Time to be wary of Tory growths.

 

Since 2008 the Conservative Party has used the cover of the deficit to attack state provision of services. In 2011 we see the beginning stages of a strategy to use the cover of sluggish growth to attack state regulation and employment protection. We lost the battle to define the deficit. We cannot afford to lose the battle on economic growth.

 

Growth is the only game in town in British politics. The Tories, wary of the poor performance in the economy that their cuts have caused, realise that getting Britain growing is the only way for them to win in 2015. Labour’s Ed Balls seem ebulliently cheered by poor figures and has set out a “five point plan” for growth. The focus on overall growth in GDP is all consuming and overwhelming.

 

But what kind of growth? By setting a single data-point as the total focus of analysis and debate in British politics we are in danger of playing into the Tory hands. Growth overall is not the same as growth for all. By blaming employment regulation for “strangling” economic growth the Conservatives believe they can manipulate the debate to focus on the ‘luxuries’ afforded to workers- instead of focusing on the lack of demand caused by their own cuts.

 

The Government’s growth review reiterates that for growth to be achieved there is a need to “stop to the tide of regulation” hitting British companies. Already this agenda is accelerating at pace. From April, an employee will only be entitled to legal protection at work if they have been employed for two years, rather than one. From 2013 workers will have to pay an eye watering fee to have their case heard at all. Watch Matthew Hancock on the Daily Politics attempt to argue that these changes will increase prosperity. The case is logically incoherent. The idea that a lack of supply of labour is holding back growth is bizarre. Millions are unemployed. Yet the malignant contentions that it is the regulations that protect the vulnerable that are holding back growth persist. In 2007 David Cameron said that leaving the EU social chapter was a “top priority”. In 2011 he needs to pacify angry Eurosceptic backbenchers. In the same way that the Tories have attacked public provision of essential services under the cover of the reducing the deficit- they are coming for our employment protections under the cover of increasing economic growth.

 

Labour must be clearer. Growth is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We need growth for ordinary, working families; not for the richest 1%. The next election will be won by whichever party can position itself as capable of increasing average family’s fortunes. There is no bigger indictment of Labour’s last term in office than the fact that after 2007 middle income families suffered real terms losses in their incomes. The acceleration of this trend under the Conservatives, with real wages having fallen by 5% over two years, only increases the need for Labour to have a real policies on real growth for those who need it.

 

Measures that tinker around the edges like Ed Ball’s proposal to reduce VAT to 5% on home improvements will not cut the mustard. We need a radical agenda on growth for all. If Labour can’t articulate a coherent message on what sort of growth we’d like to see, the Tories will frame the debate for us instead.

 

 

On Utøya.

Young Labour members on Utøya the day before the massacre

Friday’s slaughter on Utøya was not a random act. The events did not take place at a generic children’s “summer camp”, as so much of the media has implied. The murders bear no resemblance to school shootings in the US. Theywere not caused by the delusions of a ‘madman’ or a ‘loner’. Anders Behring pulled the trigger alone – but he was in the company of thousands of fascist and racist killers that had gone before him. Utøya was a political crime. Fuelled by the hate of multiculturalism and foreigners – it was a massacre of  Young Labour members reminiscent of Nazi mass murders of SPD Youth. It is not the deathtoll that makes Utøya so important, it was the nature of the killing. The victims were targeted for what they believed, not because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The inhumanity of the murders in Norway is hard to comprehend. The senselessness of the deliberate killing of young people for political ends is mindblowing. Some have suggested that we forget who the victims of the crime were and why they were killed. To do so demeans, diminishes and infantilises those who died. We cannot leave politics out of a political massacre any more than we can leave race and religion out of brutal genocides. 

I was proud and upset that my tweet yesterday morning saying the same thing was repeated by many in the Norweigan AUF, including some who report to have been on Utøya. Young Social Democrats across Europe are feeling the pain of people like us killed for their activism. This crime is not far removed from our shores. Anders Breivik’s links to the EDL are slowly being investigated and reported upon. The motive behind the massacre pays no notice to the borders of nation states. Friday’s terrorist attacks were no more likely to happen in Norway than in the UK. Just like Islamic terrorism –  attacks on those who preach tolerance, multiculturalism and inclusion are international by nature.

