Labour resurgence in the North

Monday's FT had an interesting article looking at the regional breakdown of recent polls.

It quotes ICM as saying that the Tories have gone from being 4% ahead in September across the three standard statistical regions making up the pollsters' North (North, North West and Yorkshire & Humberside) to 14% behind Labour in December.

The political significance of this is that the North West and Yorkshire are packed full of marginal seats - particularly in the area of high levels of owner-occupation on either side of the Pennines (East Lancashire and West Yorkshire).

The regional distribution of the 117 seats the Tories need to gain to have an overall majority of is a more even one than might be expected given the media preoccupation with the south and Midlands as the main battlegrounds:

London - 13 seats (10 Lab, 3 LD)
South East - 15 seats (12 Lab, 3 LD)
South West - 17 seats (11 LD, 6 Lab)
East - 8 seats (all Lab)
East Midlands - 10 seats (all Lab)
West Midlands - 16 seats (14 Lab, 1 Ind, 1 LD)
North West - 15 seats (13 Lab, 2 LD)
Yorkshire & Humberside - 12 seats (11 Lab, 1 LD)
North - 2 seats (1 Lab, 1 LD)
Wales - 5 seats (4 Lab, 1 LD)
Scotland - 4 seats (2 Lab, 2 SNP)

We already know that the Tories have been under-performing in Scotland and may not make any gains at all there. Labour also relatively over-performed in London in both the 2008 GLA elections and the 2009 Euro elections compared to the voting in the rest of the UK on the same days. And I can't see the Tories gaining all their 11 Lib Dem target seats in the South West given how good the Lib Dems are at defending seats where they are the incumbents. And now if we accept the FT's analysis we can add in a group of another 29 "must-win" marginals where the Tories are not making the headway they should.

When you go through the list of 117 in order it is also clear that generally the Northern marginals are tougher nuts to crack than the southern ones. The front end of the list includes a lot of Kent seats and New Towns around London, the difficult end of the list includes a lot of Lancashire and Yorkshire seats.

The problem for the Tories is that if they are doing disproportionately well in the south to compensate for their comparative weakness in the north, this won't help them form an overall majority. To win a majority without taking all their first 117 targets they need to take "deep attack" seats further down the list. And these hardly exist in the south - Labour doesn't have many southern seats and those in does have are almost all already in the list of the first 117 marginals. Just as Labour can't form an overall majority without taking a fair number of seats in the south outside London, the Tories can't form an overall majority without taking a bunch of seats in a broad corridor between Wakefield in the east and Bolton in the west.

The social characteristic of these seats is that for historic reasons they have far higher levels of inexpensive owner-occupied housing than similar seats would in the South, Scotland or Midlands. They therefore have voters who have mortgages when they are on lower incomes than in other parts of the country and are a lot more vulnerable to housing-related adverse economic conditions such as negative equity and high interest rates. If these voters lose their jobs they also lose their homes, which social housing residents don't. So my hunch is they have taken a look at a Tory economic policy which would increase their chances of being both homeless and jobless by prematurely switching off the stimulus package and decided they can't risk it.

The rollercoaster continues

ComRes:

Con 38% (-3)
Lab 29% (+5)
LD 19% (-2)
Others 14% (unchanged)

This would produce a hung parliament on a uniform swing.

Change is since 10th December so maybe this is the first of the post-post-PBR polls?

The Season of Goodwill

The spirit of the season seems to have reached Compass, who have emailed me to "give a massive thank you to everyone who has supported Compass over the last 12 months".

Thanks guys, I couldn't do this without the inspiration you provide...

Sorry will not save us

My friend Jessica Asato of Progress has an interesting post on Labourlist saying that Labour should apologise for a range of policy mistakes (http://www.labourlist.org/why-labour-should-apologise-jessica-asato) and that this might help us win the coming General Election.

I beg to differ.

As regular readers will know, I like to look for excuses to quote Morrissey lyrics, so here goes:

"Sorry Doesn't Help
Sorries pour out of you
All wide-eyed simple smiles
certain to see you through
like a QC full of fake humility
you say:"Oh, please forgive..."
you say:"Oh, live and let live..."
but sorry doesn't help us
and sorry will not save us"

So why won't sorry save Labour?

1) We won't be able to agree on what to say sorry for. Jess picks three issues: over kow-towing to finance, Iraq and lack of constitutional reform. I kind of agree with her about the first, if she means that we didn't prioritise regrowing Britain's manufacturing base, but expecting a PM who was Chancellor for ten years to apologise for policies that gave us ten years of economic growth is not a starter, and whilst I accept Labour should have regulated the City more tightly I'm not going to sign up to anything that implies culpability for the current financial crisis, which was caused by sub-prime mortgage lending in America and nothing to do with UK policies. On the second, there are still a great many of us who think Iraq was the right thing to do and that nit-picking about the decision-making process or conflicting legal advice is the last resort of people who have lost a moral argument. On the third, I'm a great enthusiast for proportional representation, devolution to regions and to councils, and a wholly elected House of Lords. But me and Jess are in a minority on this - most Labour MPs and most of our Cabinet are constitutional conservatives. So trying to choose things to apologise for would split the Party.

