decision not to wear a red poppy on TV during the weeks leading up to Remembrance Day. A couple of years ago Snow stated:

"I am begged to wear an Aids ribbon, a breast cancer ribbon, a Marie Curie flower ... You name it, from the Red Cross to the RNIB, they send me stuff to wear to raise awareness, and I don't. And in those terms, and those terms alone, I do not and will not wear a poppy. Additionally there is a rather unpleasant breed of poppy fascism out there - 'he damned well must wear a poppy!' Well I do, in my private life, but I am not going to wear it or any other symbol on air."

Personally I like and admire Jon Snow. Indeed I think he is one of the nation's best - if not the best - broadcast journalists and rightly commands huge respect from both his peers and the public at large. But on this issue I am not sure that I totally agree with him. What is wrong with wearing the odd "symbol" on air and surely we can all make exceptions? Jon's logic appears to be that because he is unable to publicly promote all of the causes that he is asked to support he simply won't support any of them. This is a bit like arguing that because I can't give to all of the charities that ask for my help I won't give to any charity.

The poppy is 'The' symbol of remembrance. We do not diminish anyone by wearing it, least of all the veterans. Diminishing the debt we owe our predecessors would be accomplished by resigning ourselves to the notion that we cannot comprehend what happened. We undermine the notion of Remembrance Day by lack of reflection, not flippantly wearing, or not wearing, a poppy.

I strongly believe that focusing on the future is done by reflecting on the past. Wearing the poppy symbolises that an individual, at the very least, acknowledges the past. A poppy has never been a substitute for action - no symbol ever is - but we must be sure that what the poppy symbolises is not lost on those who seek to build upon our freedoms.

So I will be wearing my poppy this November. Out of some misguided sense of jingoistic pride? No. Out of respect and gratitude? Yes. Why? Because the act of remembrance and the wearing of a poppy is a very small price to pay.

Ed Miliband needs show that politics is about more than the desire to wrong foot your opponent

2011-09-22T19:50:00.003+01:00

The sad truth is that (despite a few notable exceptions) the last government did not make it easy for the electorate to vote Labour with any enthusiasm. On the doorstep the divide between the concerns of core Labour voters and those of a PR-fixated cabinet never seemed wider. In fairness though; the history of Labour governments was ever thus. Since the 1920s the story goes something like this: Labour supporters are near euphoric when victory is achieved there is then a period of hard slog as the party faces up to the harsh responsibilities of being in government. The party then accuses the leadership of betrayal and the leadership accuses the party of ingratitude. Supporters then become disillusioned which leads to defeat at the polls. We then experience a long period of Tory government before the next outbreak of euphoria and so on and so forth.

After an unprecedented 13 straight years in power many of Labour's own members are not certain what they want. Many want the party to be both passionately principled and sensibly pragmatic; to be a party that proudly honours its past while not neglecting to shape both its and the nation's future; to champion the state while being part of the market; to tackle poverty but also support aspiration. Ed Miliband stood for the leadership of the Labour party on a platform that argued that the renewal that was undertaken in order to gain power in 1997 needs to be repeated if Labour is win at the next election. In the mid-1990s Labour successfully occupied the centre ground, it modernised and reached out beyond its own activists and turned the Tories into a replica of what it itself used to be – a party with a narrow base, a party obsessed about the wrong things and a party seen as old fashioned and out of touch.

Can Labour win under Ed Miliband? Of course it can but I strongly believe that the best prospects of future success for our party lie not in the puerile tactics of the spin doctor; politics has to be about more that the desire to wrong foot your opponent. The prospects for future success for Labour lies not in defending the status quo of what is still a highly unequal Britain, rather it is in working with the British people to help rid our nation of some ugly realities such as child poverty and the still endemic inequalities in both health and education, inequalities that could well be even further entrenched once some of the savage and unnecessary cuts begin to fully impact.

The politics of ambition and optimism must also be the politics of principle - we should attack our opponents for what they espouse, for their policies and not for their personal shortcomings. So in his speech next week I hope that Ed will put the case that for a politics that seeks the liberation of people from poverty, injustice and persecution. He needs to show that a renewed Labour party will seek to better reflect the aspirations of ordinary people whilst being realistic about the challenges that lie ahead. Ambition, hope and aspiration are far more appealing than a constant reciting of the achievements of the past.

Ed has been consistent about the need for the Labour party to be clearer about what we stand for as a movement and for the need for the party to reach out to the communities that it seeks to represent and support. He now needs to show how, under his leadership, our party can set about winning back the trust and confidence of the British people.

You have to grow not cut your way out of a recession

2011-09-22T19:42:00.002+01:00

This was first broadcast in 2009 - given today's uncertainty in the markets it is worth looking at again.

Labour must reaffirm its preferential option for the poor

2011-09-17T11:16:00.004+01:00

To be honest with you many people like myself - in full-time employment, with mortgage rates at an all time low etc - have been relatively unaffected by the cuts imposed by the Tory-led coalition government. However as the IFS reported earlier in the year, George Osborne's spending cuts are - and will continue to - hitting the poorest far harder than the better off.

Over 100 years ago Seebohm Rowntree carried out some preliminary research into the amounts and types of foods, the levels of rents, cost of heating and lighting, etc. deemed necessary to maintain 'physical efficiency'. Rowntree’s estimates of the income needed to avoid poverty were set deliberately low in order to test whether there was any level of income at which people could not maintain a non-poor lifestyle no matter how hard they tried. In his report Rowntree distinguished between:
a. ‘primary’ poverty – families whose income was insufficient for the maintenance even of ‘physical efficiency’, and
b. ‘secondary’ poverty – families whose income would have been sufficient for the maintenance of 'physical efficiency' were it not that some portion of it was absorbed by other expenditure.

When you read Rowntree’s report today, especially in light of the savage cuts to welfare, housing and adult social care, one is left contemplating exactly how we might today define what physical efficiency means. For Rowntree it meant the following:

'A family living upon the scale allowed for must never spend a penny on railway fare or omnibus. They must never go into the country unless they walk. They must never purchase a half penny newspaper or spend a penny to buy a ticket for a popular concert. They must write no letters to absent children, for they cannot afford to pay the postage. They must never contribute anything to their church or chapel, or give any help to a neighbour which costs them money. They cannot save nor can they join a sick club or trade union, because they cannot pay the necessary subscriptions. The children must have no pocket money for dolls, marbles or sweets. The father must smoke no tobacco and drink no beer. The mother must never buy any pretty clothes for herself or her children, the character of the family wardrobe as for the family diet being governed by the regulation nothing must be bought but that which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of physical health and what is bought must be of the plainest and most economical description'.

So how, exactly, will today's poor be affected by these draconian, brutal and according to many commentators, unnecessary cuts? The coalition cabinet is drawn almost exclusively from the financial elite, people who simply have no concept of what 'physical efficiency' means for the millions of their fellow citizens who exist on modest incomes but who will bear the brunt of this ideologically driven spending round. Too many of Mr Cameron’s Conservatives are made up of the “right kind of people” – his people: privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their own particular political, economic and social outlook.

If Labour is to expose the ideological recklessness of these cuts then it must continue to put the case for an alternative approach whilst at the same time highlighting what these cuts will do to further entrench the ugly realities of health, education and housing inequality in Britain.

Rowntree's 1901 report exposed the senseless, soul destroying and economically dire implications of a laissez faire, non-interventionist state - we owe it to today's poor to ensure that his sound advice and analysis are not dismissed on the grounds of of the inevitable consequences of deficit reduction. If we really are 'all in this together' then we cannot allow millions of people to be condemned to live lives that result in physical insufficiency.

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 Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. It is time to take sides and end the political cross-dressing of the 1990s. As a political party it is time to be clear about who we are, who we were and what we want to become.

School Wars: The Battle for Britain's Education by Melissa Benn

2011-09-05T20:02:00.002+01:00

Excellent review of Melissa Benn's excellent new book in yesterday's Observer. I have been invited to the 'launch party' - my first ever invite to such an event, can't wait.

Abortion and party politics do not mix

2011-09-01T08:13:00.003+01:00

Ten years ago, 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. You may also recall that in 2005 the then Tory leaders 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 campaign by the Tory MP Nadine Dorries to strip charities and medics of their exclusive responsibility for counselling women seeking an abortion. A former nurse, Ms Dorries lead a parliamentary campaign to reduce the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was debated in the Commons a couple of years ago.

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. 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 an attempt to try and establish a political arm for the Christian right in Britain.

Ms Dorries has stated that her 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.

Telford United: Don't let the EDL divide our borough

2011-08-02T22:32:00.001+01:00

The far-right English Defence League has signalled its intention to hold a march in Telford on August 13 2011. The EDL wishes to divide our diverse community, incite religious and racial hatred and turn the borough's citizens against one another. Residents from across the borough, from every section of the community, all faiths and none, have come together to express their opposition to this march taking place. Previous marches in other parts of the country have seen racist activists bussed in from as far afield as Norway and Germany. Alleged links have now emerged between the EDL and Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who massacred scores of people last week. EDL members with their divisive intentions, who have no connection to our local community, should not be permitted to come here and potentially destroy the cohesive atmosphere we have worked hard to sustain.

The EDL are not welcome in Telford, indeed they are not welcome anywhere.

The EDL are not welcome in Telford

2011-07-29T18:40:00.000+01:00

If there is one thing that unites the mainstream political parties here in Telford it is a belief that the town's cosmopolitan population is one of its greatest assets. The only group who seem to be ignorant of this is the English Defence League. What the EDL and their supporters fail to understand is that good will and a strong sense of fellowship is the hall mark of Telford; tolerance and acceptance is here in abundance. I have not met one person who has expressed support for the EDL demonstration, and many have told me of their sadness and concern that our town will be subjected to their hateful behaviour. Local people are attempting to build a society where violence and intolerance play no part – this I witness every day, and it fills me with pride for our town. There is always room for reasonable debate about community relations but the EDL are not the people to lead it. They are as unwelcome as their antecedents in the National Front and the BNP and they should stay out of Telford – and everywhere else.

Shame on the Co-op!

2011-07-05T20:12:00.003+01:00

You may be aware that the Co-op announced earlier today that it will continue to advertise in the News of the World. This is in stark contrast to the likes of Ford, NPower, Halifax, T-Mobile and others have all announced that they are at least reconsidering their advertising contracts with the NOTW.

In response to today's revelations the Co-op stated: “These are allegations. We have no plans to withdraw our advertising.”

Lets consider some of the facts shall we:

1. The Chair of the Press Complaints Commission today stated that the NOTW lied to the PCC.

2. The former editor of the NOTW and current UK Chief Exec of News International, has told a Select Committee that the paper has in the past paid police officers for information.

3.The private investigator who hacked into Milly Dowler's voicemail, has released a statement in which he made no denial of the allegation, but instead clearly stated that his work was at the request of NOTW journalists.

Want to get the Co-op to change their mind? You can phone their Customer Relations line on 0800 068 6727 or email their Head of Marketing, a lady called Gill Barr Gill.Barr@co-operative.coop.

If like me you are a Co-op member or if you use any of the Co-op's services, why not give them a call or write them an email and tell them - politely, but firmly - how you feel about their much-vaunted ethical policy in the light of their continued enthusiasm to pay money to a newspaper which has ALREADY admitted criminal behaviour, and which on a day to day basis is exposed as have committed more, worse each time.

Book review: Children don't start wars by David Gribble

2011-07-05T14:27:00.002+01:00

My review of David Gribble's 'Children don't start wars' has just been published on the Times Educational Supplement's website

As adults we more or less accept that our physical skills and abilities will decline as we get older and, despite what some might say, there is incontrovertible evidence that intellectually we become less alert, less flexible and less reliable after the age of about 25. The question is, does an individual’s ability to make clear moral choices also diminish with age? After all, it is adults who start wars and major international conflicts, not children.

This is the theme of a new book by David Gribble, called Children Don’t Start Wars, in which he asserts that children have moral perceptions which weaken with age and particularly when they come under pressure from monolithic and inflexible institutions and from peer pressure within the adult world.

Gribble argues that children, and especially young children, do not judge, they care; they do not hate, they love. The book begins with an account of how a Puerto Rican high school in Chicago faced up to gang culture and goes on to cleverly deconstruct William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. He also, convincingly in my view, investigates and exposes the shortcomings of many of the long-established research studies, such as that of Piaget, that looked only at the reactions of boys and not girls.

According to Gribble, the systems of parenting and schooling which dominate western cultures are deliberately designed to train children to withstand emotion. In a powerful section of the book, he suggests that part of the growing up process is learning not to cry over fairy tales. This results in people learning not to care too much about the fate of characters in fiction and therefore diminishing its power to move us and leading to a level of indifference to the sufferings of real people.

Children do not make this distinction; they see suffering and want to stop it, see unfairness and want to expose it. Gribble wants us to listen to children more often and more attentively; he wants us to be true to our collective word and ensure that our actions lead to a cleaner, safer and more peaceful planet.

The problem with the book lies not with the main assertion but with the practical classroom application of its contents. Who is this book aimed at: children, teachers or parents? Is it designed to stimulate discussion at classroom level or to inspire busy teachers to think again about the theoretical framework that underpins their own approach to pedagogy?

It is hard to discern the existence of a coherent thread that runs through the entire book. For example, the 19 chapters (the book is 226 pages) range from an exploration of what constitutes collective memory to a chapter titled “objections” that ends with an excursion into etymology.

Though published in 2010, the book is dominated by the author’s personal anecdotes from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and fails to engage the reader on almost any level.

Do adults have a monopoly on wisdom? No, of course they don’t - but then again neither do children!

Sir Ken Robinson

2011-05-13T18:03:00.002+01:00

I have written a review of Sir Ken Robinson's new book 'Out of our Minds' for this week's TES. To read the review simply click on the link below.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6079712

Bottled beer review

2011-05-03T06:38:00.003+01:00

So far I have consumed two of the 10+ excellent real ales that I received as an early birthday present from Daniel and Jo, Ben and Zara and Adam and Jess. I promised to review each one as I know how avidly they read the blog!!

