Congratulations to Willie Bain, Labour's new MP for Glasgow North East.
As with defeat, there are important lessons to be learned from victories - and this was an expected, though reassuring, success.
Labour devised and stuck to a strong strategy in Glasgow. With a local candidate and a lively grassroots campaign, it played to Willie Bain's strengths - and the party's. It was built around Willie's personal narrative and won through comfortably in the end.
Glasgow's was a much better campaign than the one in Norwich North, where much of the message was anti-Tory and top-down; this was a campaign much more based on local issues and local people.
The result was that, in continued difficult circumstances nationally - and in spite of early fear that this could be another swing away from Labour of Glasgow East proportions - Labour held one of its safer seats with a majority of 8,111 and nearly 60% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Tories were unable to make any ground in Scotland.
But there are worrying signs, too. Turnout was just 33%, low even for a by-election, and the lowest turnout in Scottish by-election history. If Labour cannot come up with the policy to mobilise its base in the general election, we will have severe problems.
And the BNP have gained more traction than in any previous Parliamentary election in Scotland, with over 1,000 votes.
So we cannot pretend that this victory constitutes a turning point: the national polls remain dire for Labour; Glasgow is after all a traditional Labour heartland; and seats like this will not in any case decide the general election.
But what this win does do is to open the general election campaign proper on a very positive and motivating note. It shows that Labour can still generate passionate activism on the ground - and translate that into votes when it matters. In a longer, more considered campaign than the snap-elections in Glasgow East and Norwich North, Labour prevailed. It should be used as a springboard for energy toward the big one next spring.
Willie Bain said yesterday that his victory was a "great endorsement for Gordon Brown in his efforts to set the economy back on track and it shows election is very much game on."
Few would wholeheartedly agree that this was a full endorsement of Labour or the party's economic policies - but it is certainly game on.
There is no doubt that there will be some ill feeling towards Muslims but as I have always said that YOU van not blame one individual for the death toll hits 13 in Texas shooting spree Link to this video
Barack Obama today joined calls from across America for calm amid fears of a backlash in the wake of the shooting spree by a Muslim soldier at the FortHood that left 13 dead and 28 wounded.
Obama, speaking in the White House Rose Garden after being briefed by the FBI, sought to dampen tensions, as did politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties, the military, Muslim associations and the family of the alleged shooter, Major Nadil Malik Hasan.
"I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we get all the facts," Obama said. The risk of a witchhunt rose today when the commander at the FortHood base, Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, disclosed that wounded soldiers said Hasan had shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire on unarmed soldiers at the Texas base.
The troops, from 12 different units across the US, had been receiving final medical checks before deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hasan, 39, was initially reported by the military to have been killed but hours later officials confirmed he was still alive, though wounded. He was on a ventilator today.
The trained military psychiatrist had been due to be deployed to Afghanistan later this year and had been desperately trying to get out of it.
As the initial shock of the massacre began to wear off today, a bout of national soul-searching began about the mental strain caused to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular as a result of multiple tours of duty.
Although the vast majority of Muslims in the US are fully integrated, websites on major newspapers sites quickly filled with hate mail questioning their loyalty.
There have been only a few incidents since 9/11 of troops from a Muslim background killing comrades, and nothing near this scale.
Obama's call for patience, saying there were still too many unanswered questions, was echoed by Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress, and by the Pentagon.
In a statement, Hasan's family said his actions were "despicable and deplorable". "His actions did not reflect how they were raised in the US," they said.
Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, joined the calls for patience. "That investigation is under way by law enforcement authorities, and let's let that be the number one priory in terms of ascertaining what motivations he had," she said in a television interview.
Obama ordered flags across the country to be flown at half-staff in tribute to the dead. The president was scheduled to visit Walter Reed military hospital today, where coincidentally Hasan previously worked as a psychiatrist.
Twelve of the dead were soldiers, with one lone civilian.
Dozens of grief counsellors were being sent to FortHood to help the families of the dead. The FBI was today going through Hasan's apartment and office to see whether there is a clue to his motivation on his computer, as well as from his phone records.
Investigators were by his bedside, hoping to interview him when he regained consciousness. He took four bullets from a policewoman, Kimberly Munley, 34, who was wounded in the encounter.
"She happened to encounter the gunman. In an exchange of gunfire, she was wounded but managed to wound him four times," Cone said. "It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer."
Soldiers said that Hasan had two handguns, including a semi-automatic, and shot down troops in clusters. Cone said one soldier who had been shot told him: "I made the mistake of moving and I was shot again."
Hasan had been in uniform at the time.
Questions were raised about why the FBI had not pursued postings on a website from a person identified as Hasan who appeared to express sympathy for suicide bombings.
Hasan, a Virginian whose parents were Palestinians, worked as a psychiatrist at the FortHood base and before that at Walter Reed counselling troops suffering psychological problems after returning from war zones. He heard both what they had suffered and the violence they had inflicted on Iraqis and Afghans.
Video footage at a grocery store showed him relaxed, buying goods as normal. But his behaviour then changed, going home to clear out his flat and the usually reclusive figure went round his neighbours distributing groceries from his kitchen and handing out Qur'ans.
Colonel Steven Braverman, a hospital commander at FortHood for whom Hasan worked, said: "He took care of soldiers with behavioural health problems and evaluated people with disabilities." He said there was no indication prior to the shooting that Hasan was unable to provide those services.
"We had no problems with his job performance while he worked at Darnall," Braverman said.