The immensity of the slaugher on Utøya was not lost on most of today’s papers. However The Observer’s decision to run with a large picture of Amy Winehouse is deeply insensitive given the significance of Friday’s events. Apart from the Daily Star and Express, it was the only Sunday paper to fail to give its front page over to the Norwegian attacks. We should not be forced into a hierarchy of grief, Winehouse’s death is undoubtedly tragic, but the chilling political motive behind the murders in Norway make it incomparable in terms of wider significance.

Anders Breivik’s crime was fuelled by hate, not insanity. Utøya reminds us of the chilling things human beings are capable of when they learn to hate each other so much. This was a terrorist attack targeted at young people trying to make the world a better place. In the UK we must convey our deepest sympathies for all those who lost loved ones in Oslo and on the island. We must also never forget that Friday’s bloodshed was made possible by a poisonous type of racism which we have in abundance far closer to home.

For those on twitter – do follow the leader of the Norweigan Young Labour Party (AUF) @eskilpedersen. His dignity in the response to the tragedy is a lesson for us all.

@EskilPedersen: “We meet terror and violence with more democracy, and we will continue to fight against intolerance.”

Tory MP Louise Bagshaw discusses the Comprehensive Spending Review on twitter.

Near enough in context.

Bristol University Students’ Union has changed.

Last Friday (18th) I was elected President of The University of Bristol Students’ Union (UBU). It was a long campaign that was made possible by a brilliant team of helpers and fellow candidates. Thanks to all who voted and all who spent hours leafleting, canvassing and giving away drumsticks.

Together with, Josh Alford (VP Education), Sophie Bennett (VP Welfare), Max Wakefield (VP Community), Chris Ruff (VP Activities) and Dom Oliver (VP Sports), I want to turn UBU into a campaigning, active Students Union. We will oppose the Government’s attack on students and higher education and will help lead the national fight against cuts and fees. We will reject any attempt to reduce student numbers, grants, bursaries or increase the interest rates on loans. We will stand together with lecturers and non academic staff if any attempt is made to cut wages, pensions or undermine job security. Our student body is too unrepresentative of wider society. We will resist any and all decisions that might make coming to Bristol more difficult for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

UBU cannot and will not oppose every cut. We want the University of Bristol to cut money spent on refurbishments, new buildings, consultancy and public relations. Savings can be made without affecting the student experience or hurting staff. We want to work with the University to find ways to ensure financial stability without hurting the people who make Bristol what it is.

UBU has changed. The 2011/12 sabbatical team will be energetic, active and visible. Thanks again for all the support and we look forward to working with you all!

Gus

Why Baroness Warsi is right, and why the term “Islamic extremist” is wrong.

The media are in full hype mode at the prospect of Baroness Warsi giving a speech later today on creeping Islamophobia in the UK. As well as decrying that anti-Muslim prejudice has “passed the dinner-table test”, Warsi will argue that separating Muslims into “extremists” and “moderates” is wrong.

George Readings from the Quilliam foundations has written an interesting article at Left Foot Forward arguing that this is not the case:

Rejecting the term ‘extremist’ is not the solution. To mount an effective challenge to the casual bigotry of the dinner-table as well as the EDL and al-Muhajiroun, she and other politicians need to be able to explain who an extremist is and why they are unrepresentative of mainstream British Muslims.

This seems a little misguided. The terms "Islamic extremism", "Muslim fundamentalism" et al wrongly conflate a nutty and sociopathic world view with the private faith of millions. As an atheist, I would strongly object to the North Korean regime being referred to as "secular fundamentalists". It's similarly rare to hear the EDL or BNP referred to as "Christian extremists". Why bother adding the name of the name of the faith (or lack thereof) to the description of those who use it to justify barbaric beliefs and actions?

The real problem comes in defining who the extremists are . As George points out, Melanie Philips thinks an Islamic Extremist is anyone who is hostile to Israeli foreign policy. By her definition I must be a half-Jewish-Islamic-extremist. Curious.

People of all creeds, colours, religions and backgrounds hold bigoted views. Medieval attitudes to women and homosexuality are not the preserve of Muslims. When Roger Helmer, Conservative MEP, recently tweeted that he thinks gay people should be “cured”, no one decried a new wave of Christian extremism. The BBC article on his bigotry does not mention his faith.

Calling Christian or atheist bigots, “bigots”, and Muslim bigots “Islamic Fundamentalists” implies that the latter are more serious or worthy of our outrage.
They are not.

Let’s classify the Roger Helmers and Nick Griffins of the UK alongside the Hizb ut Tahrirs. Mixing religious maniacs up with with religion itself is a recipe for division and disaster.