Hawkshead Lakeland Gold:
Malty with just a hint of green apples. It is soft and rounded on the palette but sustains a consistent bitterness throughout. A clean, crisp beer that would be delightful if chilled and drunk on a summer's evening. 7 out of 10

Humdinger (Joseph Holt Manchester)
Winner of the Tesco Beer Challenge 2004.Unlike some of the other 'sweet' ales, the Humdinger gets it right, with the honey being an essential part of the taste, rather than just something that makes the label look good. 6 out of 10

Don’t repeat past mistakes on museums and galleries

2011-04-22T07:49:00.000+01:00

Labour must resist the cultural vandalism of making people pay to visit museums and galleries - the piece below also appears in this week's edition of Tribune

According to Tristram Hunt, the historian and Labour MP, writing in the Observer on March 6: “A truly equitable cultural policy might begin to think about reintroducing charges for our national museums and galleries.”

But many would argue that the most equitable policy is the one we have already – a policy that has delivered record numbers of visitors to national museums and galleries. Opinion polls have shown this to be the most popular policy introduced by the Labour Government in the years 1997-2001.

Tristram Hunt ought to study some recent history. In the 1980s, museums came under pressure from Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government to charge for admission in order to make them less dependent on state funding.

The result was that nearly 50 per cent of the major national museums introduced charges, while the rest, including the British Museum, the Tate and the National Gallery, resisted doing so.

What happened next is illuminating in terms of the likely impact of any return to a charging policy. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, visitor numbers at free national museums grew spectacularly. In contrast, many of the charging museums suffered marked declines in attendances. For example, the Victoria and Albert Museum introduced a £5 admission charge in 1997 and saw its visitor numbers halved as a consequence.

Labour came to power in 1997 having made a commitment to reinstate free entry at the national museums. The belief was that doing this would significantly broaden the range of people visiting museums. The devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales also opted to fund free entry at the national museums they support.

Free entry for all was introduced at all their sites in 2001. All the national museums which dropped charges saw substantial increases in their visitor numbers – an average rise of 70 per cent.

In the first year after free admission was introduced, the Victoria and Albert Museum’s visitor figures rose by 111 per cent – from 1.1 million to 2.3 million. Figures have continued to rise. Compared with 2001, an additional 5.3 million people visited the free museums in 2002, another 5.6 million in 2003 and another six million in 2004.

Many of these museums completed hugely successful Heritage Lottery Fund projects in or around the same period and these have also had an enormous effect on visitor numbers. According to research undertaken by the Museums Association, the museums most successful in terms of attendances were those which opened new or newly-refurbished facilities and introduced free admission.

Hunt’s argument seems to be predicated on the notion that if the excellent Potteries Museum in his Stoke Central constituency is forced to charge for entry, then so should the National Gallery and the British Museum. It would be a more principled and far-sighted approach to defend free entry to all publicly-funded museum and galleries, especially in the present hard economic climate.

Free access enables people to use museums and galleries in different ways – not just to educate, inform, amaze and delight, but to meet friends and as places for research, thought and reflection. In other words, museums and galleries are important civic and social spaces.

While admission charges may not be the only barrier to the less well-off, nevertheless they are a significant barrier. Museums and galleries have more in common with libraries than other venues for a day out, because they are about learning as well as about enjoyment.

We should be proud of Labour’s record in this area and argue for the retention of the current policy. As a progressive movement, we should be debating how future cultural policy could further increase public access to and participation in the arts.

The reintroduction of charging for entry to national museums and galleries would be a regressive act. As Tristram Hunt should know, looking to the past has much to commend it. But living in it does not.

Shining a light on Islam

2011-04-22T07:45:00.001+01:00

I have recently reviewed the book 'Being Muslim' by Haroon Siddiqui for the Times Educational Supplement - you can alos find the review online at
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6078806

Terrorism, wars, jihad, the hijab and the burka, polygamy, female circumcision, honour killings, stoning and the status of Muslim women. These are just a few of the topics covered in award-winning Canadian journalist Haroon Siddiqui's readable, engaging and rather provocative book, Being Muslim, part of the Groundwork series of books for key stages 3 and 4 which attempts to provide an overview of key contemporary social and political issues.

Helping students better understand what it means to be a Muslim in the modern world is important. According to a YouGov poll published last year, more than 75 per cent of non-Muslims believe Islam has made a negative contribution to British society. In the same poll, 58 per cent linked Islam with extremism and 69 per cent believed it encouraged the repression of women. But perhaps most revealing of all was the fact that more than 80 per cent of those polled admitted to having very little knowledge about the Islamic faith, its beliefs and practices.

Any teacher thinking about using this book with their pupils would need to be clear about what it is not: it is not a traditional RE-style textbook that will help pupils gain knowledge and understanding about the five pillars of Islam. But this does not mean it is not enlightening and informative. Siddiqui's explanations of common Muslim phrases and etiquette as clues to Islamic attitudes to life and destiny are fascinating, as are his explanations of the role of culture versus religion in women's activities and dress codes. He tackles some really tough topics, offering a remarkably balanced overview of the range of opinions, particularly within the Islamic community, on contentious issues such as the role of women.

Though not a traditional classroom textbook, Being Muslim is excellent for helping young people explore current political, religious and secular aspects of being a member of the world's fastest-growing religion.

If you're after ready-made discussion questions or pre-packaged ideas for whole-class debate, however, this is not the book for you.

The author is not afraid to challenge Western assumptions about Islam and is prepared to assign blame to both Western democracies and Islamic fundamentalists for fanning the flames of Islamophobia. Drawing on his travels and interviews in Muslim countries, Siddiqui attempts to show that extremists are being challenged by a new generation of Muslims. He also asks some penetrating questions. For example, why does the UK government turn a blind eye to suffocating restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia? Siddiqui acknowledges the desperate living conditions that many Muslims endure in the developing world and recognises the need to address these circumstances instead of offering them as a valid excuse for violence.

In one of the most poignant and thought-provoking parts of the book, he describes what post-9/11 life has been like for Muslims in the UK, the US and Muslim countries. He says: "Monitored by both the secret services and the media, they must be careful about what they say in emails, phone conversations and in public. They must think twice about keeping a beard or wearing overtly Muslim clothing and be mindful of their behaviour in public. They must keep proving, in school and at work, that neither they nor their faith fit the caricature of Muslims and Islam drilled into the public consciousness."

In the opening chapter, Siddiqui writes that "every Muslim must do jihad", then, somewhat reassuringly, you find out later in the book that the word jihad is more accurately translated as "struggle", rather than as some sort of "holy war" or "crusade". There are other surprises: a section called "Laughing at the Siege" introduces readers to the world of Muslim comedy. We also find out the difference between hijab and burka, the logistics of providing food and water for pilgrims of the Hajj and Islamic references in hip-hop music.

This is a book that can help teachers to deal clearly and directly with current contentious issues involving Islam. It is refreshingly unequivocal and, in my view, highly effective in exposing double standards and inconsistencies in contemporary media coverage relating to Islam.

Labour's schools review group

2011-03-13T20:43:00.002Z

I am delighted and honoured to have accepted Andy Burnham's invitation to join Labour's schools policy review group. I will join a group of advisers, headteachers, teachers and parents who will work with the Shadow Education Team to help them explore what families want from good local schools, and specifically:

What knowledge and skills do the next generation need to be successful in the modern world?
How can we continue to improve standards in English, Maths and Science, but also provide a balanced curriculum which meets the needs of all children?
What influence and control do parents want over local schools and their own child’s education?
How can we create the most professional and highest quality teaching workforce in the world?

I am due to attend the first meeting in the next few weeks. What are your answers to the questions above? What do you want from your local school? What needs to be done to raise standards for all pupils even further? If you would like to contribute your ideas please either post a response or email me at mike-ion@hotmail.co.uk

Changing education paradigms

2011-03-10T21:48:00.002Z

Sir Ken Robinson is someone I admire greatly, in this excellent RSA lecture he asks how do we make change happen in education and how do we make it last? I like his answers very much and, I would imagine you will too.

Tristram Hunt is wrong to argue for the reintroduction of charges for gallery and museum entry

2011-03-06T09:55:00.002Z

According to Tristram Hunt, writing in today's Observer 'a truly equitable cultural policy might begin to think about the reintroducing charges for our national museums and galleries.' Really? Surely the most equitable policy is the one we have already; a policy that has delivered record numbers of visitors to our national museums and galleries and a policy that polls have shown to be the most popular public policy introduced by Labour's 1997-2001 government.

What Tristram fails to mention in his Observer piece is that back in the 1980s, national museums faced political pressure from the then Conservative government to charge for admission in order to make them less dependent on government funding. The result was that close to half of the major national museums introduced charges whilst the rest, including the British Museum, the Tate and the National Gallery, held out. What happened as a consequence is illuminating in terms of the likely impact of any return to a charging policy nationally. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s visitor numbers at the free national museums grew spectacularly, while many of the charging museums suffered marked declines. For example the Victoria and Albert Museum introduced a £5 admission charge in 1997 and saw its visitor numbers halved as a result.

In 1997, the new Labour government made a commitment to reinstate free entry at the national museums in the belief that doing so would significantly broaden the range of people visiting museums. The devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales also agreed to fund free entry at the national museums which they support, and free entry for all was introduced at all their sites in 2001. The national museums which dropped charges all saw substantial increases to their visitor numbers, an average of 70 per cent. In the first year after free admission was introduced visitor figures to the V&A rose by 111% from 1.1 million to 2.3 million. Figures have continued to rise: compared with 2001, 5.3 million extra people visited the free museums in 2002, 5.6 million extra in 2003 and 6 million extra in 2004.

It should also be remembered that many of these museums also completed hugely successful Heritage Lottery Fund projects in or around the same period and these have also had an enormous effect on visitors figures. Research undertaken by the Museums Association showed that the museums most 'successful' in terms of visitor figures were also those which had opened new or newly refurbished facilities and had also introduced free admission.

Tristram's argument appears to be predicated on the notion that if the excellent Potteries Museum is forced to charge for entry then so should the National Gallery and the British Museum. Surely a more principled, more far-sighted approach would see the likes of Tristram standing up for free entry to all publicly funded museum and galleries, especially in these hard times. Free access enables people to use museums and galleries in different ways; to meet friends or as a place to rest or think, in other words they are important civic and social spaces. Admission charges may not be the only barrier to the less well-off, they are nevertheless a significant. barrier. Museums are galleries are more like libraries than 'day out' venues, because they are about learning, as well as about enjoyment.

As a Labour member and supporter I am proud of Labour's record in this area and would seek to defend the current policy, indeed I think as a progressive movement we should be debating how any future cultural policy can further increase public access and participation in the arts. The reintroduction of charging for entry to our national museums and galleries would be a regressive act and I would imagine the vast majority of my fellow party members feel the same.

Why social mobility should not be abandoned

2011-03-02T10:43:00.002Z

Writing for the Guardian's CiF Owen Jones argues that 'social mobility provides no answers for the vast majority of working-class people. It's time we abandoned it.' I enjoyed Owen's piece greatly and agreed with much of it but in many ways I think he misses a larger point.

Despite Owen's protestations it is not unreasonable that any parent should want their child to do as well at school and in life as they have done themselves; often they want them to do better. In a free society if some parents choose to secure advantage and privilege by sending their children to elite schools there is little the state can do about it. However there are clear consequences for future social mobility that many "left-leaning" (Guardian-reading) parents often choose to ignore. British public schools have always been a production line for the class system. They employ some of the best-qualified teachers, with as many as two-thirds educated in the top 20 British universities. They can – and do – raise their fees steadily, they select their pupils, have a growing endowment income from their benefactors and some of the most impressive sporting and extra-curricular activities. What's more they have (during the recent boom years) recruited from a middle-class obsessed by perceived educational and social advantage.

One issue on which Owen and I may well agree on is the old fashioned (possibly even an "old Labour") view that parents who espouse views about fairness, justice and redistribution but opt out of the state sector and send their children to private, fee-paying schools, choose to become part of the problem, rather than seeking to be part of the solution. Why do so many parents apparently talk left but act right, advocate change but seek to protect the status quo? One reason is that many middle-class parents perceive there to be little political mileage in calling for the reform of private schools and more equal access to universities. This is because those who already have influence, those who already have a "voice" in our society, have such a high stake in the current order they, almost subconsciously, mobilise and organise in order protect it. I am firmly of the view that when middle-class parents abandon the state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.

Far from abandoning the idea of social mobility I think we need to set about creating a society that reduces the real barriers that prevent people from certain social backgrounds achieving their full potential. I agree that personal progress should never be measured by the extent to which individuals escape their social background, but we must also accept that in order to overcome entrenched privilege and vested interests we must actively seek to open up society and end the present 'closed shop' that has, for too long, stifled meritocracy by supporting an aristocracy of the elite.

Why I will be voting YES to AV in May

2011-02-17T09:09:00.003Z

The planned referendum on voting reform will take place on 5th May 2011 and after much thought, reading and discussion I have decided that I will be voting YES. The Alternative Vote will ensure that every MP has at least 50% support in their constituency whilst the present, First-Past-The-Post system only ensures the largest minority elect our MPs. Under AV voters can indicate their first preference in the knowledge that their second, third choices etc. will not be harmed. AV is used throughout the world, most notably Australia and Ireland and a version of it is used to elect the London Mayor. It is also used extensively by the Labour party to select candidates, the leader and the deputy leader. It is used by MPs to elect the Speaker. In fact all the UK political parties, Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and others use preferential voting to elect their leaders and for their other internal elections. None of them use First-Past-The-Post. Isn't it time we had the same say as politicians give themselves?

If you vote YES in May you will be helping to ensure that:

All MPs will need 50% of the vote to be elected

The number of so called 'safe seats' is radically reduced - currently 70% of seats never change hands.

It will be even harder for the likes of Nick Griffin and other extreme candidates to get elected. A BNP candidate for example would need 50% of the vote to be elected under AV.

If you want to know more then click HERE.

The Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver

2011-02-01T12:05:00.002Z

I have just finished reading The Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver - one of the best books I have read in years. Has anyone else read it? What did you think of it?

Faith schools and a progressive school system

2011-01-22T11:45:00.003Z

Faith schools are an integral part of the British education system and the vast majority, in my view, do an outstanding job. I speak from experience as both a pupil (I attended a state funded Catholic comprehensive school) and as a professional (I am a former senior leader in a Catholic high school). However there have long been concerns about how some faith schools operate in terms of admissions. A couple of years ago the interim report by the then schools adjudicator Philip Hunter looked into claims that faith schools had been breaking laws aimed at making admissions fairer. This was after the DfE had come across a "significant number" of faith schools apparently breaking the statutory admissions code. Breaches included parents being asked for money and personal and financial details. There were also concerns that faith schools had not been taking enough children who are vulnerable including those with special needs and those eligible for free school meals.