A definitive figure for the number of Muslims in the US military is unknown, as recruits are not obliged declare a religious affiliation. There are only 3,526 declared Muslims in a military force totalling 1.4 million.
If there's one thing Israel is good at it's making war on women and children.
It killed 952 Palestinian children in their homeland between 2000 and the start of the Gaza blitzkrieg in December 2008. It murdered at least 350 more during its Cast Lead onslaught and has kept Gaza under daily attack ever since. So the brave Israelis must have eliminated nearly 1,400 youngsters by now. Would anyone care to guess how many they left bleeding, maimed and crippled?
The "most moral army in the world" also loves waging war against Palestinian university students. Israeli military law treats Palestinians as adults as soon as they reach 16, a flagrant violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Israeli youngsters - of course - are regarded as children until 18.
Palestinians are dealt with by Israeli military courts, even when it's a civil matter. These courts ignore international laws and conventions, so there's no legal protection for individuals under Israeli military occupation.
As detention is based on secret information, which neither the detainee nor his lawyer is allowed to see, it is impossible to mount a proper defence. Besides, the security service always finds a bogus excuse to keep detainees locked up "in the greater interest of the security of Israel."
Although detainees have the right to review and appeal, they are unable to challenge the evidence and check facts as all information presented to the court is classified. So much for Israeli "justice."
Not long ago I wrote about Merna, a student in her final year taking English. Israeli soldiers frequently rampaged through her Bethlehem refugee camp in the middle of the night, ransacking homes and arbitrarily arresting residents. They took away her family one by one.
First her 14-year-old cousin and best friend was shot dead by an Israeli sniper while she sat outside her family home during a curfew.
Next the Israelis arrested her eldest brother, a 22-year-old artist, and imprisoned him for four years. Then they came back for Merna's 18-year-old brother. Not content with that, the military came again, this time to take her youngest brother - the "baby" of the family - just 16. These were the circumstances under which Merna had to study.
To get to Bethlehem University or any other, many students have to run the gauntlet of Israeli checkpoints.
"Sometimes they take our ID cards and they spend ages writing down all the details, just to make us late," said one.
Students are often made to remove shoes, belt and bags. "It's like an airport. Many times we are kept waiting outside for up to an hour, rain or shine, they don't care." The soldiers attempt to forcibly remove students' clothes and they swear and shout sexual slurs at female students.
Some Palestinian students recall how they are sexually harassed on their way to university and spend the rest of the day worrying what the Israelis will do to them on their way home. The constant humiliation undermines student motivation and concentration.
Five years ago, the Israelis forcibly removed four Birzeit University students from their studies in the West Bank and illegally sent them back to the Gaza Strip. All four were due to graduate by the end of that academic year. There was an outcry from around the world and the Israeli army legal adviser was bombarded with faxes and letters demanding that the students be allowed to return to their studies.
The world's most moral army agreed that the students might be allowed to return to Birzeit if they signed a guarantee to permanently return to the Gaza Strip after completing their studies. This effectively exposed Israel's policy to impose a final separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, even though the two are internationally recognised as one integral territory.
Under international law everyone has the right to freely choose their place of residence within a single territory, but since when did Israel give a damn about international law?
The racist regime makes it virtually impossible for Gaza students to reach the eight Palestinian universities in the West Bank. In 1999 some 350 Gaza students were studying at Birzeit. Today there are almost none.
It was no great surprise, then, to hear from Bethlehem University a few days ago that fourth-year business administration student Berlanty Azzam was being held in detention by the Israeli military authorities with the intention of deporting her to Gaza "for trying to complete her studies at Bethlehem University."
Berlanty, a Christian girl, is originally from Gaza but has lived in the West Bank since 2005 after receiving a travel permit from the military to cross from Gaza to the West Bank. She too is being robbed of her degree at the last minute. She was detained at the Container checkpoint between Bethlehem and Ramallah after attending a job interview in Ramallah.
The 21-year-old was due to graduate before Christmas. Last Wednesday night the most moral army in the world blindfolded and handcuffed her, bundled her into a military jeep and drove her from Bethlehem to Gaza, despite assurances by the Israeli military legal adviser's office that she would not be deported before an attorney from Gisha - an Israeli NGO working to protect Palestinians' freedom of movement - had the opportunity to petition the Israeli court for her return to classes in Bethlehem.
When they'd crossed the border the world's most moral army dumped Berlanty in the darkness late at night and told her: "You are in Gaza."
"Since 2005, I refrained from visiting my family in Gaza for fear that I would not be permitted to return to my studies in the West Bank," Berlanty told Gisha on her mobile phone before the soldiers confiscated it. "Now, just two months before graduation, I was arrested and taken to Gaza in the middle of the night, with no way to finish my degree."
If this had been a Jewish girl deprived of her university degree and life chances, Israeli embassies around the world would be instantly on the warpath hurling accusations of religious hatred and anti-semitism.
But it's the Jewish state screwing up the young life of a Christian, so that's alright then.
Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk
Whenever I hear a bloke describe himself as a feminist I reach for the sick bucket.
I certainly wouldn't describe myself that way, despite believing in equality and having right-on positions on the major issues of day.
Sometimes labels don't get us very far.
When men describe themselves as feminists they are telling us something about their politics, but that is not the same thing as actually having consistent positions on women's equality.
For every political stance you can think of there is someone who describes themselves as a feminist.
