It is becoming almost embarrassing . The party that under Heath brought us into the the Eu appears to be almost on the verge of supporting withdrawal. Even Thatcher campaigned at the time of the referendum to stay in. What has happened to make the Tory party a refuge for those who want the rest of Europe to go away.
For some it was that the EU had changed. They thought they were simply joining a free trade area. The idea that there would be rules about worker rights or the environment was appalling. For others the spending of money to support areas that had suffered was anathema. These attacks on economic liberalism, combined with a dislike of European traditions in right of centre christian democrat parties has created a toxic brew that has helped to fuel a resentment of Europe that could have unexpected consequences .
Even today leaving Europe is not the desired outcome for Cameron and Hague. They know that there is little economic future outside. The much quoted examples of Norway and Switzerland act as warnings rather than role models. Both have to implement the rules of the single market without having a say in what they are. It says something for the intelligence of some in the Tory Party and UKIP that they think this is preferable.
To be fair to Cameron and Hague they know this is not a good solution. They are bright enough to realise that giving up a seat at the top table would leave us at the mercy of others, yet they appear powerless to stop the slide into isolationism. There seems to be a fundamental miscalculation at the heart of Tory policy making, illustrated by the remarks of Michael Gove that the threat of leaving will be sufficient to extract major concessions from the other countries, because they will be so desperate for us to remain.
It is a miscalculation on two counts. First it merely encourages the faction within their party that simply wants out and secondly there is a weariness among the other members of the EU faced with another shrill set of demands from a British prime minister threatening to take their bat and ball home if they do not get what they want .
Like the First World War posturing may drag us into a conflict nobody wants and ultimately for what? Leave aside abstract discussions about sovereignty or the tabloid press line that it is all about foreigners telling us what to do. At the end of the day the Tories want access to the single market unfettered by workers rights or restrictions on trashing the environment. It does not seem to occur to them that the rest of the EU would have no interest in giving the UK carte blanche to wreck the construct.
So what conclusions does the left need to draw from this. Firstly the fact that it is undoubtedly not in the interests of British business to withdraw from the EU, does not mean that withdrawal is a good thing for the workforce. That's why the press keeps pounding away about "interference" knowing that it makes a better narrative than the real belief. That there is simply too much protection for the individual. Secondly that we cannot be complacent and assume that the argument is self evident. It is clear from opinion polls that support for leaving the EU has gained ground. In the next posting I want to deal with what I believe Labour needs to do.
Monday, 15 October 2012
Sunday, 27 May 2012
Britain needs comprehensive education
The movement for comprehensive education was born out of idealism. The belief that no child should be denied the right to a decent education and that deciding their fate at 11 was wrong. Those of us who support these principles have kept silent perhaps a bit too long and assumed that those principles are widely accepted. We could not believe that anyone would want to turn the clock back or to have a system that essentially denies an education to those who want it.
My home authority Salford is a good example of the progress that has been made since these dark days. Essentially a handful under the old system gained qualifications and went on to higher education. Last year 85.7% of Salford children achieved five or more good GCSE’s. Whilst including English and Maths all Salford High School were above the national floor standard of 35% with three quarters of schools securing over 50% of their pupils achieving this target.
In this we reflect what has been achieved since comprehensive education became the norm. Thanks to Miller for these statistics they make remarkable reading –
1. Six times as many pupils get five or more good GCSE’s as the equivalent in 1968
2. Five times as many go onto University in the equivalent period
3. The proportion of entrants from state schools to Oxford has doubled since 1961
The Secretary of State is fond of quoting the OECD so he will no doubt be aware of this “on average school systems with greater levels of inclusion have better overall outcomes and less inequality.”
If then the case for comprehensive education is
so strong why the consistent attempts from the right to rubbish it?
so strong why the consistent attempts from the right to rubbish it?
At its most extreme there are those who believe that the role of British Education is to separate the sheep from the goats. They believe that the role of the system is to grade people and that failure is a necessary part of life. We only have to look at those systems across the world that are successful to realise that is not the case. But there is a wider none sinister aspect of this. For some it is about creating a sort of educational gated community.
It represents the increasing polarisation of our life and their concern that they want their children to mix with the right sort.
Reality is of course that we need to deal with those concerns. There are many shining examples of successful comprehensives. Even the current controversy about academies ignores the fact that virtually all are comprehensives. We need to proclaim the fact that a successful comprehensive is about high standards for all not about levelling down.
Harold Wilson once spoke about comprehensive education meaning the chance for all to get to a grammar school. Its time to confront those who would turn the clock back and restate the mission of excellence for all.