A confused Compass member.

I really used to like Compass. The “Compass Program for Renewal”, published in 2006, delivered a brilliant critique of some of New Labour’s failures to help support the poorest workers, re focus the economy away from the financial sector and sustainably redistribute wealth. A lot of what Ed Miliband argued in the leadership election seemed to have been lifted from the pages of “A New Political Economy” and “The Good Society”.

However, Compass seems of late to have moved away from delivering a direction for the democratic left and worse, seems determined to shun the Labour Party.

It does not matter what the results of it’s consultation on widening it’s membership beyond Labour are.What matters is that Compass’ leadership seem to want to distance themselves from the Labour Party just when it is moving in the direction that it’s members support.

It got worse today. David Marquand, the ex Labour MP, has been chosen to deliver Compass’ new year annual lecture. Marquand supported the Liberal Democrats in the run up to the 2010 election signing a Guardian article that called them“the party of progress”. In 2008 he wrote that David Cameron was not a Thatcherite and that he offered “inclusion, social harmony and evolutionary adaptation to the cultural and socionomic changes of his age.

How wrong can one man be? Why is Compass suggesting I pay £5 to hear a man who clearly has no attachment to modern social democracy, never mind the Labour Party?

It’s only things like the fantastic Campaign to End Legal Loansharking and Labour focussed Compass Youth that are keeping me paying my subscription dues. I won’t be going to the New Year lecture, and I wish Compass would realise and recognise that only the Labour party can offer decent opposition to the destructive and cruel Tory government.

RBS or EMA?

The UK government owns 84% of the Royal Bank of Scotland. We are paying for 84% of the £1.3bn in bankers bonuses awarded this year.
Instead using the money to reward people who are rich enough already, why can’t the government sell a few of it’s banking shares and carry on funding the EMA?

3 reasons why Peter Watt is wrong and Labour must keep it’s union link.

Peter Watt, ex general secretary of the Labour party, has written a divisive and damaging article for Progress suggesting that Labour should break it’s ties with trades unions. Here’s three reasons why he is profoundly wrong.

1. Peter’s article gives the Murdoch press an open goal:

“To be clear, whilst we talk up the opportunities for engagement with millions of working people across the country afforded by the link, on the whole it is a sham.”

Apparently it is unimportant that over 200,000 trade unionists voted in our leadership election or that thousands of trade unionists hand out leaflets and run Labour branches and CLPs across the country.
Would shopworkers and train drivers really get a bigger say in Labour politics if they had no formal representation. I doubt it.

Big organisations are hard to make immediately responsive to their membership. Peter would do well to remember his time as Labour’s general secretary between 2006-7. Without going for the ad hominem; I remember precious little real membership engagement in those years. Unions must do better, but for my money, they do pretty well.



2. Peter’s article glosses the elephant in the room on party funding. Right wing parties are always going to have more rich donor friends than left wing parties. We cannot and should not attempt to fund our election campaigns by being intensely relaxed about people being filthy rich. Peter should know that chasing donations from wealthy individuals is only going to end in tears. Even the £500 limit proposed as a bargaining position will hurt us. Being able to give £500 off the cuff to a political party makes you a lot more wealthy than the majority of the population.

3. The “community based force[s] for social good” Peter talks about already exists. They are called trade unions. When I organised protests against damaging tuition fees and cuts to EMA, the local UCU branch backed me and the student community up. Where people’s job security, terms and conditions are threatened it is their trade union that stands up for them. Citizens UK, the group revered for it’s pioneering of community organising, started as TELCO, a group of faith groups and South London public sector trades unions.

Those who wish to break Labour’s ties with the labour movement that founded it are not motivated by electoral expediency, but political conviction. The trade union link provides a grounding in the lives of ordinary working people and keeps us practically concerned with their needs and interests. Trade Uunions are the greatest community organising force in British history. I’m proud to be part of a party so closely linked with representatives of working people.

Yes to AV

I’m a democratic socialist (also a social democrat). That democratic bit is important. For me, voters should be given as much power as possible in picking their elected representatives.

Instead of trying to work out which system will help which party most in which circumstances and which seats, the only question worth asking about AV is this: Does it give voters more choice and power or less? Clearly more.

That’s a yes from me then.

How do they expect us to pay nine-thousand pounds a year?

The Coalition pays no attention to the unintended consequences if their actions. What happens if you take EMA away from kids in council estates? Where do they go if they can’t afford to get qualifications?