It can give an indication of how someone sees themselves but it doesn't tell us what they think about sex work, trade unions, abortion, marriage or a host of other issues.
Despite feminism's continued relevance, it has become so devalued as a term that it gets used to describe almost anything.
A recent piece in the Guardian, which should know better but never does, described fascist sympathiser Brigitte Bardot as a feminist because "she represents the power of women. What's iconic about her is her shape, the way she occupies space."
Was this what the pioneers of feminism were struggling for - to be defined by their "shape?"
There's a middle class version of feminism that focuses on language while ignoring social inequality.
I can't be the only person who has had a female manager who is more than relaxed about the all-female cleaning staff being paid a pittance and given no respect while insisting that the workplace uses bizarre jargon in order to avoid "sexist language."
It's enough to give equality a bad name.
However the feminist movement has brought enormous social advances - and not just for women.
Struggles led by feminists have brought about significant positive shifts over the decades, although no-one sensible would argue that these battles are over.
The break from the rigid moralism that kept people who didn't love each other within spitting distance provided a massive step forward in quality of life for millions of people. Divorce has saved countless couples from emotional disfigurement.
The right to an abortion, easily available contraception and sex education have not just been essential for a woman's right to control her own body but have been absolutely revolutionary in terms of how we all live our lives.
Family planning isn't just something that has enhanced people's sex lives or simply allowed them to have one, it's a social revolution allowing us to make choices about children, sexual health and orientation that simply were not open to us before.
I'm certain that the 17-year-old me would have been a pretty poor husband and father and I'm very glad that, due to the advances that feminism fought for, it never had to happen.
And feminism has broken down barriers to advancement for men and women. It may sound strange to some that allowing women to be promoted into positions previously the preserve of men should benefit both sexes, but it certainly seems that way.
When my mum was at school not only was she not allowed to take her best subject - maths - because it was not a "girl's subject," but she was all but forced to become a nurse, which did not suit her.
It was not in anyone's interest that the job of, say, a heart surgeon, did not go to the best person because gender roles forbade it.
The other side of the coin is that many men of my dad's generation simply never learned skills such as cooking because it was assumed that a woman would do it all for them. How many men have no confidence to do the simplest things around the home because they have been told it is "women's work?"
Feminism has gone a long way to making workplaces habitable too. My first job was in a lawnmower factory and I thought it was hell on Earth.
I found it difficult to cope with the constant use of the c-word, the misogynist tripe that my workmates came out with and the dull-as-ditch-water view on what was and was not "homosexual behaviour," even down to your choice of biscuit or how you wear your jacket.
These attitudes have now gone away but feminism should be heartily thanked for the progress made in workplaces in terms of how people behave with each other.
Feminism may not be about bettering men's lives but there is no question it has improved them.
I am sure that comrades Paul Richards and Bonnie Greer gcomments goes a long way see below:
Lots of people watched last night’s Question Time. Despite not wanting to boost their viewing figures, even by one, I was one of them. We saw Griffin’s unconvincing ‘hard-done-to’ act (‘I’ve been relentlessly attacked and demonised’); his eccentric description of white people as aborigines who’ve been here for ’17,000 years, since the ice melted’; his slur about Jack Straw’s father being imprisoned as a conscientious objector; his highly- selective view of Churchill’s statements on race and immigration; his constant complaining about being ‘misquoted’ and being the ‘most loathed man in Britain’; his justification for sharing a platform with David Duke from KKK, and visiting Libya; his nonsense about ‘genocide’, ‘homosexuality’ and the ‘ultra-leftist BBC’. He did not come across well.
The audience resembled a rowdy student union meeting at times: angry people shouting, peppered with small amounts of applause. At other times, the questioners had better lines than the politicians. The guy with the line about a one-way ticket to the South Pole deserved his applause. The young Jewish guy nailed him on Holocaust denial. Griffin squirmed, but failed to repudiate his underlying denial of the facts of the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews. The woman who said she was in a civil partnership, and told Griffin the feeling of ‘revulsion’ was mutual, spoke for millions.
Jack Straw did his best in the circumstances. Unfortunately his reference to Dr Strangelove (a 1950s Peter Sellers film) went over the heads of his mostly young audience. He messed up his answer on immigration, and Baroness Warsi got a clap for challenging him on the issue. She rightly called Griffin a ‘thoroughly deceptive man’. Bonnie Greer made a good point about the multi-cultural Romans’ legacy in the British gene-pool, and the BNP’s ‘wacky history’. Chris Huhne was typically underwhelming.
It was not good television. It was disjointed and ill-tempered. But it gave the BNP 72 hours of wall-to-wall coverage, and, I fear, hundreds of new members and donors. In short, the BBC’s invitation to Nick Griffin, the screening of the programme, and the Labour party’s willingness to take part last night, has set back, not advanced, the fight against fascism and racism.
I remember my dear late father (RAF, retd.) telling me about the first time he came across eastern Europeans coming to the UK, doing jobs that should have been done by Englishmen. They were flying Hurricanes and Spitfires, and in May 1940 we were rather glad of them; even more than when their grandchildren came back to fix our radiators.
It is of course crass and ahistorical for the BNP to expropriate images from the second world war in support of their cause. That was a war fought by men and women of many races, religions and nationalities, against the Nazis’ vision of a totalitarian state enslaving the non-Aryan peoples of Europe, and murdering all the Jews until there were none left.