Friday, 3 February 2012
After the Battle now win the War
So now that all the sound and fury of the referendum is over what next for Salford ?
Firstly as a democratic party we have to respect the result and get on with implementing the decision . In politics I have won many battles but also lost a few and the important thing is not to spend your time screaming it's not fair but to fight on the new terrain you find yourself in.
In May Salford will have an elected mayor and I want it to be a Labour one. In order to achieve that we have to be prepared to fight for the soul of our City. There is no doubt that people responded to the simple message of the yes campaign. Not a massive number but enough for them to win. They told people it was possible to half the council tax without damaging services and for families suffering as a result of the activities of central government it was a tempting theory. Indeed some may be wondering why voting yes has not changed immediately the level of council tax . That untruth needs to be nailed over the forthcoming weeks. There were others who voted yes for more benign reasons. Some thought they were doing what Labour wanted. For a Group who claimed on the night it was a defeat for Labour they spent an awful amount of their time trying to convince people a yes vote was Labour Policy. There were some who were confused by the question. They told us they voted yes to keep the traditional mayor. Finally for many the way local government is organised is really not a subject to drive them to the polling station. For us the reasons though important are not what is critical . It is the campaign to keep Salford a decent caring City that is vital and the next three months are going to decide whether we progress or are plunged into chaos.
It is up to the Labour Party to decide who their candidate will be and I will support whomever is selected. I believe however at this point more than an ever, experience will be needed. In the period prior to May the candidate will need to speak out on radio, tv and by written word. We will not win this election by repudiating everything we have done but by clearly explaining our achievements. The views of the electorate have not changed dramatically since last May. We lost the referendum because we did not get the vote out.
We do of course already face a Government determined to cut the money we have to support the people of Salford and I have noted elsewhere the effects of their policy of shifting resources from the North to the South. Now we have a political movement that wants to compound that by cutting £66 million from the council and targeting the homeless
elderly and vulnerable children.
So what needs to be done. Firstly a recognition that we may have lost a battle but we need to win the war, I hate losing but I equally hate lying around whinging about it even more. Secondly we need to identify resources so that never again do we set campaigners the task of producing material without spending money. Thirdly we are going to need to coordinate the campaign so that both the mayoral and the council campaigns work as one. It will be similar to having a general election and a local on the same day, but these organisational changes will not be enough. We must find better ways of involving and consulting with ordinary people. We already have a good system of community committees but there needs to be better management of the agenda and a clearer process of consultation. We will need to make the case for regeneration and why this City depends on it and we need to connect more the short term inconvenience with the long term benefits. The changes to Chapel Street are a good example. We did not make them because we just like messing about with roads but because it is a prelude to a massive programme of investment that will transform the area.
At the end of the day I believe there were two crucial factors . For some undoubtably the promise to half the council tax influenced their decision . For many others they really did not care how the council was run . We have had similar experiences before. At the last European Election the combined forces of the right easily outnumbered our vote because it was not easy to motivate people to vote in an election that they saw as having little to do with their everyday lives. We have had a similar experience. We face a period of intense campaigning as we seek to reach to our voters but we are fighting not for us, but our City’s future.
Firstly as a democratic party we have to respect the result and get on with implementing the decision . In politics I have won many battles but also lost a few and the important thing is not to spend your time screaming it's not fair but to fight on the new terrain you find yourself in.
In May Salford will have an elected mayor and I want it to be a Labour one. In order to achieve that we have to be prepared to fight for the soul of our City. There is no doubt that people responded to the simple message of the yes campaign. Not a massive number but enough for them to win. They told people it was possible to half the council tax without damaging services and for families suffering as a result of the activities of central government it was a tempting theory. Indeed some may be wondering why voting yes has not changed immediately the level of council tax . That untruth needs to be nailed over the forthcoming weeks. There were others who voted yes for more benign reasons. Some thought they were doing what Labour wanted. For a Group who claimed on the night it was a defeat for Labour they spent an awful amount of their time trying to convince people a yes vote was Labour Policy. There were some who were confused by the question. They told us they voted yes to keep the traditional mayor. Finally for many the way local government is organised is really not a subject to drive them to the polling station. For us the reasons though important are not what is critical . It is the campaign to keep Salford a decent caring City that is vital and the next three months are going to decide whether we progress or are plunged into chaos.
It is up to the Labour Party to decide who their candidate will be and I will support whomever is selected. I believe however at this point more than an ever, experience will be needed. In the period prior to May the candidate will need to speak out on radio, tv and by written word. We will not win this election by repudiating everything we have done but by clearly explaining our achievements. The views of the electorate have not changed dramatically since last May. We lost the referendum because we did not get the vote out.