Several years on and little seems to have changed. So here are three practical suggestions for reform:

1) Insist that all state funded voluntary aided (VA) schools set aside a minimum of 20% of its annual intake for the pupils of parents of other faiths or none.

2) Require all VA schools to publish their admission figures (criterion referenced) annually.

3) Require all VA schools to provide local authorities with action plans (updated annually) as to how the school will actively seek to promote community cohesion.

At present, faith schools may select 100% of pupils from parents who share their faith. To be fair, most religious primary schools try to serve their local neighbourhood and often accept children of other faiths and of none. Like non-religious schools, many of them do a brilliant job and some do not. All religious secondary schools give some preference to children of their faith. Some try to be inclusive and accept a significant proportion of children from other faiths. Many do not. I am firmly of the view that opening up faith schools to the pupils of parents of different faiths (or none) would be a positive move towards greater social and educational inclusion. A faith school that is true to its core values and principles will surely be one that seeks to be open and accessible to all pupils, one that would pay particular attention to the needs of the marginalised and the poor.

The problem is that the forces of conservatism that dominate many faith groups are deeply resistant to change. For example, the Catholic Education Service (CES) has, in the past, argued that it is spurious to suggest that removing the absolute right of a religious community to educate its own children by introducing a percentage non-faith quota for church schools would aid social cohesion. As someone whose teaching career was solely in the VA RC sector I would suggest that it is neither spurious nor indeed is it contrary to the mission of the church itself. Indeed I would go further and challenge the CES to publish a complete list of state funded Catholic schools (secondaries in particular) where it is already custom and practice that between 20%-30% of pupils come from other faith backgrounds or none.

The challenge to the various faith groups in Britain must centre on the type of educational provision they would be happy to support and indeed help shape in 21st century Britain. For me the only truly progressive, inclusive and comprehensive system would be one that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their spiritual, economic or social capital? What we require is an education system in which every child is treasured, every child learns to value diversity and to appreciate the variety of contributions that each of them makes to our culture and where every child understands that he/she shares the potential and the frailty of the human condition.

The opening up faith schools to pupils from more diverse cultural, social and religious backgrounds would be one small but significant step towards giving parents real choice in our increasingly complex system of state schooling.

Ed Miliband is right: The Labour party under Blair and Brown was too often managerial not inspirational

2011-01-19T17:21:00.001Z

Labour's centre-left credentials in the early years of the Blair reign were impressive: the introduction of the minimum wage, the abolition of the assisted places scheme, more help for pensioners, removal of the hereditary principle in the Lords, huge investment in the NHS, debt cancellation etc, etc. The problem is that almost all of the these radical and socially progressive initiatives were carried out during the first term. Ed Miliband is right, post 2001 Labour was, on the whole, competent but not radical, managerial but not inspirational.

As Labour goes through the often tetchy, sometimes divisive period of reflection and renewal, Ed will need to emphasise the party's centre-left credentials and spell out exactly what his ‘fairness’ agenda will mean in terms of outcomes for the British people.

If he is to have any chance of returning our party to power he will need to be 'bold' Ed, not 'timid' Ed. His stance on banker's bonuses is encouraging and he knows that given the present economic climate talking about such issues could be fertile ground for Labour and will make life distinctly uncomfortable for David Cameron and his front bench.

Cameron's Conservatives - together with few Lib Dem frontbenchers - are made up of the "right kind of people", his people – privately educated and from backgrounds 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 those who embrace their political, economic, and social views. For these reasons, Cameron is reluctant to get into a debate about the super-rich and what they should or should not contribute via the tax system.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies the highest-earning 0.1% of the UK population enjoy an average annual income of £780,043. This is around 31 times higher than the national average income of £24,000. Given the present context, and given Ed's avowed commitment to fairness and equity, surely a national debate (led by Ed) about whether the very wealthy should contribute a bit more through the tax system would be most welcome.

These past few years the public has watched on in horror and disgust at the city traders who deliberately bid down bank shares, bet on the failure of key stock and companies and even – it is suggested – spread false rumours in order to line their own already very deep and very full pockets. If the Tories wish to seek to defend these excesses – in the manner in which, at the opposite end of the scale they opposed the minimum wage and defended poverty pay – then they will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument.

Past poll findings have often indicated that the public view Mr Cameron as being on the side of the rich and not the ordinary ‘hard working’ families that he talks about so frequently. If my own recent experience on the doorstep is anything to go by - I am a candidate for Labour in the May local elections in Telford - then the use of the term the 'squeezed middle' is beginning to resonate with people, particularly at a time when petrol prices creep up to nearly £7 a gallon.
I am half way through Blair's 'A Journey' and agree with him when he argues about the need for focusing on practical solutions to problems when in government.

The truth in 2011 is that we are no longer in power and can therefore take the opportunity to once again campaign in poetry, to offer inspiring ideas, radical alternatives and a vision of a fairer, more equal country. I campaigned for Ed in the leadership election because for me he was the one candidate that 'got it', and would be a leader who understood that the party needs to reconnect not just with middle England but also with its traditional supporters who are confused by the political cross-dressin of modern politics.

Ahead in the polls, beginning to win the arguments over health, education and the economy and even winning the odd by-election. Given the scale of the defeat last May I think this is close to being an inspired start by our new leader. Underestimate Ed Miliband at your peril.

People in Telford want jobs not new council offices

2011-01-15T16:11:00.002Z

To: The Borough of Telford & Wrekin Council

We, the undersigned, wish to object to the council spending millions of pounds of tax-payers money on lavish new council offices in Telford Town Centre. We feel that during this period of economic hardship, it is irresponsible to spend this amount of tax-payers money to build new offices when suitable offices already exist throughout the borough.

We:

1) Call on the Council to look into the option of using existing offices that lie vacant within the borough.

2 ) Wish to Register our objection to the Council spending our money in this way.

If you live in the Telford area please sign the petition by clicking HERE.

Why join a Trade Union?

2011-01-06T09:08:00.003Z

I have written a review of the excellent 'Why join a Trade union?' by Jo Phillips and David Seymour for Tribune (due for publication this week). An edited version of the review is below.

British workers are relatively well off when compared to the majority of people who now produce the things we buy (and used to produce), but why is this? According to the hugely enjoyable Why Join A Trade Union? it is not because of Britain's enlightened capitalist philanthropists but because of the men and women who marched, campaigned and suffered in order to get better working conditions for all. In other words the employment rights and conditions of service we have today we have because people joined trades unions.

Jo Phillips and David Seymour's Why Join A Trade Union? is a book that, in its own way, advocates the strengths and the many virtues of collective endeavour - admittedly in a witty and at times highly irreverent manner. Margaret Thatcher is given a special mention in the section dealing with hate figures - where she is joined interestingly enough by the PFA's Gordon Taylor (one of the few union leaders whose members earn more than he does) and ITV's Adam Crozier who is no doubt greatly missed by CWU members across the land. The title however is, in my view, a bit misleading as the book is primarily a beginner's guide to the history of the trade union movement, or as the authors point out, This Great Movement of Ours, which for some reason is often shortened to Tigmoo and the book encourages you to check out the excellent Tigmoo website for union blogs and bloggers at www.tigmoo.co.uk.

The book is the sequel to the authors' previous publication, the excellent Why Vote? It is very funny in parts and there are some excellent one liners, for example early on in the book there is an account of how, having battled to extend the franchise, the unions created a political party that working people could vote for. At the end of the paragraph the authors add (in brackets) a brief note stating that this party was the Labour party "in case that description of Labour passes you by." My one reservation about the book is that the jokes tend to detract from the more serious and in the present climate very real reasons for people wanting to join a trade union. The notion that trade unions are the 'enemy within' and that they constitute an impediment to economic growth, free enterprise, and the ability of the government and industry to operate freely, is one we should expect to be pushed more and more as the impact of the recession deepens and workers are forced to fight back against mounting attacks on their livelihoods.

Why Join A Trade Union? is a readable, engaging and thought provoking book that reminds us that things can't and don't always get better but they sometimes get a good deal worse.

Faith and politics can, do and should mix

2010-11-23T14:17:00.002Z

Last year Michael Sandel delivered his second Reith Lecture and looked at the relationship between morality and politics, more specifically the interaction between religiously inspired morality and politics. He argued, correctly in my view, that you cannot remove morality from political discourse and so it is far better to have it out in public.

On Friday of this week the spotlight is going to be firmly on the role of religion as Tony Blair supports the motion "Be it resolved religion is a force for good in the world" against Christopher Hitchens in a Munk Debate due to be held in Toronto. 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.

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.

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.

Palin takes cheap shot at Michelle Obama

2010-11-19T11:57:00.003Z

Sarah Palin is the heart throb of the of Tea Party in the US and, no doubt, a few admiring Tory boys and girls here in the UK.

In passages leaked from her new book America by Heart, Palin turns her fire on the First Lady, Michelle Obama.

According to Palin President Obama believes America "is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country." On page 26 Palin writes:

'Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn't surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church listening to his rants against America and white people.'

Apparently in the same book she reveals that Simon Cowell is one of her heros! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

The act of remembrance and the wearing of a poppy is a very small price to pay

2010-11-11T07:34:00.000Z

The poppy is a simple, but powerful symbol of remembrance, we do not diminish anyone by wearing it, least of all the veterans. Diminishing the debt we owe our predecessors would be accomplished by resigning ourselves to the notion that we cannot comprehend what happened.

We undermine the notion of Remembrance Day by lack of reflection, not flippantly wearing, or not wearing, a poppy.Focusing on the future is done by reflecting on the past. Wearing the poppy symbolises that one, at the very least, acknowledges the past. A poppy has never been a substitute for action - no symbol ever is - but we must be sure that what the poppy symbolises is not lost on those who seek to build upon our freedoms.

So I will be wearing my poppy this November. Out of pride? No. Out of respect and gratitude? Yes. Why? Because the act of remembrance and the wearing of a poppy is a very small price to pay

Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron

2010-11-06T14:19:00.002Z

David Cameron's silly use of the term 'progressive' is a clear illustration that the Tories will do almost anything to try and show that they are the party of the future. The truth about David Cameron's Tories is that they relish soundbites, image and tomorrow's headlines; have a clear sense of what will look good and almost no apparent political convictions. The reforms that Mr Cameron made to his party once he became leader were primarily cosmetic (a new HQ, a new party logo) and shortlived (the party's "A" list of candidates). His new and so-called 'progressive' Conservatives, indeed this can now include many of his coalition front bench partners, are made up of the right kind of people, his people - privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Cameron's 'progressive' Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. Far from being progressive the Tory attitude to politics is archaic and redundant. The modern Tory party is the old Tory party re-packaged. David Cameron's Tories present the electorate with false choices; you have to be pro-business or pro-unions, pro-growth or pro-environment, for civil liberties or against them, in favour of immigration or opposed to it, a progressive or a dinosaur.

David Cameron is fast becoming the Janus of British politics. The truth is that you can be a progressive in politics or you can be a conservative but you cannot be both at the same time

Selection at 11+ is bad for England - surely all 3 main parties agree on that?

2010-11-01T11:35:00.004Z

Selective education has no place in a fair, progressive and socially mobile nation. So say the Tories, the Lib Dems and Labour. If the new politics that Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband constantly refer to is to have any substance at all then here is one policy area where all three leaders can find some common ground. The problem is that existing legislation relating to ending selection is complex and deliberately opaque.

The present system allows selective entry into grammar schools to remain unless a majority of local eligible parents vote for it to change or grammar school governing bodies decide to change their admission policies to admit children of all abilities. To date, no governing bodies have done this. Before a ballot can be held, 20% of eligible parents in the areas concerned must sign a petition calling for a ballot. To require all of the 164 grammar schools in England to take children of all abilities would need 48 petitions and ballots.

Crucial to the present legislation is the definition of an eligible parent. This differs depending on whether the ballot would be an area or feeder ballot. Area ballots would be needed to end selection in the 10 local authorities defined by the regulations as fully selective (Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Medway, Slough, Southend, Sutton, Torbay, Trafford). Here, all parents living in the area are eligible to sign a petition and ballot, including those with children below school age or those living outside the area but with children in the schools within the local authority. For the 38 ballots in the other 26 English local authorities with grammar schools, only parents who have children in the feeder schools to the grammar schools would be eligible. Feeder schools are those that have sent a total of five or more pupils to the grammar schools in question in the year the signatures are being gathered and the preceding two years.
The only ballot to be held was in Ripon in 2000, where two thirds of eligible parents who took part voted to keep the status quo. This was a feeder ballot. One success was that it showed up the bizarre effect of the feeder school ballot regulations. Private school parents are over-represented in feeder ballots, as many private schools exist to coach pupils to pass the entry tests to grammar schools. In Ripon, private school parents made up a quarter of the electorate, although a parliamentary question at the time revealed that only 4.6% of primary children in North Yorkshire were in private education (Hansard 2000). In feeder school areas, many local parents, even those sending their children to schools near the grammar schools in question, are ineligible to sign petitions and vote. In Barnet, campaigners trying to collect signatures found that parents of children at a primary school next door to a grammar school were not eligible to sign the petition, as not enough of the children at their school had passed the entry test.
The second largest group of the Ripon electorate after private-school parents were parents of children in a school 10 miles away, while some Ripon parents were ineligible. So the promise in Labour's 1997 manifesto - "Any changes in the admission policies of grammar schools will be decided by local parents" - was never fulfilled.

What can be done? There are several options that the present coalition government might pursue in order to make the present system fairer and more transparent.

If ballots have to remain:
• Make all ballots area ballots (remove the option for feeder ballots).
• Reduce the 20% threshold figure to 10%
• Allow people to sign up for petitions electronically (similar to the ePetitions on the Downing Street website)
• Reduce the time period for the collection of signatures for petitions.

Other options that the government might consider include:
• A requirement for governors of selective schools to vote regularly on proposals to end academic selection as a criterion for admission to the school.
• The extension of Para 3.17 of the 2003 school admissions code of practice (pdf) ("Academic selection should never be used to decide entry into primary education"). to include entry into secondary education.
• Commission a report that looks into the impact of academic selection on standards and social inclusion.

The time is now right to review the arrangements to allow local people a greater say in the shape of secondary-school provision in their area. One would hope that any review would be pushing at an open door; after all, there is cross-party agreement that academic selection is a bad thing, isn't there?