As far as I recall, people with views like Nick Griffin’s were not asked to join in the allies’ fight. They were locked up under the defence of the realm act. As our knowledge of the Holocaust increases, as more and more documentary evidence is amassed, as the last voices from the war are recorded and archived, we gain a greater understanding of the politics and organisation of Nazi Germany and its allies.
That’s what the ‘no platform’ policy is all about. ‘No platform’ says there are people, views and organisations which are not part of the spectrum of opinion that exists within a democratic politics. They are beyond the pale. They should be treated differently, because they have the whiff of Belsen about them. ‘No platform’ says politics is not an extension of the Oxford Union; it is a matter of life and death. You can’t ‘debate’ with people who are not playing by the same rules.
I was schooled in the ‘no platform’ policy. At Salford University in the 1980s, we didn’t have a debating club. We had a Labour Club. We threw eggs at Margaret Thatcher, picketed Kenneth Baker and got charged by police horses, and the idea of sharing a platform with a fascist was impossible to contemplate. There was only one active Tory on campus (he’s currently standing to be the next Tory MP for Reading.).
The electoral success of the BNP, following its deliberate strategy of obfuscation and concealment of its true credo, makes ‘no platform’ more, not less, important. To treat the BNP like an opponent to be debated with totally vindicates Griffin’s strategy. He can say to his own internal hard-liners: look it’s working. Jack Straw is debating us on national television. I’m landing punches.
The Labour party should not have reversed its position on ‘no platform’. That was a stupid tactical error which strengthens the fascists’ hand. It creates a precedent that every other political programme editor will be able to cite. It undermines local Labour candidates fighting BNP candidates for the council or parliament. It creates the same mistakes that the French political class made when they thought they could out-argue Le Pen and the Front National, before they won millions of votes in the 1984 Euro-elections.
Or, dare I say, the mistakes made by the German political class when confronted by Hitler.
Bonnie Greer reveals what she really thought of Griffin
The Evening Standard has some fascinating snippets from Bonnie Greer, the playright and British Museum trustee who sat next to Nick Griffin on Question Time last night. She calls the experience "probably the weirdest and most creepy experience of my life":
"It was the strangest thing because as I came out of my dressing room prepared for combat, it was as if he'd been waiting for me in the corridor". "I was the last to emerge and when he saw me, he turned and smiled his greasy smile and clumsily half extended a hand. I ignored it and thought to myself: what are you about? Are you forgetting I'm black? Are you forgetting you called me a black history fabricator? Are you trying to show me you aren't racist?"
"We were seated next to each other and as we were having our microphones attached, he leaned towards me like I was his new best friend and tried to make small talk. "Bonnie, how many times have you been on?" he asked. "Bonnie, do you find it scary?" I looked him straight in the eye. "No," I replied sharply, "but you might."
"I spent the entire night with my back turned to him. At one point, I had to restrain myself from slapping him. But it was worth it because he was totally trounced. I had thought we'd face a formidable orator, somebody who knew his facts and had his ducks in a row but the guy was a mess! From the moment the audience began shooting questions, it was a case of the Emperor's new clothes. He was completely exposed as an evasive liar who couldn't even stand up his own quotes and looked like a buffoon."
Greer also talks about her background in Chicago, and her father's experience of coming to Britain as part of Patton's army during the Second World War.
Gordon Brown spoke to the Major Economies Forum this morning, calling for ambitious action in Copenhagen to avert a global climate change "catastrophe" - and warned this could be the world's last chance to act together to make a difference.
The PM told environment ministers from 17 countries - who together are responsible for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions:
"In every era there are only one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history, because they change the course of history. Copenhagen must be such a time. There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late."
He continued:
"The extraordinary summer heat wave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths. On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades' time...and within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe. In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods.
"We cannot compromise with the earth. We can not compromise with the catastrophe of unchecked climate change; so we must compromise with one another...I urge my fellow leaders to work together to reach agreement amongst us, recognising both our common and our differentiated responsibilities – and the dire consequences of failure."
Parliament is back but for Labour and the wider centre-left it feels like nothing has really changed. Certainly the opinion polls haven't. Labour urgently needs to change the game and in this context its own party conference can only be seen as another wasted opportunity.
Faced with the looming prospect of a Conservative Government, the response of every minister has been to read a list of government achievements and declare the fightback has begun. The list - as we heard in Gordon Brown's conference speech - is impressive and contains a lot of achievements that have made Britain a better place: tax credits, the minimum wage, devolution, Sure Start the list can go on.
But as a campaigning device outside of Labour's narrowing ranks it simply doesn't work. There is a tumbleweed moment as ministers on platforms or the media go through it. There are a number of important reasons why it's so unpersuasive: voters take government action for granted; there are too many inconsistencies such as the 10p tax debacle; much of it was done by stealth; few trust what Labour says anyway because of all the spin (not least on Iraq); there is little idea of what overarching vision it adds up to; there is no "forward offer" and crucially no sense that the people themselves were ever part of it. It's not their list.
Ultimately it's not whether Labour ministers or even Compass declare that it's a good list and makes the Party worthy of re-invention - it's whether people feel it is and communicate that belief to others. The problem with the New Labour project was it never built an enduring progressive coalition of believers, activists and supporters.
This is all a bit frustrating, to say the least, because something has changed in the last few weeks. The Tories have now revealed themselves as a party that is not agnostic about the state but hostile. David Cameron's whole conference pitch was against ‘big government' - to be replaced not by better government but by either much smaller government or preferably no government at all. Public spending would be slashed not just because of the deficit but because government is bad per se. We know this because the other theme of his speech was the role of individual responsibility as a replacement for the state.