We do of course already face a Government determined to cut the money we have to support the people of Salford and I have noted elsewhere the effects of their policy of shifting resources from the North to the South. Now we have a political movement that wants to compound that by cutting £66 million from the council and targeting the homeless
elderly and vulnerable children.
So what needs to be done. Firstly a recognition that we may have lost a battle but we need to win the war, I hate losing but I equally hate lying around whinging about it even more. Secondly we need to identify resources so that never again do we set campaigners the task of producing material without spending money. Thirdly we are going to need to coordinate the campaign so that both the mayoral and the council campaigns work as one. It will be similar to having a general election and a local on the same day, but these organisational changes will not be enough. We must find better ways of involving and consulting with ordinary people. We already have a good system of community committees but there needs to be better management of the agenda and a clearer process of consultation. We will need to make the case for regeneration and why this City depends on it and we need to connect more the short term inconvenience with the long term benefits. The changes to Chapel Street are a good example. We did not make them because we just like messing about with roads but because it is a prelude to a massive programme of investment that will transform the area.
At the end of the day I believe there were two crucial factors . For some undoubtably the promise to half the council tax influenced their decision . For many others they really did not care how the council was run . We have had similar experiences before. At the last European Election the combined forces of the right easily outnumbered our vote because it was not easy to motivate people to vote in an election that they saw as having little to do with their everyday lives. We have had a similar experience. We face a period of intense campaigning as we seek to reach to our voters but we are fighting not for us, but our City’s future.
Friday, 20 January 2012
A Despatch from the Trenches
Sometimes it is frustrating to be a party member. Recall how it felt at the time of the last Labour Government when the vast majority of us were sitting in the trenches waiting to go over the top and take on the Tories whilst in Westminster there was rumour and counter rumour about coups and resignations. A quarrel between so called "Blairites" and "Brownites" that had little resonance to the average activist.The events of the last few weeks has taken me back to those days, to endless argument about who are the true standard bearers of New Labour to Westminster gossip about putsch and counter putsch and to colleagues speaking out in such a way that can only give succour to the enemy. Its time I believe to take a stand on behalf of the poor bloody infantry.
Firstly few in the party care whether the current leadership have deviated from the path of new labour. It was never an ideological obsession for us in the first place. I believe in two key things. Economic competence and supporting people to realise their full potential in life. I always accepted the need for modernisation of the party but on the basis of principle and the ideals I had fought for all my political life. I do not regard it as "Old Labour" to protect the vulnerable. I do on the other hand understand that we need to win elections in order to have any chance of putting our policies into action.So we have the combined efforts of the Tory Social Media turned on Ed Milliband determined to make sure that any attempt to say something fresh is drowned out. They must think that we have short memories. They did the same when he spoke at our conference about the need to control Capitalism. First they deride us then they slavishly follow our Agenda.
The problem is that there are too many in the party waiting to scream "betrayal" at the first sign of any deviance from the true path and they feed the Tory trolls. As Ed Milliband said on the Andrew Marr show it is perfectly consistent to oppose the cuts today and yet at the same time not be able to promise that in three years time after further wrecking of the economy we will automatically be able to reverse every cut.
Unfortunately such a statement satisfies none of the defenders of the true path. So they reinterpret to suit their own view of Labour History. To Patrick Wintour and the Guardian it was clear that Ed Balls had accepted the need for the cuts programme being put forward by the Coalition Government. Leaving aside the fact that these are the people whose flawed political judgement had led them to urge all of us to vote for the Lib Deems at the last election, it was a distortion of Eds views that would play into the hands of the Tories. Once again it raised the question of whose side they were on.
Then we have those who believe that we are deviating from the road to true socialism. Preferring to believe the Tory/Guardian line that all this is a major climb down they fail to put forward an alternative. Lets promise that the economy will be in such good shape in three years time that day one of a Labour Government will see a Labour Chancellor announcing that hey presto all cuts are reversed and we can pretend the Tories never happened.If we know that something will never occur. I have always believed we should be politically honest and state it. Do not keep pretending that it might in the interests of keeping that warm comfortable feeling.
As long as I have been a party member there have trade union leaders who were not content with the party leadership. They have a perfect right to reflect their views of their members. The party was created by the Unions (although not exclusively as some would have you believe) and most of us are members of one. What we cannot do is grant any section the right of veto over party policy. It appears that Lens main concern was pay restraint in the public sector. I understand that and I as a local Authority Leader want to do something for those at the bottom of the scale but not at the expense of jobs. Like all public sector bodies I have a finite budget and cannot promise over the next few years to deliver wage rises without cutting jobs or services.