Poverty of the past and poverty to come

2010-10-21T21:03:00.002+01:00

To be honest with you many people like me will be relatively unaffected by the cuts announced in the CSR yesterday. However as the IFS has recently reported, George Osborne's spending cuts will hit the poorest harder than the better off. Over 100 years ago Seebohm Rowntree carried out some preliminary research into the amounts and types of foods, the levels of rents, cost of heating and lighting, etc. deemed necessary to maintain 'physical efficiency'. Rowntree’s estimates of the income needed to avoid poverty were set deliberately low in order to test whether there was any level of income at which people could not maintain a non-poor lifestyle no matter how hard they tried. In his report Rowntree distinguished between (a) ‘primary’
poverty – families whose income was insufficient for the maintenance even of ‘physical
efficiency’, and; (b) ‘secondary’ poverty – families whose income would have been
sufficient for the maintenance of 'physical efficiency' were it not that some portion of it was
absorbed by other expenditure.

When you read Rowntree’s report today, especially in light of the savage cuts that have just been announced, one is left contemplating exactly how we might today define what physical efficiency means. For Rowntree it meant the following:

'A family living upon the scale allowed for must never spend a penny on railway fare or omnibus. They must never go into the country unless they walk. They must never purchase a half penny
newspaper or spend a penny to buy a ticket for a popular concert. They must write no letters to absent children, for they cannot afford to pay the postage. They must never contribute anything to their church or chapel, or give any help to a neighbour which costs them money. They cannot save nor can they join a sick club or trade union, because they cannot pay the necessary subscriptions. The children must have no pocket money for dolls, marbles or sweets. The father must smoke no tobacco and drink no beer. The mother must never buy any pretty clothes for herself or her children, the character of the family wardrobe as for the family diet being governed by the regulation nothing must be bought but that which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of physical health and what is bought must be of the plainest and most economical description'.

So how, exactly, will today's poor be affected by these savage, brutal and according to many commentators, unnecessary cuts? The coalition cabinet is drawn almost exclusively from the financial elite, people who simply have no concept of what 'physical efficiency' means for the millions of their fellow citizens who exist on modest incomes but who will bear the brunt of this ideologically driven spending round. Cameron’s Conservatives are made up of the “right kind of people” – his people: privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their own particular political, economic and social outlook. The CSR has given every indication that under the Cameron/Clegg coalition the gap between rich and poor is likely to rise even further. If Labour is to expose the ideological recklessness of these cuts then its best prospects lie not in outlining what it would have done instead - it is the opposition now and needs to get used to opposing - but in campaigning against what these cuts will do to further entrench the ugly realities of health, education and housing inequality.

Rowntree's 1901 report exposed the senseless, soul destroying and economically dire implications of a laissez faire, non-interventionist state - we owe it to today's poor to ensure that his sound advice and analysis are not dismissed in the name of inevitability.

An evening with Alastair Campbell

2010-10-15T08:35:00.005+01:00

Last night I had the rather daunting task of acting as the host and compere for 'An Evening with Alastair Campbell' at the Place Theatre in Oakengates in Telford. Alastair donated all of he proceeds from the ticket and book sales to Telford CLP. He entertained and enthralled his audience with his reflections on his time at the heart of the New Labour project and his views on topics ranging from how intelligent he thinks George Bush really is to how we can better support people with mental health problems. Some of the things he spoke about that I personally found interesting were:

That he is pretty certain Adam Boulton does not like him very much!

His view that David Cameron has style but lacks 'policy' substance.

That he owns 3 road bikes and one of them was made to measure!

Though I was very, very nervous I really enjoyed the whole event and I know that Telford CLP were delighted with the numbers attending and with the amount it raised which will go to help fight campaigns in the area in the coming months. Alistair is a class act and the Labour party nationally and locally owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

Were you there? What were your thoughts about the evening? Do you have photos that I might add?

Why Ed Miliband must show that politics has to be about more that the desire to wrong foot your opponent

2010-10-04T20:55:00.005+01:00

The sad truth is that (despite a few notable exceptions) the last government did not make it easy for the electorate to vote Labour with any enthusiasm. On the doorstep the divide between the concerns of core Labour voters and those of a PR-fixated cabinet never seemed wider. In fairness though; the history of Labour governments was ever thus. Since the 1920s the story goes something like this: Labour supporters are near euphoric when victory is achieved there is then a period of hard slog as the party faces up to the harsh responsibilities of being in government. The party then accuses the leadership of betrayal and the leadership accuses the party of ingratitude. Supporters then become disillusioned which leads to defeat at the polls. We then experience a long period of Tory government before the next outbreak of euphoria and so on and so forth.

After an unprecedented 13 straight years in power many of Labour's own members are not certain what they want. Many want the party to be both passionately principled and sensibly pragmatic; to be a party that proudly honours its past while not neglecting to shape both its and the nation's future; to champion the state while being part of the market; to tackle poverty but also support aspiration. Ed Miliband stood for the leadership of the Labour party on a platform that argued that the renewal that was undertaken in order to gain power in 1997 needs to be repeated if Labour is win at the next election. In the mid-1990s Labour successfully occupied the centre ground, it modernised and reached out beyond its own activists and turned the Tories into a replica of what it itself used to be – a party with a narrow base, a party obsessed about the wrong things and a party seen as old fashioned and out of touch.

Can Labour win under Ed Miliband? Of course it can but I strongly believe that the best prospects of future success for our party lie not in the puerile tactics of the spin doctor; politics has to be about more that the desire to wrong foot your opponent. The prospects for future success for Labour lies not in defending the status quo of what is still a highly unequal Britain, rather it is in working with the British people to help rid our nation of some ugly realities such as child poverty and the still endemic inequalities in both health and education, inequalities that could well be even further entrenched once the age of austerity kicks in.

The politics of ambition and optimism must also be the politics of principle - we should attack our opponents for what they espouse, for their policies and not for their personal shortcomings.

Ambition not austerity

2010-10-04T20:52:00.002+01:00

I am a big Hilary Benn fan and think the tone set in this video is the right one and that the message and title offer some clear dividing lines between ourselves and the ConDem coalition.

The politics of optimism

2010-10-02T17:24:00.002+01:00

Possibly the best political TV advert ever!

I found this a few years ago - perhaps Ed Miliband should adopt a similar approach, it espouses the politics of optimism!

Ed Miliband and the politics of hope

2010-09-29T08:37:00.001+01:00

The Labour government "contributed almost nothing new or imaginative to the pool of ideas with which men seek to illuminate human nature and its environment". This is not a comment about the Blair or Brown years; rather it is a quote from a 1954 New Statesman biographical piece about Clement Attlee and the 1945-1951 Labour government. Amazing as though it may now appear, some contemporary Labour figures of the period were lambasting Attlee's post-war government for its lack of ambition and for it not being "socialist" enough. History repeated itself yesterday when Ed Miliband lambasted the ‘old’ generation for failing to listen and for the ‘company’ it kept. In fairness to the new leader it is an established truth that most Labour members and supporters simultaneously hold opposing requirements. We want our party to be both passionately principled and sensibly pragmatic: to be a party that proudly honours its past while it shapes it and the nation's future; to champion the state while being part of the market; to tackle poverty but to also support aspiration.

When Labour took office in 1997, Britain was suffering from what Tony Blair later described as a "progressive deficit". What he meant was that Britain was far from being a modern social democratic nation. The constitution was failing, with Scotland and Wales denied proper government and hereditary privilege still the foundation of the House of Lords. Unlike many of our European neighbours, Britain lacked quality childcare and universal nursery provision or schools and hospitals with proper equipment and enough well-paid staff. In the years up to 1997, Britain was a country that had spent billions of pounds keeping able-bodied people idle because of boom and bust, where unemployment often exceeded three million, and where the absence of a national minimum wage condemned millions to poverty pay.

In its first few years in office Labour made significant headway in addressing this progressive deficit. On the constitution, Britain is now a much more pluralist democracy with devolution for Scotland and Wales, Mayors for London and others cities, House of Lords reform, freedom of information and the Human Rights Act. For working people, Labour delivered progressive rights that many other countries took for granted - a minimum wage, four weeks paid holiday, better maternity and paternity rights, the basic right to join a trade union. For communities and families torn apart by crime, anti-social behaviour, racial intolerance and drugs, Labour established major programmes of inner city regeneration, Sure Start, and additional investment in youth and sport facilities.

The truth is that many of the changes Labour made in 13 years of government - on the constitution, economic policy, the minimum wage and public services - are likely to last. The challenge for Ed’s new generation will be to secure a progressive consensus around the further changes and improvements that need to be made whilst at the same time challenging and exposing the Tory party’s obvious, ideologically driven desire to reduce the size of the state which will result in more charging, less investment, good services for the well-off and second-class services for the rest. However, the real challenge to Ed’s progressive, new generation politics will come not from the Cameron led, Thatcherite dominated Tory party but from the defeatists, pessimists and cynics that exist within the ranks of his own movement. The new generation politics needs to frame political debate in terms of progress versus conservatism and the world not in terms of right and left, but right and wrong. Throughout his superbly judged campaign Ed spoke about how all too often political debate seems irrelevant to the reality of ordinary peoples’ lives. He understands that too many voters feel that politics is too polarised, that parties and politicians portray their opponents as either pro-business or pro-unions, pro-growth or pro-environment, for civil liberties or against them, as progressives or dinosaurs.

Ed needs to use the coming weeks and months to rethink the direction and the very purpose of our party. History shows that the public trusts leaders who have the courage to lead. It is surely no coincidence that, in recent history, when governments have acted boldly on issues as varied as debt cancellation, the introduction of the congestion charge or smoking bans, public support has quickly crystallised behind it. If Labour is to win next time round then its best prospects lie not in appealing to what it has done, not in defending the status quo but rather in campaigning against ugly realities of health and education inequalities and showing why these warrant further state action.

The politics of optimism, of hope, worked for Obama and touched a chord with the mainstream in the US. Politics that seeks the liberation of people from poverty, injustice and persecution can be a powerful force for change. What Ed signalled yesterday was that it is time for the labour party to address its own progressive deficit, to be clear about who we are, who we were and who we want to become.

Why I proudly voted for Ed Miliband

2010-09-26T16:50:00.002+01:00

As an ordinary, 'bog standard' Labour party member I voted for Ed Miliband and did so with pride and enthusiasm. The tabloid 'Red Ed' nonsense is cheap and without substance. What sets Ed Miliband apart as a politician is his passionate belief that government must do things with people; he sees political debate in terms of progress versus conservatism and the world not in terms of right and left, but right and wrong. Throughout his superbly judged campaign he spoke about one of the the main reasons for people being turned off politics being because all too often political debate seems irrelevant to the reality of their everyday lives.

He understands that many ordinary voters feel that they are being manipulated because they are always being asked to make false choices: you're labelled as either pro-business or pro-unions, pro-growth or pro-environment, for civil liberties or against them, a progressive or a dinosaur. Ed Miliband espouses a politics that looks for cooperation not competition, the hand up and not just the hand out.

The election of Ed Miliband as Labour Leader makes it clear that many others in my party believe that such sentiments are important, many in the country will also.

Faith and politics: lessons from America?

2010-09-24T11:12:00.001+01:00

I have written a piece for Prospect on why those who espouse a so-called “progressive” political agenda need to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

This week's New Statesman

2010-09-23T08:05:00.003+01:00

This week's New Statesman will feature the 50 people who matter. Who makes your personal top 5?

Faith schools: diversity or division?

2010-09-20T09:51:00.002+01:00

According to the Catholic Education Service (CES), it is "spurious to suggest that to take away a religious community's right to firstly educate its own children and to instead give preference to others, for example, by introducing a 30% non-faith quota for Church schools, would aid social cohesion." Really? As someone whose teaching career has been solely in the VA RC sector, I would argue that it is neither spurious nor contrary to the mission of the Church. Indeed, I would go further and challenge the CES to publish a complete list of Catholic schools - particularly secondaries - where it is already customary that between 20-30% of the intake is from other faith (or non-faith) backgrounds.

I personally welcomed the defeated Lord's amendment to the 2006 Education and Inspection Bill on admissions to schools with a religious character. I would argue that such a proposal was a positive move towards greater social and educational inclusion. A truly "Christian school" would be one that seeks to be open to all - and which pays particular attention to the needs of marginalised and poorer communities. What is needed is a mature, open and honest debate about the type of educational system various faith groups would be happy to support and indeed help shape in the twenty-first century. Should it be an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their spiritual, economic or social capital? Or should it be a two tier, elitist system that perpetuates privilege, does not help promote the common good and is contrary to the message of the gospel?

Why Labour should make a preferential option for the poor.

2010-09-12T16:50:00.002+01:00

Since the advent of New Labour taking sides has been a rather unfashionable political stance. For many party members the past few years has seen Labour, as a party of principle, disappearing into the soggy centre ground. They witnessed Labour ministers turning into administrators and technocrats - competent but uninspiring. The new leader - my hope is that it will be Ed Miliband - needs to portray the modern Tory party for what it is, a group of right wing wolves in sheep's clothing. Our new leader needs to quickly go on the offensive and highlight the fact that David Cameron succeeded in modernising his party - back to the age of Thatcher.

The speech at conference will give the new leader the opportunity to set out some of the key themes and policy areas that a new, renewed Labour party will focus on. I believe that one of those themes should be about the need for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. In today's modern world 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.

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 Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. It is time to take sides and end the political cross-dressing of the 1990s. As a political party it is time to be clear about who we are, who we were and what we want to become.

Why Labour should scrap hospital car park charges in England

2010-09-08T18:21:00.002+01:00

The founding principle of the NHS was that it would offer free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare. Surely this should apply whether you go to hospital as a patient, as a visitor or a member of staff. It's simply not fair to expect patients or visitors to have to pay when they come to hospital, when they may be suffering personal anxiety, stress or grief. For this reason I have long spoken out against hospital car parking charges - though of course this now only happens in England as they have been scrapped in Wales and in Scotland.

According to the DoH the NHS should ended the last financial year with a £1.75 billion surplus, surely it would not be unreasonable to use a small amount of this total surplus to offset the £95 million that NHS Trusts took from car parking charges in 2008-2009? The reality thought is that the disparity in relation to car parking charges simply adds to the ever widening health care divide, under which patients in England are denied services and benefits enjoyed by those living elsewhere in the UK. For example in Scotland, NHS patients have access to more cancer drugs, benefit from free eye tests and get free personal care when elderly. In Wales prescriptions are free, while English patients must pay £6.85.

Labour needs to define what it is for as well as what it is against - framing policies around fairness and equity. The abolition of car parking charges at England's NHS hospitals would be a small, but 'emotionally' significant gesture and one that would illustrate that the party understands the worries and concerns of ordinary people.