This is where Labour should be tearing the Tories apart. It was not big government that got us into the economic mess but reckless companies - namely big banks - led by people with scant regard for their wider responsibilities to society, driven solely by self-interest.
Last year Cameron talked of a day of reckoning for bankers, but with no real action even this big talk rings hollow. Where is the bankers' responsibility to their customers facing rip-off interest rates, or the cleaners in hospitals who will now lose their jobs or have their pay frozen?
Let us be clear the Tories are getting away with murder: Britain is not bankrupt, the deficit - caused mostly by the bank bailout and reductions in tax revenues - does not have to be paid off now (indeed it is worth noting that our debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than both France and Germany and significantly lower than Italy and the US); Britain is not a highly taxed nation and the financial crisis was not caused by big government - it was caused by big banks, those very same banks that would have gone bankrupt without government intervention. Therefore it is particularly disappointing that in recent days Labour appears to have capitulated to the Tories on the debate over public spending and the need to cut the deficit.
With Britain still in recession the government should be loudly and clearly making the case of the need for more, not less government action. With unemployment expected to continue rising for some time and the catastrophic state of youth unemployment in particular - worse now than under Thatcher - why aren't there bolder moves to invest vaster sums in a Green New Deal to help create new jobs for the future? Why is there no move to equalise the minimum wage for our young people? With over 5 million on the housing waiting list, why is the government instructing local authorities to sell off land at the bottom of the market, instead of using that land to build the new homes so desperately required and creating construction jobs in the process? Bailing out ordinary working people, securing and creating new jobs for the future should be Labour's top priority.
Despite all the opportunities, Labour is struggling to fight back. It was Labour's regulatory regime that allowed the banks to be so reckless in the first place, providing the framework that fostered an economy over-reliant on growth in financial services. At the same time the state has not been modernised; rather it's been centralised and privatised.
And Cameron was able to land a hammer blow on Labour by telling us that Britain is a more unequal society now compared to 1997 - because shamefully it is. Of course things would have been much worse under the Tories and will be if they get back into power - but it is Labour's fault if the nation is not persuaded of that and reading out the list of past achievements in a louder voice without spelling out any clear vision for the future isn't going to change any minds.
We must be under no illusions the stakes are now very high. It's not just that Labour might lose the next election and all that entails for our people, our planet and our democracy but this could be the very last Labour Government - as revealed in the report we published last month.
If they win, the Tories will reduce the number of seats in Parliament and their election could trigger Scottish independence with the loss of even more Labour MPs. This, combined with new rules on party funding, could destroy Labour's chances of effective recovery.
That is why the decision not to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system on election-day was such a huge mistake - both in terms of principal and tactics. It is a major issue that puts Cameron on the defensive and can inspire progressive voters to get out and swing back to Labour.
Compass will campaign to keep the Tories out and help Labour present itself in a way that rebuilds a winning electoral coalition. The Conservatives present no answers to the problems facing our country and they must be stopped from gaining power. That is why we will:
* Take the fight to the Tories - exposing how wrong and weak their thinking and polices are.
* Carry out a report on how to re-socialise banking with a research project that in part our members helped pay for.
* Fight for a referendum on election-day on the introduction of electoral reform.
* Launch a major report on taxation and spending before the Pre-Budget Report.
* Continue the campaign for a High Pay Commission - to ensure that never again can greed at the top turn so quickly into pain at the bottom.
* Present an alternative manifesto of policy ideas that would transform our country - making it more democratic, equal and sustainable.
* And continue to shift the terms of debate about a good society in which we collectively become the authors of our lives.
Yesterday, George Osborne comprehensively failed the credibility test – and a basic test of fairness. His plans fail to meet Labour’s pledge to halve the deficit over four years. He claimed “we are all in this together” – but his first priority remains a tax cut for the richest families.
The Credibility Test
People expected George Osborne to set out by how much he would cut the deficit, just as the Government has done by committing to cut it in half over four years. We heard nothing of the sort.
The Tories told us that George Osborne’s speech would set out clearly how they would pay for their long list of unfunded tax and spending commitments - “by this time tomorrow you should know just about everything”, Eric Pickles said on Monday.
But the speech doesn’t even pay for itself, let alone make any progress on their irresponsible plans for tax and spend, or matching the Government’s plan to halve the deficit over four years.
First, people were expecting the Conservatives to drop the tax and spending pledges they have already made – just six of which were estimated in The Independent to cost £54bn. Yet all the uncosted pledges stayed.
Second, the Tories were expected to drop their pledges on inheritance tax and marriage tax allowance. Yet it stayed.
Third, Osborne’s new idea to reverse the dividend tax credit change would cost £3-5bn a year – far more than the concrete savings he outlined. Fourth, Osborne’s plan for a tax cut for small business, announced last night, that would undercut existing firms, remained unfunded – in fact it wasn’t even mentioned in yesterday’s speech.
Worse, their plans on raising the retirement age completely unravelled.
Last night George Osborne briefed that he would save £13bn a year by raising the retirement age for men and women to 66 by 2016. But the Shadow Chancellor’s new policy has already been downgraded, by David Cameron, to an independent review without even a chair to put a name to it. And the firm 2016 date for implementation has disappeared for women and been watered down for men.