The party I think understands all of this. It is entitled to ask however why the review of party policy has made so little progress and why there are still those who urge the leadership to appear to stand up to sections of the party in order to gain some apparent macho status. Blair's big weakness was his failure to feel at ease with the Party. He often assumed incorrectly activists would not understand the challenge of governing. We must not continue to fall into the same trap. The party knows Ed what an immensely difficult task you have. It wants to get behind you and take the fight to the enemy but it needs to feel it is more than a useful army of leaflet deliverers and door knockers. Then we can truly fight with fire in our soul
Firstly few in the party care whether the current leadership have deviated from the path of new labour. It was never an ideological obsession for us in the first place. I believe in two key things. Economic competence and supporting people to realise their full potential in life. I always accepted the need for modernisation of the party but on the basis of principle and the ideals I had fought for all my political life. I do not regard it as "Old Labour" to protect the vulnerable. I do on the other hand understand that we need to win elections in order to have any chance of putting our policies into action.So we have the combined efforts of the Tory Social Media turned on Ed Milliband determined to make sure that any attempt to say something fresh is drowned out. They must think that we have short memories. They did the same when he spoke at our conference about the need to control Capitalism. First they deride us then they slavishly follow our Agenda.
The problem is that there are too many in the party waiting to scream "betrayal" at the first sign of any deviance from the true path and they feed the Tory trolls. As Ed Milliband said on the Andrew Marr show it is perfectly consistent to oppose the cuts today and yet at the same time not be able to promise that in three years time after further wrecking of the economy we will automatically be able to reverse every cut.
Unfortunately such a statement satisfies none of the defenders of the true path. So they reinterpret to suit their own view of Labour History. To Patrick Wintour and the Guardian it was clear that Ed Balls had accepted the need for the cuts programme being put forward by the Coalition Government. Leaving aside the fact that these are the people whose flawed political judgement had led them to urge all of us to vote for the Lib Deems at the last election, it was a distortion of Eds views that would play into the hands of the Tories. Once again it raised the question of whose side they were on.
Then we have those who believe that we are deviating from the road to true socialism. Preferring to believe the Tory/Guardian line that all this is a major climb down they fail to put forward an alternative. Lets promise that the economy will be in such good shape in three years time that day one of a Labour Government will see a Labour Chancellor announcing that hey presto all cuts are reversed and we can pretend the Tories never happened.If we know that something will never occur. I have always believed we should be politically honest and state it. Do not keep pretending that it might in the interests of keeping that warm comfortable feeling.
As long as I have been a party member there have trade union leaders who were not content with the party leadership. They have a perfect right to reflect their views of their members. The party was created by the Unions (although not exclusively as some would have you believe) and most of us are members of one. What we cannot do is grant any section the right of veto over party policy. It appears that Lens main concern was pay restraint in the public sector. I understand that and I as a local Authority Leader want to do something for those at the bottom of the scale but not at the expense of jobs. Like all public sector bodies I have a finite budget and cannot promise over the next few years to deliver wage rises without cutting jobs or services.
The party I think understands all of this. It is entitled to ask however why the review of party policy has made so little progress and why there are still those who urge the leadership to appear to stand up to sections of the party in order to gain some apparent macho status. Blair's big weakness was his failure to feel at ease with the Party. He often assumed incorrectly activists would not understand the challenge of governing. We must not continue to fall into the same trap. The party knows Ed what an immensely difficult task you have. It wants to get behind you and take the fight to the enemy but it needs to feel it is more than a useful army of leaflet deliverers and door knockers. Then we can truly fight with fire in our soul
Saturday, 14 January 2012
The Tory Map of Shame
To begin at the beginning
Why do people blog? In my case because I am arrogant enough to believe that people might be interested in my views on local government, or political debate inside the party . I might also sneak in the odd post on West Brom and English Cricket. I want to make the case that local government matters and affects peoples lives in a way that Central Government cannot and I want to argue for an active party whose role is not to be passive spectators as the debate is conducted in the Westminster bubble.
Some of you may have spotted the reference to the seminal novel about Local Government "South Riding" by Winnifred Holtby. I may be one of the few who believed that the recent BBC dramatisation spent way too long on the romantic side of the novel and not enough on the Aldermanic Election process! It still however portrayed an optimistic belief that the local democratic process could change lives.
In this country, local government is either shown as mindnumbingly bureaucratic or by Norman Wisdom as completely incompetent. At least in the Danish thriller "The Killing" we were deemed worthy enough to be the setting for a complex thriller. We need to open up the process and start to excite people again. We need to be a suitable subject for a thriller too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)