Why the Left must not allow the right to hijack debate about faith

2010-09-08T17:49:00.002+01:00

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

Flights for 50p

2010-09-08T08:25:00.002+01:00

If you have ever taken a flight with Ryan Air you will love this.

Will Fiona Millar be backing Ed Miliband?

2010-09-07T17:06:00.004+01:00

Fiona Millar has written a thoughtful and timely piece for the Guardian's CiF on the need for Labour's leadership hopefuls to say more about how education policy will be different if elected.

This passage in particular caught my eye:-

'Whoever gets the job, it will be a tough call, demand deft political footwork and a willingness to offload baggage from the past. Of all the candidates Ed Miliband seems the most prepared to do this, even if the details of what he would actually do are hazy.'

Not quite an endorsement but welcome nonetheless.

Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski and the courage of his convictions

2010-09-07T13:17:00.002+01:00

In July of this year the Tory MP for Shrewsbury wrote a piece for the Conservative Home website that the AV electoral system would unfairly create two classes of voter. Mr Kawczynski is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the promotion of first-past-the-post and his seat of Shrewsbury is one that is clearly vulnerable if AV were to be introduced at the next election. He is quoted in The Sun (July 2010) as follows:

"This is just something the liberal elite wants. My constituents are interested in health services, schools and infrastructure."

In the debate last night he stated:

"As chairman of the all-party group, I am in a difficult position. Do I go with my gut reaction and vote against this legislation or do I fulfil my obligations and loyalty to my party leader, our Prime Minister, and to the party?"

One would have thought therefore that Mr Kawczynski would have had the moral courage to follow his convictions and vote against the AV Referendum Bill. He didn't - though 10 Tory MPs did. Why did you bottle it Daniel?

Why I am not excited about the visit of Pope Benedict

2010-09-07T08:30:00.003+01:00

The Pope is coming to Britain but for some reason I am not at all excited or pleased. If you read the strap line of my blog you will see that it reads as follows: "Aspire not to have more but to be more." These were the words of Oscar Romero, the archbishop of San Salvador, who was assassinated in 1980 by the pro-US military junta who then ran El Salvador. Romero was an advocate of what became known as liberation theology, a movement which took root throughout Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s and focused on helping the poor and oppressed, even if that meant confronting political powers. It was a theology that was later to be severely criticised as a "fundamental threat" to the church by one Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now better known as Pope Benedict XVI.

Romero spoke out for a theology that preached about the "preferential option for the poor". Ordained priests like Gutiérrez, Sobrino and Boff argued that when the Catholic church failed to speak for the poor and the oppressed, and when it refused to take the side of the persecuted and downtrodden, it did not exercise neutrality. Instead it abandoned, indeed abdicated, its moral responsibility. During the 1960s and 1970s, military dictatorships ruled much of Latin America, including Brazil, Argentina and Chile. The region's anti-communist rulers often clashed with radical priests, whose confrontational preoccupation with class struggle brought them into conflict with the rich and powerful as well as the Vatican itself. Yet the movement seems to have all but disappeared. Under the present pope – and in fairness the previous one as well - the Catholic Church of 2010 encourages its flock to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", it advocates the view that politics and faith are separate arenas and that the two cannot, indeed should not, mix. The result of such a narrow-minded stance is that the church is in danger of becoming completely irrelevant to the life of the modern man. By modern man I, of course, mean the "poor man". It is easy to forget that the vast majority of people who inhabit the planet with us live below the poverty line, the vast majority live in poor housing, have no access to proper health care and have a life expectancy that is decades shorter than that of the minority who live in the affluent west. Today there is an even greater need for the voices of liberation to be heard. There is the 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. The church is, all too often, silent on this issue. Or take the deep and widespread oppression of women, along with the elderly, and children dependent upon women, in all patriarchal societies around the globe where women and their dependents are dehumanised and depersonalised. Is the Catholic church working to further liberate women in these settings, or does it silently support the structures that keep things as they are? So we either need a new liberation theology or we need the church to be liberated. We need a church 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".

We need a church that can show that it understands that what people need is to believe that things will, and can, be better. In other words, we need the church to renew itself and we need a theology that will actively seek and proclaim the liberation of people from poverty, injustice and persecution - all people, regardless of their faith or their background. The true message of liberation will always result in some people feeling uneasy. To side, as many liberation theologians in the 1960s and 1970s did, against injustice, to commit one's life to the poor is not a political stance but a moral one. The true message of hope, of a promise that the world can be fairer, more just and less divided often results in giving comfort to the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

The present Pope does not apparently share this view; indeed he believes people like me are a “fundamental threat” to the church. So I wish the Pope well on his visit to Britain but I look forward to one day welcoming a Pontiff who will be proud to talk about making a preferential option for the poor and encourage us all to “aspire to be more, not to have more.”

Charter schools are not the answer

2010-09-03T19:48:00.001+01:00

The following article also appears in this week's edition of Tribune

Can you really run a state school for a profit? Education Secretary Michael Gove seems to think so. However, what Gove has either ignored or missed is that, in the United States, for-profit charter schools have been a huge disaster for the children in the cities where they were first imposed.

In 1997, the US Congress passed the Charter Schools Act – forcing local school districts to allow private enterprise to take over or set up schools. The justification for this was that the competition of “market pressures” would force both public schools and charter schools to perform well and deliver a quality product. The record shows otherwise. For example, in Michigan, more than 75 per cent of charter schools are run by for-profit companies. While these schools are funded with public money, the public does not control them. Since these schools are run by private companies, they don’t have to reveal how they have used their money or how much profit they have made. As far as local communities are concerned, the schools are no more than big holes into which money gets poured.

Companies such as Edison are adept at finding ways to make a profit. Schools set up shop in abandoned premises, including supermarkets, large office complexes and old school buildings. These buildings are often owned or leased by a management company that is owned by the for-profit charter school company. The charter school, run by the same firm, gets state education money for each student – some $9,000 a year in the state of Michigan. The school then pays the management company hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in rent.
The educational quality in most cases is worse than in the public schools. In 2007, students at the charter schools in the Detroit area scored lower than Detroit public school students in the Michigan statewide test.

How could it be otherwise? The profit taken out of these schools is money not spent on the education of students. So for-profit schools end up having a high number of unqualified teachers; a high turnover rate, with sometimes several teachers teaching the same class in a school year; and even classes taught by a string of temporary service employees.
It was recently confirmed that in the 10 schools run by one company, Charter School Administrative Services, 62 per cent of teachers were unqualified. This is a private company which received more than $40 million from the state of Michigan in 2008. This is money that did not go to the public schools. And that is just one company, 10 schools. There are more than 200 charter schools in Michigan alone.

Even more worryingly, a recent report from the Civil Rights Project at the University of California in Los Angeles found that nearly 80 per cent of Michigan’s black charter school students attend intensely segregated minority schools. Why does this matter? Research shows that attending racially diverse schools significantly improves students’ academic achievement, graduation and college attendance rates. In 2007 the US Supreme Court held that, along with achieving diversity, reducing the racial isolation of students of colour in schools is a compelling state interest. Yet black and Latino students attending charter schools are more often typically in schools where 90 cent or more students are non-white than are their counterparts in traditional public schools.

Some years ago, the now notorious Lehman Brothers issued a report predicting: “The education industry may replace healthcare as the focus industry.” In the US, that’s exactly what for-profit charter schools are: private industry taking over public education, squeezing out all the profit they can and leaving children with a far worse education. Is this really what “progressive” Tory education policy looks like?

Ed Miliband is right about grammar school ballots

2010-09-01T22:05:00.000+01:00

Ed Miliband is right; t he process by which parents can vote on whether to maintain academic selection simply doesn't work. Yes, we need a review: justice demands it. The policy that Ed Miliband wants to review allows selective entry into grammar schools to remain unless a majority of local eligible parents vote for it to change or grammar school governing bodies decide to change their admission policies to admit children of all abilities. To date, no governing bodies have done this. Before a ballot can be held, 20% of eligible parents in the areas concerned must sign a petition calling for a ballot.

To require all of the 164 grammar schools in England to take children of all abilities would need 48 petitions and ballots.Crucial to the present legislation is the definition of an eligible parent. This differs depending on whether the ballot would be an area or feeder ballot. Area ballots would be needed to end selection in the 10 local authorities defined by the regulations as fully selective (Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Medway, Slough, Southend, Sutton, Torbay, Trafford). Here, all parents living in the area are eligible to sign a petition and ballot, including those with children below school age or those living outside the area but with children in the schools within the local authority. For the 38 ballots in the other 26 English local authorities with grammar schools, only parents who have children in the feeder schools to the grammar schools would be eligible. Feeder schools are those that have sent a total of five or more pupils to the grammar schools in question in the year the signatures are being gathered and the preceding two years.

The only ballot to be held was in Ripon in 2000, where two thirds of eligible parents who took part voted to keep the status quo. This was a feeder ballot. One success was that it showed up the bizarre effect of the feeder school ballot regulations. Private school parents are over-represented in feeder ballots, as many private schools exist to coach pupils to pass the entry tests to grammar schools. In Ripon, private school parents made up a quarter of the electorate, although a parliamentary question at the time revealed that only 4.6% of primary children in North Yorkshire were in private education (Hansard 2000).

In feeder school areas, many local parents, even those sending their children to schools near the grammar schools in question, are ineligible to sign petitions and vote. In Barnet, campaigners trying to collect signatures found that parents of children at a primary school next door to a grammar school were not eligible to sign the petition, as not enough of the children at their school had passed the entry test. The second largest group of the Ripon electorate after private-school parents were parents of children in a school 10 miles away, while some Ripon parents were ineligible.

So the promise in Labour’s 1997 manifesto - "Any changes in the admission policies of grammar schools will be decided by local parents" - has not been fulfilled.What can be done? There are several options that the government might pursue in order to make the present system fairer and more transparent. If ballots have to remain:

• Make all ballots area ballots (remove the option for feeder ballots).

• Reduce the 20% threshold figure to 10%

• Allow people to sign up for petitions electronically (similar to the ePetitions on the Downing Street website)

• Reduce the time period for the collection of signatures for petitions.

Other options that the government might consider include:

• A requirement for governors of selective schools to vote regularly on proposals to end academic selection as a criterion for admission to the school.

• The extension of Para 3.17 of the 2003 school admissions code of practice "Academic selection should never be used to decide entry into primary education" to include entry into secondary education.

• Commission a report that looks into the impact of academic selection on standards and social inclusion.

The time is now right to review the arrangements to allow local people a greater say in the shape of secondary-school provision in their area. One would hope that Ed’s call for a review will be pushing at an open door; after all, there is cross-party agreement that academic selection is a bad thing, isn't there?

Labour party conference: time for a change?

2010-07-28T07:23:00.003+01:00

I know the summer holidays are now upon us but before long Labour party members (along with the Tories and Lib Dems) will be turning their attention to annual conference. The autumn season of party conferences represents a tradition every bit as venerable as that of fish and chips on the pier, Brighton rock and Blackpool tram cars. However there are many – me included – who believe that the party political conference, like the traditional British seaside holiday, is an institution that has seen better days. In fairness I am not suggesting that Labour need do away with its annual conference altogether but I do feel that we can greatly improve on its present format and organisation. One of the main reasons for reforming how, where and when conference is organised is what it ends up costing ordinary members – especially in terms of travel, accommodation and time. Last year a delegate from Scotland told me that she had taken a week’s annual leave to attend her first and (given what it was costing her) probably her last conference. A significant number of delegates I spoke to over the past few years have told me that that they had often been forced to take unpaid leave in order to attend conference as they simply could not get the time off work in any other way. Having a party conference that only takes place on weekdays means that the only people who can easily attend are the people who are paid to, some retired people (I stress ‘some’), people who are independently wealthy - or just fanatics. If we are serious about reforming and renewing as a party then we need to make conference much more accessible for working people and particularly young working people.The party understands that it needs to re-think exactly how it sets about reconnecting with the grass roots of the movement. What the other parties do is up to them but in a time of renewal and reconnection Labour needs to think long and hard about how it organises its traditional annual shindig.

Here are three practical suggestions:

1. Hold conference over a long weekend - this could assist in helping the party to reach out and reconnect with ordinary party members. Holding the conference throughout a working week makes it very difficult for many working people to attend and therefore participate in what is the party’s largest annual event.

2. Move on permanently from hosting conference in traditional seaside resorts like Blackpool, Brighton or Bournemouth. The last annual conference held in Manchester and was viewed by most delegates as a huge success. Why not consider hosting future conferences in cities like Birmingham, Newcastle or Glasgow?

3. Emphasise that we are a ‘British’ party by occasionally holding annual conference in Scotland, Wales or even Northern Ireland.

Or am I being too timid, too conservative in my ideas for change? What do others think

Banning the burqa is an answer to the wrong question

2010-07-14T12:46:00.000+01:00

There is a passage in Mein Kampf where Adolf Hitler describes how, walking through the streets of Vienna he sees a man with black hair locks. Is this a Jew? He asks himself at first before rephrasing the question to: is this a German? The debate about the wearing of the burqa though dressed up in the language of ‘identity’ politics is really just plain, old fashioned ‘ugly’ politics; it is the politics of the gutter. It is clearly as ludicrous for the state to force women to wear the burqa as it is to compel them not to.

Wearing the burqa does create some challenges in a free society. I am strongly of the view that women should be required to show their faces at all border stops and airports for example. It is also perfectly reasonable that any veiled woman pulled over for speeding would be required to raise her veil when presenting her pictured driver's licence. However the creation of a national dress code is wrong. Just because some people may take offence about the way some women dress should not mean we have to prohibit the way they dress. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, is absolutely right when she argues that “political and legislative culture that conflates irritation, offence, alarm and distress promotes a general fear of difference and dissent”.

I am not arguing that we should not question the use of the burqa, far from it. While the burqa has found fervent advocates amongst some of its users, there have been powerful arguments against its proliferation in a progressive, modern world which seeks gender equality. In an age when men and women are perceived as equal, what exactly is the role of the burqa which well and truly wraps the woman in a cloak of invisibility?