Even before the u-turn it was clear the savings figure didn’t stack up. And even once they’ve got their costings right, the change still won’t raise a penny in the next Parliament when we are halving the deficit. To get anywhere near £13bn of savings would require much faster increases in the retirement age for everyone, including women. If that is the Tories' plan they should come clean on it.
The Fairness Test
Mr Osborne’s fairness failure was even worse. His credibility failure left him simply attacking the middle class to pay for the Tory tax cut for the richest few. He stuck by his plans for an inheritance tax cut of £200,000 for the richest 3,000 families, for which the mainstream middle will have to pay. His plans would mean:
* 900,000 children would miss out on Child Trust Funds. Providers would stop offering accounts at all in some cases. For families earning over £16,040 with two children they would lose £1,000 in direct payments for their children.
* The removal of tax credits from those over £50,000 would hit 130,000 families and only raise £40m – the Tories' promise to save £400m would mean affecting families on much lower incomes than £50,000.
Ben Sumerskill, the head of gay rights group Stonewall has pulled out of speaking at the Tories' first ever Pride event - due to be held on Canal Street tonight - as a result of Michal Kaminsky's appearance at Conservative conference.
"There is no doubt the progress that has been made in the last couple of years has genuinely been historic. It would churlish of anyone not to welcome the apology a couple of months ago over Section 28. But the event tonight has been overshadowed by the presence, not just at conference but on the same platform as some senior members of the party, of people of such extreme and offensive views. And certainly there are people I've spoken to at the conference today, not just gay people but Jewish delegates as well, who share that viewpoint."
The reason why I am re-standing for the (CAC) is I believe in the democratic process which enables participation.
Conference is the governing body of the Labour Party and not for the few who address themselves as spin-doctors.
Conference should be allowed to have proper debates; too often debates are grounded and controlled by the few, year in and year out.
Conference must be allowed to choose what contemporary motions will make it to the policy forum to form part of the Labour Party policies for the next local, general, and European elections. Not by the few who continually produce knee jerk reaction policies which caused us to lose by-elections.
From it’s policies the party must be able to attract new, young members, who can be the future generation of the party.
Members want a Labour Government to win a fourth term in government however, more can be done to improve on policies not just on Climate Change, but also on Decent Housing, National Minimum Wage, Decent Public Services, Immigration, Economic Down Turn, and International issues .
We are faced with a dilemma, either we change the way how conference operates, or continue to lose valuable members who want to make a difference, not just at Party Conference but also at the ground level, they must feel valued and be heard by the leadership.
Members are the bed rock of the community they are best placed to provide policies that reflects on the 21st century and not risk going back to the old days when in house fighting between the left versus right of the Party continue to dominate the agenda which made us unelectable.
I strongly believe that I have the skills to address conference, and Conference Arrangement Committee. As a Co-operative and Co-op Party, Chinese For Labour, and BAME Labour Compass, Progress, and Fabian society member I believe in the values and principles which underpin the labour values.
I believe that conference should be open, honest, transparent and accountable to all the delegates, and throughout the Labour Party and I will make myself available to first time delegates.
Chris Tannock, the Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs in the European Parliament, said all working people could pay a £10 fee to visit their General Practitioner, with extra fines for those who failed show up for an appointment.
The MEP suggested that the payments would help fund the cash-strapped National Health Service.
But his proposal was immediately ruled out by Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, who said that the system would cost more to run than it would provide in revenue.
It is the second time in a month that the Tory leadership has had to distance itself from comments on the NHS made by Conservative MEPs.
Mr Cameron faced calls to sack Daniel Hannan after the MEP went on television in America to describe the NHS as a “relic” during a discussion about President Barack Obama’s proposed health care reforms.
After Labour seized on the row to question the Conservatives’ commitment to free health care, Mr Cameron described Mr Hannan’s views as “eccentric” and made clear his own strong support for the NHS.
Dr Tannock, who worked as a consultant psychiatrist before being elected as an MEP, outlined his suggestion during a discussion on Channel 4 News.
He said: "I would be totally in favour of small co-payments, small payments being made if you turn up to things and perhaps small fines being levied if you do not.
"I know they are controversial but I don't think people who are in a job would be against say spending £10 to see their GP or being fined £10 if they don't show up to an out-patients, so that's the sort of thing I would like to see."
Dr Tannock also suggested that doctors should face a pay freeze.
He said: "Right now the doctors in the NHS are the most highly paid doctors in the public health services in the whole of Europe, possibly the world, so maybe we may have to have a freeze on doctors' pay in the future."
But Mr Lansley said that the "great majority" of NHS health care should be "based on our need not our ability to pay".
He added: "Charles may say 'oh well £10 to see a GP' - well that would not make any difference to hospital care and frankly, if you tried to put in such a system, by the time you have done all the bureaucracy of raising the money and levying some fines, you would not be raising any money for the NHS anyway."
Last week we got the Home Secretary to cancel a far-right Islamophobic march of hate in Luton. This week, I need you to help us get a very similar march cancelled here in the Midlands - this time on the streets of Birmingham. A whole host of far-right activists and football hooligans plan on invading the city on Saturday 5th of September - with the sole goal of intimidation and whipping up interfaith tension. We need to stop them.
We understand West Midlands Police are concerned about this march - not least because when the hooligans took to the streets last month there was widespread disorder and 19 arrests. Unfortunately the police are reluctant to apply to the Home Secretary for a ban unless they have the support of the local council.