2) Voters want positive reasons to vote for a Party, not a public reminder of things they disagreed with in the past. We have enough positive things to say about our record and about our vision. We need to get the narrative of the election focused on those, not stuck in the divisions of the past.

3) The issues Jess picked are not actually that resonant with most voters. We won in 2005 when Iraq was a far more resonant issue, despite losing a large lump of Muslim, student and urban liberal votes to the Lib Dems. Now Iraq is ancient history for most voters, and the groups who went AWOL in 2005 are mainly back on board but we've lost a whole bunch of other voters for whom the economy is the main issue. Constitutional reform is of great interest to people like me and Jess who live in London N post codes but of virtually no interest to either our core vote or the swing voters who decide elections.

4) I'm a great advocate of saying "sorry" in politics if you are an individual politician who has made a mistake or changed your judgement on an issue. But for an entire Party to issue a collective mea culpa for judgements that were collectively arrived at after extensive debate is basically to say to the electorate "we're so useless even we can't defend our record. Please kick us even harder on polling day. And you can never trust our judgement again because we can't even trust ourselves to get the big issues right."

5) It's fine for individual MPs and PPCs to distance themselves from unpopular party decisions if they had the moral courage to rebel in the first place. I have no problem with John Denham, who resigned as a minister over Iraq, saying "told you so" or asking his Southampton electors to take his personal stance into consideration. In 2005 I ran as a PPC explicitly condemning two of the three most contentious Labour flagship policies: top-up tuition fees and foundation hospitals. But the party as a whole backing a line, then discovering post hoc it was unpopular or flawed and applying a retrospective u-turn isn't likely to make voters sympathetic - they'll just think we are two-faced and go whichever way the wind blows.

6) The James Crabtree piece that Jess cites claims Cameron has apologised for the past mistakes of the Tories. In fact he hasn't. He's changed the Tory position on some iconic issues but the fundamentals of their economic approach are those of hardline Thatcherism and he has not said anything to indicate contrition for the record of the Thatcher and Major governments.

7) Why focus on one or two things the public didn't like at the expense of the 98% of our record that has been great? There are enough people outside the Labour Party and on our daft wing (Compass et al) highlighting perceived Labour failures without party moderates joining in. We should adopt the slogan (and attitude) of the Swedish Social Democrats which saw them repeatedly returned to power: "Proud but not satisfied".

If we are going to win this year it will be because we, Labour's "true believers", do what our Australian counterparts did to win a fourth term against the odds in 1993, and what Harry Truman did to win a fifth term for the Democrats in 1948: keep our heads high, keep fighting, don't apologise for anything, don't accept the right's narrative about our record, and stick a banner in the ground for our people to rally round.

If we lose then we can either spend four years navel-gazing and debating "where did it all go wrong", which is a strategy guaranteed to split the party and lead us to adopt electorally unpopular policies to make ourselves feel better; or we can establish a narrative that Labour's time in power was great for the party, great for the country, and the sooner we get these Tories kicked out and carry on where we left off, the better.

Council by-election result

Just one by-election yesterday:

Earlswood and Whitebushes Ward, Reigate & Banstead BC. Con hold. Con 391 (37.9%, -12.8), LD 316 (30.4%, +6.7), Lab 161 (15.5%, -0.8), UKIP 125 (12.1%, +2.8), BNP 41 (4%, +4). Swing of 9.8% from Con to LD since 2008.

Why the UK went to war in Iraq

I'm a bit surprised that the coverage of Tony Blair's remarks about his motives for the UK joining the US in invading Iraq has focused on a rather crude distinction between it either being about the presence of WMD or about regime change.

Both the belief (founded on everyone's intelligence, even what the anti-war French and Russians believed) that Saddam had a current stock of WMD, and the desire to free Iraq from his murderous dictatorship and the region from a destabilising influence were good arguments. It turns out one of them was based on duff information but no one knew that or argued that he didn't have WMD at the time, not least because he had actually used poison gas on his own Kurdish citizens in Halabja as long ago as 1988, and because he kept saying he had them. My general principle when dealing with mad dictators who have previously used WMD and say they have got it would be to take this at face value just to be on the safe side.

For me at the time, and now, the most powerful argument for Saddam's removal is one that does not get rehearsed now by the media but I can remember was deployed far more by Blair then than the accusation that WMD were a current threat, which didn't get much more than a one line reference in the so-called dodgy dossier.