Labour should bring back BSF

2010-07-06T08:12:00.000+01:00

Ambition drives success. When launched in February 2004, Building school for the future (BSF) was the largest and most ambitious scheme of its kind anywhere in the world. Its aim was to transform education for some 3.3m pupils aged 11 to 19. BSF was designed to give schools the opportunity to make transformational changes – it was about achieving step change, not incremental change. Thanks to the Tory Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove (abetted by his Lib Dem allies) this opportunity, this ‘once in a generation’ opportunity has now gone. So what should Labour do now? How should it respond to the new education landscape? Simply expressing annoyance can never be enough, ‘raging against the machine’ is an emotion, not a policy or a winning strategy.

Education goes to the heart of what the Labour party stands for, everything we must do to make a Britain a fairer and more equal society. Our record in office these past 13 years is one we can be proud of. However the truth still remains that our education system has always been excellent for a minority - educated at many of the best schools and universities in the world, achieving the highest international standards for the top 10%. The cancellation of BSF which in effect means the denial of 5 star teaching facilities for millions of our young people will only entrench the three-tierism of the past: excellence for a minority, mediocrity for the majority, outright failure at the bottom.

Labour must make the case in opposition that it is no longer enough to simply talk about providing educational opportunities for all; educational achievement must be extended too. Creating an education system that extends opportunity and achievement for all whilst at the same time promoting equity and excellence, this must be Labour’s programme for government in the future. This isn't just a distant aspiration. The unambiguous evidence from our best all-ability schools today is that where aspirations are high and the parental support strong, then the great majority of young people can and do achieve in terms of good GCSEs at 16 and progression to further qualifications beyond, whether vocational or academic. In a successful school, achievement isn't a matter of IQ or social class: it is a matter of teaching, aspiration and hard work, underpinned by a school culture which nurtures all three.

We are confronted by a Tory led coalition that appears, both economically and socially, to believe that more means worse and that success is only valuable if it co-exists with widespread failure. These aren't just abstract principles. They continue to animate the Conservative party in its whole approach to education.

Labour must make the case for radical and progressive change. We can continue in the way the education system has for generations: tolerating the failure of some children because of the achievement of a few; accepting mediocrity for the many as the price of advantage for an elite; even going back to selecting children for failure at 5, 11 or 16. Or we can become a country which believes in every child and expects excellence for all; where the talent of every citizen is nurtured and encouraged, from the earliest years onwards; where no child's education is written off because of who they are or where they're from. Labour was founded on educational opportunity and achievement for all and its commitment to rebuilding or refurbishing our nation’s schools under BSF was ambitious and inspired.

The next Labour government should bring back the programme, though this time it should be less bureaucratic and more focused on improving pedagogy. Our opponents will say that it cannot be afforded but the truth is we can’t afford not to.

In praise of comprehensive schools

2010-06-30T13:18:00.002+01:00

Let’s begin with a little quiz.What do the Today programme presenter Evan Davies, Ed Miliband, his brother and David Miliband, the BBC Business Editor Robert Peston, novelist Zoe Heller and Labour List editor Alex Smith have in common with yours truly? Is it that we are all passionate Manchester United fans? Or is it that we are all ardent Coronation Street watchers? Or how about we all holiday in the south of France? Actually it is none of these. The simple answer is this - we are all products of the comprehensive system of schooling.

Years ago our parents all took the bold decision to become part of the solution, rather than seeking to be part of the problem when they decided to send us to the local state comprehensive school. There is only one factor more powerful than a pupil’s social background as a predictor of her/his future academic performance at sixteen and that is the average social background of other pupils in her/his school. Since comprehensive education was introduced barriers to achievement for many young people have been removed. The annual government statistics of school attainment, examination results, and participation in further and higher education offer clear evidence of a 'levelling-up' over the last 30 years.In some areas of England it is reasonable to regard comprehensive schooling not as a 'failed experiment' but as an experiment that has not yet been tried (Hackney being a good example). In 2009 well over half of all 15-16 year olds in maintained schools in England achieved 5+ 'higher passes' at the end of compulsory schooling. This is the hurdle set in the past for only those attending grammar schools, one which many, even of that selected minority, failed to surmount. In 1970, nearly half of all of pupils left secondary school with no qualifications; in 2009 that figure was down to 2%. In 1971-72 14% of under-21 year olds entered higher education, in 2007-2008 45% entered.Over a third of the age group entering higher education is an aim which would have seemed impossibly ambitious a generation ago. Given that expenditure on education did not increase in real terms between the mid-1970s and the late-1990s this remarkable increase in productivity as measured by qualifications is attributable, in large part to the promotion of the comprehensive system.

I often hear some of my friends and "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and then seek to justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility. It is also the case that because so many of these parents work in the media (or are in government) there is little political mileage in calling for the reform of private schools and more equal access to universities. Those who do have influence, those who have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. The sad truth is that when middle-class parents abandon the comprehensive state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.There are plenty of other talented and successful Evans, Davids, Eds, Robert, Alex and Zoes out there and many of them have their local comprehensive school to thank for helping them achieve what they have.

Why Labour needs Ed Miliband as its next Leader

2010-06-09T14:48:00.003+01:00

The race is on and I will be openly and enthusiastically backing Ed Miliband. Ed's appeal is his message that only collaboration can help make Britain everything that it ought to be - a nation reunited with itself and rededicated to its best ideals. He is a politician that is passionate that government must do things with people, he sees political debate in terms of progress versus conservatism and the world not in terms of right and left, but right and wrong. Ed has long recognised that one of the the main reasons for people being turned off politics is because it (political debate) seems irrelevant to them, they feel that they are being manipulated because they are always being asked to make false choices: you're either staunchly religious or vehemently secular, pro-business or pro-unions, pro-growth or pro-environment, for civil liberties or against them, a progressive or a dinosaur. The truth is, of course, that most people don't think like this, most people don't live their lives in this way, and most people long for a politics where we have genuine arguments, vigorous disagreements, where we don't claim to have a monopoly on what is right or wrong, where we don't demonise our political opponents. Most people want their politicians to engage in what Barack Obama called a "fair-minded" approach to politics; politics that understands that truth and certainty are not the same thing. Some describe this approach as the politics of the common good or perhaps more accurately, the politics of hope.

Ed Miliband espouses a politics that looks for cooperation not competition, the hand up and not just the hand out. Looking at how people have already signed up to support Ed it is clear that many others believe that such sentiments are important - indeed they are worth voting for.

Does religion have a role to play in British politics?

2010-05-25T18:49:00.002+01:00

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.

Compulsory voting?

2010-05-19T09:35:00.002+01:00

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?

Labour's future

2010-05-18T23:20:00.001+01:00

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.

Ed Miliband for Labour Leader

2010-05-17T20:07:00.002+01:00

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.

Why I believe Ed Miliband should be the next Leader of the Labour Party

2010-05-15T10:08:00.004+01:00

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.

At our best when at our boldest?

2010-05-11T10:51:00.004+01:00

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.

Is this how Clegg will be remembered?

2010-05-10T09:19:00.003+01:00

Is this how Clegg wants to be remembered? Don't do it Nick!

If Clegg sides with Cameron he will turn the Lib Dems into political eunuchs

2010-05-09T11:18:00.004+01:00

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.

God bless UKIP!

2010-05-08T17:19:00.003+01:00

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

Don't do it Nick!

2010-05-08T16:38:00.001+01:00

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.

So what next?

2010-05-07T15:39:00.002+01:00

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?

VOTE today and VOTE LABOUR

2010-05-06T11:12:00.002+01:00

Should Labour voters vote Lib Dem where Labour is in third place?

2010-05-03T20:48:00.002+01:00

According to Ed Balls in Lib Dem-Conservative marginals Labour voters should consider voting for Liberal Democrats. Is he right? Can it work?

Why Labour must learn from 'Duffygate'

2010-04-29T09:32:00.002+01:00

Mrs Duffy is no bigot. However what her comments yesterday to the Prime Minister show is that it's time to address the underlying reasons why many traditional Labour supporters sometimes take refuge in the language, attitudes and policies of the far right. The increase in levels of support for the BNP raises all sorts of questions about how progressive politics deals with the rise of the far right in Britain. In the past Gordon Brown has argued that we need to do whatever we can to tackle xenophobia and racial hatred from wherever it surfaces. Perhaps if his defence yesterday had been along these lines he may have been able to salvage something from what was, as he rightly stated, a ‘disaster.’

What Mrs Duffy wanted was for the Prime Minister to stop simply talking about the symptoms of dissatisfaction and address some of the underlying causes that have resulted in traditional Labour supporters taking refuge in the policies of the far right. Parties like the BNP are often successful in so-called "forgotten" white areas where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. The BNP often finds support in a context of significant social problems: high unemployment, deprivation, lack of educational achievement, high crime rates, drugs, and people of different ethnic backgrounds living apparently separate lives. This encourages the growth of myths and rumour that people like Mrs Duffy eventually believes to be fact. BNP tactics focus on using this information to target people who traditionally have voted Labour and in many cases feel neglected by this government. Many of these people feel that they have only two places they can go. One is not to vote, the other is to vote for the far right. I think it is true to argue that all too often there is a lack of what might be described as a "safe space" for ordinary working people to air their feelings. People like Mrs Duffy often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being thought of or even accused of being a racist or indeed a bigot.

Addressing some of the genuine concerns of white working-class voters while at the same time openly challenging those concerns that have no factual or legitimate basis should be part of the core agenda of any centre-left progressive party. Instead of insulting life-long Labour supporters Brown should more openly take on the bigots and the bullies of the far right who exploit the genuine fears and anxieties of the Mrs Duffys of this world.

In praise of Jon Cruddas

2010-04-27T21:40:00.003+01:00

'Ethical socialism' - I like the sound of this. On a long train journey home this evening I read this excellent piece in today's Times about Jon Cruddas. This piece in particular caught my eye:

'Mr Cruddas thinks of himself as an ethical socialist who trusts the people and contrasts himself with the state centralisers in his party. If the Labour Party enters a discussion about its future, Mr Cruddas’s voice will be needed in that throng.'

I for one am keen to hear more from the excellent Mr Cruddas.

Labour must add the future of Trident to the next Strategic Defence Review

2010-04-21T08:08:00.003+01:00

One of the most interesting aspects of last week’s Leaders’ debate was the discussion about the need for the renewal of Trident. Both Cameron and Brown put the case for renewal with only Clegg prepared to argue against. I cannot help but believe that Labour should think again about its support for the renewal of Trident and that, as argued last week by CND Chair Kate Hudson, the scrapping of Trident could end up being a vote winner and not a vote loser. Today several former Generals have expressed their 'deep concern' about the need foe a Trident replacement with Lord Gutherie stating that a cheaper option to Trident should be considered, particularly as Britain strives for a world without nuclear weapons.

In the eighties and nineties, when the Polaris and its successor the Trident nuclear strategic defence system was brought into operation, its purpose was unambiguous. The missiles were targeted against the principal cities of the USSR, in order to deter an attack through the threat of an overwhelming response. It is probably the case that the balance of MAD (mutually assured destruction) did indeed prevent the cold war between the western and eastern blocs from breaking out into open warfare. However, the world has changed. In June 2006 the House of Commons Defence Select Committee published its report 'The Future of the UK’s Strategic Nuclear Deterrent'. It pointed out that deterrence against potential aggression might take various forms: economic, diplomatic, or through conventional forces. "The UK will need to examine whether the concept of nuclear deterrence remains useful in the current strategic environment." (para.55). The Ministry of Defence refused to take part in the proceedings of the Select Committee, and the report stated "We believe that it is essential that, before making any decisions on the future of the strategic nuclear deterrent, the MOD should explain its understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence." (para.56).While the claim is that Britain must have its own independent deterrent, the truth is that as long as the UK uses Trident missiles as the delivery vehicle for its warheads, the system is hardly independent. The 2006 Defence Committee report distinguished between independence of acquisition and independence of operation (para.84). Britain does not have independence of acquisition and it is not clear whether we possess operational independence or not. The truth is renewing Trident will be massively expensive and militarily pointless as it will not deter terrorists or nuclear blackmailers and will make it far harder for Britain to encourage nuclear disarmament around the globe.

What about the politics of all this - would a nuclear disarmament policy be politically damaging to Labour? A poll last year clearly showed – by a margin of 58 to 35 per cent - that the public wants Britain to scrap the Trident nuclear missile system. Such a policy would not necessarily lead to a charge of being soft on defence, since a significant proportion of the saved resource could and should be devoted on enhanced expenditure on conventional forces serving in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

In my view, be it on military, political, economic, legal or ethical grounds, the case for the renewal of Trident lacks credibility. Labour - my party - should think again.

The wheels are coming off the Tory bicycle

2010-04-20T08:27:00.004+01:00

April 15th 2010 could well go down in political history as the date when the wheels started to come off the Tory bicycle. They must be tearing their hair out at CCHQ. It was all going so well: ahead in the polls, a government in apparent disarray and a public seemingly desperate for change. Then came their leader's big chance to shine, the TV debates would surely give the ex-PR man a fantastic opportunity to further outshine the Prime Minister and that other leader, you know 'whatshisname', Clegg. Oops! What has happened these past few weeks is that the public has begun to see that the Cameron led Tory party lacks substance, coherence and conviction.

At the dinner held to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister, Michael Howard (then leader of the Tory Party) stated: "What you stood for then, we stand for now." Would David Cameron have delivered the same line? I doubt it. Since hie election as leader Cameron has tried to portray himself as ‘new Tory’ not ‘old Tory’ as the ‘heir to Blair’ and not the ‘son of Thatcher.’ The difficulty is that he leads a party that is dominated by members who joined under Thatcher’s leadership, a membership that does not want to move to the centre ground of British politics. It almost makes you feel sorry for Cameron – few people can lead a political party which obstinately refuses to be led. The other major problem for Cameron is the fact that too many of his front bench come from privileged, wealthy backgrounds. For many of the the Eton educated Tory 'toffs' politics is a bit of hobby, something to do in conjunction with few non-executive directorships. The Tory commentator, Tim Montgomerie hit the nail on the head when (writing for the Guardian) he suggested that:"Too many of David Cameron's frontbenchers are part-timers. It was recently revealed that they hold 115 outside interests between them. They appear to lack the hunger to win that characterised Labour in the 1990s. Senior journalists complain that they hardly receive any calls from Conservative HQ but are constantly briefed by Team Brown." Contrast 'Team Cameron' with the likes of 'barrow boy' Tories like Heath, Thatcher and even David Davis. Could people like George Osborne or Oliver Letwin ever really have a 'bare knuckled fight' with anyone? Would they have the bottle - or even the desire? I think not.