And as of yet, Birmingham City Council aren't willing to step up and stop this dangerous march. We've set up a tool which lets you voice your deep concern to the Council - and it only takes a minute to send a message:
What makes this event even more explosive is that the hooligans have planned their event to coincide with the England vs Slovenia football match - so the town centre will be filled with football supporters. The hooligans are hoping for maximum chaos - that's why we've got to act.
Getting the Luton march banned proved that we can make the authorities do the right thing. This time we're only running the campaign in the West Midlands - so we need you to take action, and then forward this email to all of your friends and family so that they can help as well. We can do this - but we all need to do everything that we can.
In yet another interview with the US Media, Daniel Hannan has praised Enoch Powell as one of his political influences.
The right-wing Tory MEP, who previously called the NHS "a mistake" that he "wouldn't wish on anybody" has now praised the fearmongering Conservative MP of the 60s and 70s, who was most famous for saying:
"In 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. We must be mad, literally mad as a nation, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre...She is becoming afraid to go out; windows are broken; she finds extreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children: charming, wide-grinning piccaninees...Here is their means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise and consolidate their members...to overawe and dominate the rest."
That speech was given in reaction to the introduction by the Labour Government of the Race Relations Act 1968 which prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnicity on the provision of housing, employment and public services.
The video is below, and Hannan praises Powell after 1 minute 50 seconds.
According to Paul Waugh, David Cameron is again unwilling to completely distance himself from his "eccentric" posterboy. Conservative HQ says had Hannan "explicitly praised Powell on race or immigration, David Cameron would have had a different response".
Personally, I don't think it matters in which context Hannan praised Enoch Powell: the praise as a hero of this at best ignorant and at worst xenophobic Conservative anachronism is unbefitting of any modern British elected representative, especially one who is employed to represent us abroad.
That said, David Cameron is not going to cut off his nose to spite his face, and - from a Labour perspective - we shouldn't want him to.
We know that the Tories have an unweildy right wing, which is loud and influential in spite of Cameron's own cuddly PR positioning. But we also know that Cameron sees Hannan as an asset - that's why he presented him with a podium, a microphone and a keynote at the Conservative Spring Conference just a few months ago.
So Labour should not be campaigning to get the Tories to sack Hannan, because he can do more damage to their modernisation attempts than we ever could. As the self-appointed international spokesperson for the Conservatives, he will not be able to contain himself in the future - and each time he speaks he reveals the hardened right behind our so-called "government in waiting".
Why deprive the Tories of their biggest, baddest, backfiring weapon?
I was saddened to hear of the death this week of Senator Teddy Kennedy, who has died aged 77. He lived rather longer than Mary Jo Kopechne, who was only 28 when she drowned in the car Teddy Kennedy drove off the road and into the Poucha Pond on Chappaquiddick in 1969, after a party. But hey.
Kennedy’s death has got me thinking about Labour Party political dynasties at Westminster. How healthy is it that so many of our Labour MPs come from political families? Labour Party members are imbued with egalitarianism and reject the idea of the hereditary principle, apart from when it comes to our MPs.
It’s not just the Benns, who are the Ming of Labour dynasties, with four generations of parliamentarians (John, William, Tony and Hilary) and a fifth (Emily) standing for East Worthing & Shoreham at the next election.
There are also plenty of other Labour MPs whose relatives were MPs before them. Stockton MP Dari Taylor’s father Daniel Jones was MP for Burnley from 1959 to 1983. Former chief whip Hilary Armstrong succeeded her father Ernest as MP for North West Durham. Ex-education secretary Estelle Morris is the daughter of former Manchester Openshaw MP Charles Morris and niece of former Manchester Wythenshawe MP Alf Morris. Greville Janner, MP for Leicester West from 1970 to 1997 is the son of Sir Barnett Janner, who was a Leicester MP from 1945 to 1970. Chorley MP Lindsay Hoyle is son of Doug, the former Warrington MP.
Sometimes the family connections transcend party lines. Burnley’s Labour MP Kitty Usher’s uncle is Peter Bottomley, and her aunt Virginia, which must make family Christmases interesting. Or take Alistair Darling. His great-uncle, Sir William Darling, was Conservative MP for Edinburgh South for 12 years after the Second World War, a fact I doubt he put on his selection CV.
Not all dynasties succeed. Tamsin Dunwoody failed to succeed her mother Gwyneth in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election. She was beaten by that evil toff Timpson, whose family firm cruelly exploits you by mending your shoes and cutting spare doorkeys. David Prescott failed to get selected by local party members in his father John’s seat of Hull East. Philip Webster in The Times reported:
"David Prescott found himself the victim of a whispering campaign in Labour circles with some unfriendly MPs accusing him of trading on his father’s name and others suggesting that it was bad for the party’s image to be seen to be handing a parliamentary seat from father to son."
Who might be next? Will Straw, son of Jack, is one to watch. He’s about to stick it to the Tories with a new website. And what about Ewan Blair? He’s interned for both a Democrat and Republican senator, has an MA in international relations from Yale, and his mother has helpfully told the Sunday Times that she would be "pleased and proud" if he became an MP.
Should we be concerned that being related to an MP makes it more likely that you succeed in politics? After all, nobody thinks it’s bad for football because Brian Clough’s son Nigel, or Alex Ferguson’s son Darren, have followed their fathers into club management. And no-one cares that Guardian journalist Patrick Wintour is son of Fleet Street legend Charles Wintour and brother of Vogue editor Anna, do they?
All kinds of professions and trades, from the army, to the law, to journalism, to running a butchers are populated by people for whom it’s ‘in the family’. And politics is such a strange trade, shrouded in such mystery and misunderstanding that it seems natural that those with some insight, such as the sons and daughters of MPs, should be the ones who pursue it.
And yet, isn’t politics meant to be different? It should not be seen as a family business, nor a profession to be followed like soldiering or the bar. That’s the Tory idea of politics, with families such as the Cecils in parliament for centuries, or the two Sir Tufton Beamishes, father and son, who represented Lewes from 1924 until 1974.
Labour politics should be about great causes and advancing the lives of others, not following a family tradition. Some of Labour’s most effective politicians over the past century have come from families with little or no tradition of politics: Keir Hardie, Ernest Bevin, Barbara Castle, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, or Denis Healey.
If our commitment to democracy and our belief in meritocracy means anything, it means selecting our candidates on their merits, not their surnames.
The Labour government has already made some tremendous efforts to reduce child poverty so far. These include Sure Start, increased child tax credit, working tax credit and the minimum wage. However, the 2010 target of halving child poverty has been missed by a long way. ‘Middle England’ will lose any remaining compassion to help pay towards ending child poverty unless they can see a coherent and precise strategy and evidence of this being implemented and producing results. Here are some policy solutions for a long term strategy to end child poverty:
Public service and redistributive solutions:
* State funded maids (yes seriously) as they have in France to help single mothers stay at work and keep the young kids looked after, washing, keep the house in order and meals cooked.
* Truly universal childcare 7 days a week, in every community. This will further increase gender equality in the labour market as well.
* A living wage.
* Tax cuts for the low paid.
* Much higher child tax credit for low earners.
* A preventive welfare state that helps prevents young teen pregnancies and other social ills from happening in the first place instead of just picking up the pieces afterward.
* Cohesive communities and an end to apartheid cities and sink estates. Community solidarity is needed. Incentivise housing developers to build mixed communities. What we have at the moment is middle and higher income residents ignoring and avoiding lower income residents and vice versa. Polarised residencies are a bad thing in themselves and are part of a divided society.
Economic solutions:
* Industrial Activism: Grow the number of well-paying private sector jobs using a smart state investing in the science, training and infrastructure that industry needs.
* Flexicurity: A flexible labour market complemented with a rapid and responsive state providing redundancy pay, benefits, training and job allocation for workers made unemployed, at risk of unemployment or about to be made unemployed. Wales’s pro-act and re-act could provide some answers.
* Make the job guarantee/training place for unemployed 18-24 year olds permanent and extend it to unemployed single mothers/fathers with low employability and little work experience.
* Introduce more progressive taxes on ‘bads’ such as fuel, cars and electricity and link them to citizens' incomes, in order to pay for the investments needed. Make sure these taxes don’t hit people on low and modest incomes. Much of the investments will pay themselves off through increasing the number of people in full time work.
Ending child poverty cannot simply be achieved through either increasing child tax credit or growing the knowledge driven economy alone, it will require both of these policies and many more. Labour needs to construct a coherent strategy to end child poverty and present it to the electorate, otherwise people may give up hope and interest thinking it’s impossible to ever achieve. This will also confirm that Labour is the most progressive force in British politics.
Ann Widdecombe has recently criticised David Cameron's selection process for Tory candidates, saying that it will lead to a Conservative government full of "second-class citizens". She’s concerned about older politicians who lost their seats in 1997 being passed over in favour of new, first-time candidates, and seems to think that selecting a more diverse range of candidates is primarily a tick-box exercise.
Now, Labour as a parliamentary party could probably be more diverse in terms of age, gender and ethnic origin, but at least we’re trying. All-women shortlists have contributed substantially to the growth of women’s representation within the Labour Party, while the Tories languish well behind. Women making up only 8.8% of Conservative MPs, compared to 27% of Labour and 14.3% of Lib Dem MPs. Discussions around ethnic minority shortlists illustrate how seriously our party takes increasing diversity.
Widdecombe’s assertion that she’d like more women and ethnic minority Tory candidates, as long as they get there on merit alone, is fundamentally flawed. In any sphere of public life dominated by older, white, ABC1 males, it’s going to be harder to come forward as a potential candidate if you don’t fit into that narrow category. Women aren’t so hard to find on the Tory benches because they’re less good than the men, but because they often don’t have the confidence or the opportunity to put themselves forward in the first place. As for Davey C’s efforts to attract more new PPCs, why not?
Surely it’s better to field candidates with new ideas, rather than those whose last brush with politics was failing to hold on to their seats twelve years ago. Being an active London Young Labour member, I could reel off a long list of names of fantastic, politically-minded and civically-motivated people young people who would make great MPs. Far better for the Tories to find some young people removed from the Westminster bubble and more in touch with their communities’ needs, than to keep selecting tired old has-beens.
So, you could vote for the Tories, a substantial number of whom think, apparently, that their non-middle-class white male candidates are mainly for show. Or, you know, you could vote for a party who believes that your ability to be an MP and represent your fellow citizens doesn’t depend on various biological details. Now there's something to think about.
Two people have been charged after a British National Party membership list was leaked onto the internet.
They are accused of breaching the Data Protection Act.
Dyfed-Powys Police said the pair were arrested as part of a joint investigation with the Information Commissioner's Office.
They are due to appear in NottinghamMagistrates Court on September 1.
The far-right BNP called for a police investigation last November after the names, addresses and contact details of some 10,000 of its members were published online.