If, as seems increasingly likely, Cameron loses the election on May 6th I think it highly probable that the Tory party will end up tearing itself apart and that we will witness the formation of a new centre-right party (led possibly by Cameron or Nick Herbert) leaving the 'traditional' Conservatives (led by David Davis) to plough a Thatcherite furrow that will eventually lead to electoral oblivion.

Was Blair right: is the era of tribal political leadership over?

2010-04-18T21:52:00.003+01:00

Back in 2006 Tony Blair argued that the era of tribal political leadership was over in Britain and that "rampant cross-dressing" on policy was set to become a permanent feature of modern British politics. Blair was of the view that basic values, attitudes to the positive role of government and social objectives still divided along traditional party lines, but suggested that policy cross-dressing was rampant and would prove to be a feature of modern politics. Blair even stated that the "era of tribal political leadership is over. He went to state that: "Across a range of issues, there is no longer a neat filing of policy to the left or the right."

After a tumultuous week in British politics could it be that Blair was right all along? Is the era of political 'cross-dressing' a good thing for political in this country?

What do you think?

Labour's 'preferential option' for the poor.

2010-04-17T12:40:00.002+01:00

Gordon Brown is right to portray the modern Tory party as right wing wolves in sheep's clothing. David Cameron has succeeded in modernising his party - back to the age of Thatcher. Since the advent of new Labour taking sides has been a rather unfashionable political stance. For many people the past few years has seen Labour, as a party of principle, disappearing into the soggy centre ground. Labour ministers have become administrators and technocrats - competent but uninspiring. In the next few weeks Labour needs to set out some of the key themes that a fourth term Labour government would set as priorities. I believe that one of those themes should be about the need for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor.

In today's modern world 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. Gordon Brown is well placed both at home and internationally to advance a new politics of liberation, a politics that offers hope. This is 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, time for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. It is time to take sides and end the political cross-dressing of the 1990s.

Labour campaign leaders need to use the last few weeks to articulate who we are as a party, who we were historically and what we want to become in the future. In doing so we should make clear that we can abandon certain parts of the middle ground and win but we can never, ever abandon the poor.

Why the Tories don't want to talk about class

2010-04-14T11:00:00.002+01:00

So the Tories are losing the ‘battle’ over class. Apparently over a third of voters see the Conservatives as the party of the upper classes. So whatt I hear you cry, class matter anymore, or does it? Back in 2008 Labour’s shambolic 'Tory toff' campaign prompted a plethora of articles and comment about whether class was still a major issue in British politics. The truth is that Britain remains a nation that is still dominated by class division. A couple of years ago in an ICM poll for the Guardian 89% of those surveyed thought that people are still judged by their class - with almost half saying that it still counts for "a lot". Over 50% of people said that class, not ability, greatly affects the way they are seen. Despite more than a decade of Labour in power social mobility in Britain has decreased, in fact the British middle classes are operating what is, in effect, a closed shop. For example our top universities are still, in the main, the preserve of a rich, well-connected elite. You may well remember the furore a few years ago when Bristol University was accused of gross discrimination and unfairness - spurred on by several influential columnists and leader writers - for introducing a 'fairer' criterion for admissions that would benefit pupils from poorer backgrounds. Often the real reasons why many left leaning journalists and politicians end up sending their sons and daughters to fee-paying schools are not based on the raw results of the local state schools but on a desire to ensure that their child has access to what the local comprehensive cannot provide: privilege, advantage and the opportunity to network. British public schools have always been a production line of the class system. They employ some of the best-qualified teachers, can raise their fees steadily, select their pupils, enjoy a growing endowment income from their benefactors and offer some of the most impressive sporting and extracurricular activities in the country. What's more they now recruit from a middle-class obsessed by perceived educational and social advantage. Parents who are willing to take the bold decision to become part of the problem, rather than seeking to be part of the solution. I often hear some of my friends and fellow "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility.

Sometimes I cannot help but feel that the perpetuation of class divisions in Britain really is part of a 'liberal conspiracy.' It seems clear to me that those who do have influence, those who really do have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order that they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. It must surely be true for example that when middle-class parents abandon the state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.Suspicion of the wealthy, the privileged and of the 'upper classes' is hardwired into the DNA of those who espouse left-leaning ideas and policies. Why? Because most believe that the inevitable consequence of a politics that espouses equity and fairness is that it will give comfort to the afflicted and end up afflicting the comfortable. For example the majority of ordinary people watch on in disbelief when Bankers attempt to paint themselves as noble and public spirited by limiting their annual bonus to ‘only’ a million pounds.

What people want, demand almost, is that the ‘super rich’ should pay more and that those that got us into this mess should shoulder the responsibility for getting us out of it. The subtext behind the polling is that many people associate class with wealth and see the Tories as the party of the rich, the party that will help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

In the final few weeks of the campaign Labour will seek to portray the Tories as the party of the elite, a party that is out of touch with High St Britain, out of touch with the needs and aspirations of hard working families on low or moderate incomes. Is this class war? No, just an end to the political cross-dressing that has for too long blurred the political landscape.

Tory manifesto launch

2010-04-13T08:09:00.002+01:00

Tory manifesto: An invitation to join the government of Britain: White tie only. Only married couples need apply. Fox hunters fast tracked.

What do Battersea Power Station and the modern Tory party have in common?

2010-04-12T20:38:00.009+01:00

DAVID CAMERON once said that he sometimes feels like shaking Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister need not be too worried, since the Tory leader should be more concerned by his own involuntary quivering. In fact, he has not stopped wobbling for months. In fairness, Cameron’s task is a monumental one. He leads a party desperate for power. Since his election as Tory leader in 2005 (yes, it really was that long ago), he has set out to show he is a winner, that he can modernise his party and restore it to its position as the natural party of government. However, he is now having to come to terms with the fact that initiating and instituting change is a long, slow and often bloody process.

Recent events suggest Cameron may be less the Tory heir to Tony Blair and more like the Conservatives’ equivalent of Neil Kinnock. And that is an unfair comparison. Kinnock ended up helping to make Labour electable again. He was willing to take tough decisions and displayed genuine real leadership in the face of huge and often very hostile opposition. It is easy to forget that the enormous and necessary task of ditching some of the most unpopular Labour policies of the 1980s was carried out, not by Blair and Brown, but by Kinnock. It was Kinnock who first challenged Labour to dump policies and commitments that had helped to create the image of a party soft on crime and addicted to the imposition of punitive taxes.

Cameron regards himself as a politician of the digital age, a bold leader unafraid of taking risks. However, most of the changes he has made to his party have been cosmetic (a new headquarters and a new logo) or short-lived (the “A” list of candidates). Cameron’s Conservatives are made up of the “right kind of people” – his people: privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their own particular political, economic and social outlook. In 2007, Cameron told his party’s spring conference that it needed to change and the changes needed to be “faster, wider and deeper”. Nearly three years later, change in the Tory Party looks to be slower, narrower and shallower.

Tomorrow the Tories will launch their election manifesto at Battersea Power Station -an impressive structure from the outside but hollow and empty within. When I heard that the Tories have chosen this setting I was reminded of the words of the former Conservative (now Labour) MP Quentin Davies who, in his letter to Cameron outlining his reasons for leaving the Tories to join Labour, Davies wrote: “Under your leadership, the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda.”

For-profit schools: is this really what progressive Tory education policy looks like?

2010-04-12T10:41:00.006+01:00

Can you run a school for a profit? The Tories seem to think so, well they would, wouldn't they. What is clear is that in the US the for-profit Charter schools have been a huge disaster for the children in the cities where they were imposed. In 1997 the US Congress passed the Charter schools act pushing local school districts to let private enterprise take over or create schools.
The justification for this was that the competition of "market pressures" would force these schools and the public schools to perform and deliver a quality product. The track record has shown otherwise. For example in Michigan 75% of Charter schools are run by for-profit companies. These schools are paid with public education funds, but they are not controlled by the public. Because these schools are run by private companies, they don't have to reveal how they have used their money, or how much profit they have made. As far as the communities are concerned, the schools are just big holes that the money gets poured into. Companies like Edison find many ways to make their profits. Schools are set up shop in abandoned premises like supermarkets or large office complexes or old school buildings. These buildings are often owned or leased by a management company that is owned by the for-profit Charter school company. The charter school, run by the same company, gets state education money for each student – $8,000 in Michigan. The school then pays the management company hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in rent. The educational quality in most cases is worse than in the public schools, for example students at the Charter schools around the Detroit area have scored lower than Detroit public school students on the Michigan statewide test.

How could it be otherwise? The profit taken out of these schools is money NOT spent on the education of students. So for-profit schools end up having a high number of unqualified teachers; a high turnover rate, with sometimes several teachers teaching the same class in a school year; and even classes taught by a string of temporary service employees. It was recently confirmed that in the ten schools run by one company, Charter School Administrative Services, 62% of teachers were unqualified. This is a private company that received over $40 million from the state of Michigan in 2008. This is money that did not go to the public schools. And that's just one company, running ten schools. There are over 200 charter schools in the state of Michigan alone.

Eeven more worryingly a recent report from the Civil Rights Project at UCLA found that nearly 80% of Michigan’s black Charter school students attend intensely segregated minority schools. Why does this matter? Research shows that attending racially diverse schools significantly improves students’ academic achievement, graduation and college attendance rates. In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1) held that, along with achieving diversity, reducing racial isolation of students of colour in schools is a compelling state interest. Yet black and Latino students attending Charter schools are more often typically in schools where 90% or more students are non-white than are their counterparts in traditional public schools.

Some years ago Lehman Brothers (remember them) issued a report in which it said, "the education industry may replace health care ... as THE focus industry." In the US that's exactly what for-profit Charter schools are: private industry taking over public education, squeezing out all the profit they can – and leaving children with an even worse education. Do we really want such institutions setting up here in the UK? Is this really what progressive Tory education policy looks like?

Possibly the best political advert ever

2010-04-03T15:39:00.001+01:00

I saw this a few years ago - it really is excellent.

Stoke Central: Why I believe Mark Seddon is wrong.

2010-04-03T11:03:00.000+01:00

Mark Seddon is a man I respect and admire but his piece in yesterday's Guardian about the selection of Labour's candidate for Stoke Central is unhelpful, distracting and, in my view, just plain wrong. Like Mark, I too put my name forward to be Labour’s candidate for Stoke and like him I was unsuccessful. I was born only a few miles away from the city, have written various pieces about the politics of the city in the past few years and have been a PPC for the marginal seat (Shrewsbury) in 2005. I was hopeful of making the shortlist and disappointed when informed that I would be taken through to the final stages. Do I believe that the shortlist was probably ‘engineered’ to ensure that Tristram Hunt won the nomination? Yes, I do. Does this annoy, frustrate and disappoint me? A little bit. Do I think this the fault of Tristram Hunt? No, I do not. Do I think Tristram will make an excellent constituency MP? Absolutely.

The thrust of Mark’s article is that Labour’s selection of Tristram Hunt has made a BNP victory in Stoke more, not less likely. The truth is that Hunt’s selection will make little, if any difference to the result in May. We have known for months that the BNP has been busy exploiting the present economic crisis. Last year in an article for Tribune (once edited by Mark Seddon) I suggested that one reason for the BNP's growing support in areas like Stoke has been its ability to respond to and exploit genuine local grievances. Since then we have had the debacle of MP expense claims, which will only end up exacerbating people's distrust of the political establishment and could help turn even more people toward the far right. What I found most disappointing about Mark’s piece was that it offered no route map as to how the many decent, hard working Labour members and supporters in Stoke might fight back and counter the depressing, hateful and bigoted message that the BNP is set on spreading. The people of the Stoke have a fine and distinguished record in promoting and defending equality (it is the birthplace of Hugh Bourne the 19th century campaigner for education for children and for treating women as equals). Labour’s tactic of simply talking about how it recognises the various symptoms of dissatisfaction is not enough. As a political movement the left needs to address some of the underlying causes that have resulted in traditional Labour supporters taking refuge in the policies of the far right. Mark is right when he argues that the BNP is often successful in so-called “forgotten” white areas where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them.

A well used BNP tactic is to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour but now feel neglected by this government. Many of these people feel that they have only two places they can go. One is not to vote, the other is to vote for the far right. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a “safe space” for ordinary working people to air their feelings - they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being thought of or even accused of being a racist. In the likes of Stoke the BNP is developing a network of supporters who are now openly willing to admit to not only voting for a racist and bigoted political party, but are doing so with pride and patriotic fervour. Too many Labour MPs have been too quiet on the issue of the BNP, Gordon Brown included. Brown would send out a powerful message to his party’s core supporters if he were to personally throw his weight behind a call for a new “coalition of the willing” that will help to blunt the advance of the far-right in this country by addressing some of the genuine concerns of white working-class voters while at the same time openly challenging those concerns that have no factual or legitimate basis.

Stoke is just the sort of place where local people want to be treated - and want their neighbours to be treated - fairly. They don't want favours and they don't want special treatment. Mark Seddon is a decent, thoughtful and able individual. I would personally like to see him in parliament one day and am confident that he will continue to make a significant contribution to the debate that surrounds the future direction of left of centre progressive politics. He, like me, knows that the majority of people of Stoke hate what the BNP stands for and would just love to get back to voting for Labour out of conviction and not simply out of convention.

Our efforts in the coming weeks should be directed towards securing the fourth term for Labour, at this stage all else will appear more than a little self indulgent.

Labour is working

2010-03-26T12:33:00.002Z

The bar chart above makes for sobering reading. Basically it indicates that the richest households in Britain are around £25,000 a year worse off as a result of changes to the tax and benefits system introduced by Labour since 1997. This is in contrasts with the so called “working poor” who are now better off by almost £1,700 per annum.

Hat tip to LFF

So Labour is working after all!

Stoke Central

2010-03-20T00:00:00.003Z

I have decided to put my name forward for Stoke Central... will post more if shortlisted (the deadline for the submission of CVs is next Tuesday, March 23rd).

Should all Labour PPCs commit to an 'ethics' pledge?

2010-03-12T20:20:00.003Z

As the next election date fast approaches and Labour candidates are busy printing off leaflets and generally getting ready to do battle we need to ensure that we give some thought to how best we can set about using the election to restore trust and confidence in 'the system' after the events of the past year. One idea is for Labour PPCs to pledge to stick by an ethical and operational code of conduct which she/he would then be compelled to self-evaluate against at least yearly and before local people are given the opportunity to scrutinise his/her actions via an annual constituency meeting where the MP would report back on his/her work.

For example Labour PPCs might commit to:

Monthly on-line publication of all expenses and allowance claims.
No paid or unpaid employment outside of their full-time position of being an MP.
Responding to all enquiries from constituents within a specified period - say 5 working days?
Holding monthly surgeries (I am still amazed that some MPs do not do this)

What have I missed?

MP bloggers talk but don’t listen

2010-03-10T15:49:00.000Z

Some recent research by the Hansard Society has found that although 83% of MPs have a personal website, only 11% of them blog, less than one in four use social networking sites and that the typical ‘digital MP’ uses his or her presence on the web as a ‘digital newsletter’ rather than as a tool to enhance engagement or democratic participation. The report concludes that 'new media' remains an "untapped area" for political engagement in the UK.

Like the iPod, having your own blog is fast becoming a status symbol. It is therefore no surprise that politicians are getting wise to the potential of the blog as a means of engaging with the electorate in a fast and efficient manner. As the Hansard report points out, the problem is that most MP bloggers see the internet as a means of communicating 'their message' rather than a means of engaging with voters about local, regional, national or international issues. It is no surprise that political blogging has become immensely popular in the UK over the past couple of years. Labour List and ConservativeHome are both well established and are beginning to provide a much needed platform for a vibrant and passionate grassroots debate about the future direction of both parties. Blogs take the media out of the hands of the corporate world and put it into the hands of anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Some of the popular ‘tabloid’ blogs like Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale's Diary receive hundreds of thousands of hits each month and are proving to be influential in setting the news agenda ahead of the printed and broadcast media. But all politics is local politics and those candidates and elected representatives who understand this and establish blogs that invite local people to engage in the local issues are beginning to understand the power of the 'new media' in modern campaigning.

What the last US presidential election showed - and the Obama team ruthlessly exploited - is that modern politics and government are changing in a fundamental way. Politicians need to become more transparent, more open in their dealings with the electorate. Interactive sites and tools like Twitter and Facebook, are ways of achieving the greater transparency and openness that a weary post-expenses scandal public not only wants but demands. People all over the world are embracing new technology and unless politicians do the same they risk losing a vital link with the people they are trying to reach, represent and govern.

'Catch phrase' politics is no substitutre for policies and substance

2010-02-28T18:29:00.001Z

According to David Cameron it is his “patriotic duty” to remove Gordon Brown from office. Does this mean that anyone who votes Labour at the next election is being unpatriotic? It is Mr Cameron’s pursuit of silly, ‘catch phrase’ politics that puts so many people off voting for him. His tactics these past months has been to go after Mr Brown’s character, to play the man and not the ball. Pleasingly it appears that it is a tactic that is failing and therein lies the Tory party’s main problem - they are obsessed with tactics and have no real strategy.

Cameron leads a party that is desperate for power. Since his election as leader in 2005 he and his team have set out to portray him as a winner, someone who can change the party and restore it to its position as the natural party of government. What Cameron is now grasping, however, is that leading change is a long, slow and often bloody process. The events of the past few months would suggest that rather than the "heir to Blair", Cameron is in danger (as once suggested by Andrew Rawnsley) of going down as the Tories' Neil Kinnock. In many ways this is a grossly unfair comparison. In the end, Kinnock ended up helping make Labour electable. He was willing to take some really tough decisions and showed real leadership in the face of huge and often hostile opposition. It is easy to forget that the enormous task of ditching some of the most unpopular Labour policies of the 1980s was carried out, not by Blair and Brown, but by Kinnock. It was Kinnock who first challenged the party to dump policies and commitments that had helped to create an image of a Labour party that was soft on crime and addicted to the imposition of punitive taxes.

In contrast Cameron's reforms have been primarily cosmetic (a new HQ, a new party logo) and short-lived (the party's "A" list of candidates). In recent weeks more and more local Conservative associations have expressed concern and dismay at the apparent arrogance and conceit of CCHQ. Why? The main reason is that Cameron's Conservatives are dominated by a small elite group - privately educated 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 those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. In 2006 Cameron told his party's spring conference that it needed to change and that the changes needed to be "faster, wider and deeper". Four years later and change in the Tory party looks to be slow, narrow and shallow.

Today, the words of former Tory (now Labour) MP Quentin Davies take on a new resonance. In his letter to Cameron outlining his reasons for leaving the Conservative party and join Labour, he wrote: "Under your leadership the Conservative party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda." How long before the Tory "big beasts" and rightwing press begin to turn on him, how long before Cameron is forced to retreat towards having to peddle past Tory agendas? How long before another Tory leader who started out saying his aim was to recapture the centre ground of British politics, is yet again forced (by his own reactionary right wing) to move to the right in an attempt to hang on to the Tory core vote? My guess? Not long at all.

Labour should make a preferential option for the poor.

2010-02-19T08:40:00.003Z

Today Gordon Brown will seek to portray the modern Tory party as right wing wolves in sheep's clothing. He will argue that David Cameron has succeeded in modernising his party - back to the age of Thatcher. Brown's speech is important. Since the advent of new Labour taking sides has been a rather unfashionable political stance. For many people the past few years has seen Labour, as a party of principle, disappearing into the soggy centre ground. Labour ministers have become administrators and technocrtas - competent but uninspiring.

Tomorrow the Prime Minister will set out some of the key themes that he wants his party and the nation to focus on in the run up to the general election. I believe that one of those themes should be about the need for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. In today's modern world 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. Gordon Brown is well placed both at home and internationally to advance a new politics of liberation, a politics that offers hope. This is 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 option for the poor. It is time to take sides and end the political cross-dressing of the 1990s. As a political party it is time to be clear about who we are, who we were and what we want to become.

Animal welfare and the Tories - now there's an oxymoron

2010-02-18T09:13:00.004Z

Hilary Benn's excellent piece for the Guardian's CiF on the Tory proposals to repeal the hunting ban is well worth a read. My favourite line is:

'The Conservatives' ironically named "animal welfare spokesperson" said recently that bringing back hunting with dogs will be something that a Tory government would do soon after the election – with a government bill, in government time.'

Animal welfare and the Tories, surely this is an oxymoron of the modern age.

Irish Bishops are failing the people of Ireland

2010-02-17T09:29:00.001Z

“Unprecedented”, “historic” and “unique”, this is how the recent meetings to discuss the scandal of clerical sex abuse the between the Irish bishops and Pope Benedict were described by the Vatican. It is interesting, though perhaps not totally unexpected, that the words useful and productive do not appear in the official statement. In reality the talks were at best missed opportunity and at worst a mere public relations exercise.

The Pope met the Bishops but refused to meet any of the victims of sex abuse in person. Not one of the 24 Irish bishops felt it important to ask the Pope about the Vatican’s role in the mishandling of clerical child sex abuse in Ireland or about the lack of co-operation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the papal nunciature (Vatican ambassador) in Dublin with the Murphy commission. None of the Irish bishops asked his holiness whether it was right and proper for his ambassador to Ireland, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, to refuse to appear before the Irish parliament’s committee on foreign affairs.

The recent Murphy Commission into clerical sex abuse in Ireland has highlighted the ongoing erosion of trust between the laity and the ordained. Trust is a social practice. Humans are social beings who swim in an ocean of trust. What happens when this ocean begins to drain away is that we become sceptical, often cynical and perhaps even a little paranoid. Some of the more disturbing findings of the Murphy Commission relate to the systematic attempts by numerous Irish bishops to control information, prevent public disclosure and silence dissent. Some of the most heart-wrenching testimonies from abuse victims are their reports of having nowhere to turn when their priest was part of the problem and of their attempts to engage others within the church that were ignored or rebuffed. Similarly, the laity has no formal recourse when their pastors are insensitive or incompetent. What has been become crystal clear in recent years is that many of the mistakes and cover-ups, involving the abuse of children by priests, have been made by bishops. Yesterday’s missed opportunity in Rome indicates that the Irish bishops are unwilling or incapable of acting swiftly and decisively.

The problem is that those who want to do something to help to move things on, namely the laity and some clergy, have no real vehicle for doing so. Despite the long-ingrained tendency of lay men and women to defer to the hierarchy, lay people have both the right and the responsibility to make their voices heard. Many of them are now tragically aware of the consequences that follow from the concentration and misuse of power and lay deference to hierarchical authority.

Twitter can make us look like Twits

2010-02-16T14:22:00.003Z

I know, like and have a lot of time for Dave Wright. He and I were local councillors on Telford & Wrekin Council back in the late 1990s - he is decent, hard working and committed. His recent Twitter comment (which he has stated was tampered with by an unknown hacker) has caused a good deal of fuss. I personally believe that calling your opponents names simply reaffirms the views of the general public that politicians are over-grown school children. On this note I have to declare that - with some justification I feel - I have not been averse in the past to a bit of name calling as I once, on this blog, described the Tory MP for Shrewsbury as a gutless coward!

David has, quite rightly, apologised and I hope now we, he and the public in general can get back to debating and discussing real issues.

My talented younger daughter

2010-02-16T14:16:00.002Z

I have two daughters, both beautiful and both very talented. My youngest, Catherine, has her own showreel - see what you think.

The Progressive Education Network

2010-02-12T13:12:00.003Z

According to its own website the Progressive Education Network aims to engage with and challenge policy makers of every political hue by bringing the voice of experience and the wisdom of leading education professionals and school leaders to the debate.

Sounds interesting.

Compulsory voting?

2010-02-11T13:23:00.002Z

Following on from the debate about voting reform perhaps now is also the time to begin a wider consultation with the country regarding compulsory voting. In fairness the term 'compulsory voting' is a bit of a misnomer, what we are really talking about is the compulsory casting of ballots - pedantic I know but it is important nonetheless.

Personally I am quite attracted by the idea, 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?

What do you think?

Flying the comprehensive flag

2010-02-10T17:19:00.002Z

Let’s begin with a little quiz.What do the Today programme presenter Evan Davies, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, his brother and fellow government minister Ed Miliband, the novelist Zoe Heller and Labour List editor Alex Smith have in common with yours truly? Is it that we are all passionate Manchester United fans? Or is it that we are all ardent Coronation Street watchers? Or how about we all holiday in Aberdovey? Actually it is none of these. The simple answer is this - we are all products of the comprehensive system of schooling.

Years ago our parents all took the bold decision to become part of the solution, rather than seeking to be part of the problem when they decided to send us to the local state comprehensive school. There is only one factor more powerful than a pupil’s social background as a predictor of her/his future academic performance at sixteen and that is the average social background of other pupils in her/his school. Since comprehensive education was introduced barriers to achievement for many young people have been removed. The annual government statistics of school attainment, examination results, and participation in further and higher education offer clear evidence of a 'levelling-up' over the last 30 years.In some areas of England it is reasonable to regard comprehensive schooling not as a 'failed experiment' but as an experiment that has not yet been tried (Hackney being a good example). In 2009 well over half of all 15-16 year olds in maintained schools in England achieved 5+ 'higher passes' at the end of compulsory schooling. This is the hurdle set in the past for only those attending grammar schools, one which many, even of that selected minority, failed to surmount. In 1970, nearly half of all of pupils left secondary school with no qualifications; in 2009 that figure was down to 2%. In 1971-72 14% of under-21 year olds entered higher education, in 2007-2008 45% entered.

Over a third of the age group entering higher education is an aim which would have seemed impossibly ambitious a generation ago. Given that expenditure on education did not increase in real terms between the mid-1970s and the late-1990s this remarkable increase in productivity as measured by qualifications is attributable, in large part to the promotion of the comprehensive system.

I often hear some of my friends and "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and then seek to justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility. It is also the case that because so many of these parents work in the media (or are in government) there is little political mileage in calling for the reform of private schools and more equal access to universities. Those who do have influence, those who have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. The sad truth is that when middle-class parents abandon the comprehensive state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.

There are plenty of other talented and successful Evans, Davids, Eds, Alex and Zoes out there and many of them have their local comprehensive school to thank for helping them achieve what they have.

Robin Hood is good

2010-02-10T10:56:00.001Z

Today I signed up to the new campaign for a 'Robin Hood Tax.' The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on bankers that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad. By taking an average of 0.05% from speculative banking transactions, hundreds of billions of pounds would be raised every year. That’s easily enough to stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK, and to help fight global poverty and climate change. Because of the financial crisis, frontline services at home – like the NHS and our schools – are under fire. At the same time, poor communities and the environment are being hit hard – as aid and green budgets are slashed by rich countries.

So it’s time for the people who caused this mess to pay to clean it up. This isn’t some crazy pipedream. It’s a simple and brilliant idea which transcends party politics and which – with your support – can become a reality. If you are interested then click on the link below, watch the quick video featuring Bill Nighy and then enter your details (name and email) and show your support. To show your support for the Robin Hood tax simply click here.

Students for rent?

2010-02-10T08:22:00.003Z

Who were they? No one at UEL seems to recognise any of them. Does Dave have his own set of student groupies or were they hired for help?

Cameron's Common People

2010-02-09T21:27:00.002Z

I think this is rather funny... doubt many Tories will

Ashcroft, cash for constituencies and the Tory party

2010-02-09T20:58:00.001Z

Sooner or later the Tories are going to have to deal with the 'Ashcroft' issue. The main issues appear to be:

1. There is still no clarity with regards to the the status of Lord Ashcroft as a UK tax-paying resident fully domiciled.
2. Ashcroft's entry into the Lords was made at the request of William Hague when the latter was Leader of the Conservative Party. The then Chairman of the Honours Committee, Lord Thomson, asked the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) to clarify the then Mr Ashcroft’s residence and tax status. When he was made a peer, Downing Street (not Lord Ashcroft) issued a statement in March 2000 stating that ‘Michael Ashcroft has given a clear and unequivocal assurance that he will take up permanent residence in the UK before the end of the calendar year.’ Nine years later and we still do not know if he is domiciled in the UK in the full tax-paying sense.
3. In 2000 One of Lord Ashcroft's predecessors as Tory party treasurer, Lord McAlpine of West Green, said that it would be "outrageous and wrong" for him to receive a peerage.
4. In 2005 Ashcroft used his own private money (supported by fellow businessmen Lord Leonard Steinberg and Bob Edmiston)to support Tory candidates in key seats. This was separate from the party's official campaign. All in all Ashcroft and his colleagues spent £1 million in 93 constituencies.

There have been all kinds of stories and allegations against Ashcroft over the years and Cameron can ill afford for more and more questions to remain unanswered. Same old Tories?

Should Labour voters vote Lib Dem where Labour is in third place?
	Yes
	No

Free polls from Pollhost.com