This argument was that whether or not Saddam had a current operational stock of WMD he represented a potential future WMD threat not just to other countries in the region but to Europe and possibly the UK if left in power. This was because:

• his previous WMD programmes, covering all three of the Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons trio, were well evidenced and indicated an ability within Iraq to do the science again to re-develop such weapons programmes (and I can't help reminding all the people who questioned this developing country's ability to produce the stuff that chemical warfare was easy enough for participants in WW1 to develop, nuclear warfare is a 1940s technology, and biological warfare has been with us since Roman times)
• his track record of using gas against the Kurds indicated a willingness to use WMD and a disdain for civilian casualties that was fairly unique amongst world governments at the time. I.e. if he could develop them he wouldn't just use them as a deterrent, he'd use them offensively and as a tool for power projection.
• the third and critical factor was that you need a delivery vehicle - usually a missile, but could be a guy with a suitcase, to get WMD to their target if that is Rome or Paris or London and you are in Baghdad. Until the turn of the decade there was no chance of Iraq getting the kind of ballistic missiles that would have the range to hit European cities. But about then the North Koreans started developing fairly long range missiles and proving they had them by firing them out over Japan into the Pacific. And North Korea isn't choosy about who it sells missiles to, particularly as at that point its Communist economic system meant a large percentage of its population were enduring a famine, and it desperately needed hard currency from abroad.

My understanding was that it was the combination of these three factors: WMD science capability, will to use WMD and suddenly easy to obtain delivery vehicles, that convinced the US and UK that there was a threat that left in power Saddam was about a decade away from being able to blackmail, threaten and possibly attack European countries with weapons that would cause mass civilian casualties. Post 9/11 that level of risk was something the US in particular was not prepared to tolerate.

Regime change of course not only freed the Iraqi people from life under a monster, it removed the only world leader in possession of the three factors above.

I know it's not politically fashionable to say so, but I still think it was the right thing to do for the UK's security and the safety of the public here. The problem with the preemptive removal of a future threat is that you can never prove what would have happened if you had not done it. But I am very glad we have not had to find out the hard way, and nor have nearer neighbouring countries, what Saddam could have done to us if left in power.

The forward march of Labour renewed

Tonight's ICM poll:

Con 40% (no change)
Lab 31% (+2)
LD 18% (-1)

Best ICM score for Labour since March.

Yesterday's YouGov poll:

Con 40% (no change)
Lab 31% (+4)
LD 16% (-2)

Equal best YouGov score for Labour since April.

Being a partisan blogger whose aim in life is to cheer up Labour supporters, I'm using my editorial prerogative to ignore Sunday's ComRes poll.

The Green Party in power

This is what happens when the Green Party gets into power. In Ireland the Greens are part of a coalition government with Fianna Fail, the Irish equivalent of the Tories.

They are voting for a budget with a horrific cuts package targeted at the unemployed, people on benefit, and public sector workers.

One of their TDs, Paul Gogarty, doesn't like held to account for this by Labour Chief Whip Emmet Stagg TD and has rather lost his temper in the Dail ... warning this clip includes expletives:

Council by-elections

Reaction to the PBR seems to be good if tonight's by-election results are anything to go by - four Labour gains, in Dorset, Wyre Forest, Nuneaton and Hampshire, and big swings to Labour in the Hastings & Rye and Westminster North parliamentary marginals. The net gain of four seats for Labour in one night compares to a net gain of five for us in the whole of the rest of 2009.

Kingsbrook Ward, Bedford UA. LD hold. LD 660 (49.3%, +3), Lab 370 (27.7%, +3.6), Con 150 (11.2%, -9.2), Ind 85 (6.4%, +6.4), Ind 73 (5.5%, +5.5). Swing of 0.3% from LD to Lab since May this year. Tory vote nearly halved in a Labour marginal parliamentary seat.

Bearsden South Ward, East Dunbartonshire Council. LD gain from Con. First preferences: LD 1770 (36.4%, +10), Con 1499 (30.8%, +6.4), SNP 972 (20%, +0.9), Lab 626 (12.9%, -6.4). Swing of 1.8% from Con to LD since 2007.

St Helens Ward, Hastings BC. Con hold. Con 609 (40.7%, -17.7), Lab 550 (36.7%, +12.5), LD 210 (14.0%, -3.2), BNP 93 (6.2%, +6.2), Eng Dem 36 (2.4%, +2.4). Swing of 15.1% from Con to Lab since 2008. This is in a parliamentary marginal.

Camp Hill Ward, Nuneaton & Bedworth BC. Lab gain from BNP. Lab 670 (47.1%. +17), BNP 478 (33.6%, -2.6), Con 275 (19.3%, -9.7). Swing of 9.8% from BNP to Lab since 2008. This is a Tory target parliamentary seat.

West Ward, Peterborough UA. Con hold. Con 1252 (58.4%, +4.1), Lab 341 (15.9%, +0.9), LD 224 (10.4%, +7.4), UKIP 177 (8.3%, +8.3), Eng Dem 93 (4.3%, +4.3), Green 58 (2.7%, -0.5). Swing of 1.6% from Lab to Con since 2008.

Heron Wood Ward, Rushmoor DC. Lab gain from LD. Lab 437 (41.6%, +11.6), LD 354 (33.7%, -8.1), Con 259 (24.7%, -3.5). Swing of 9.9% from LD to Lab since 2008. This is the council estate bit of Aldershot, where I had the honour of being parliamentary candidate in 2001. Well done to Keith Dibble and his Labour team on regaining this seat.

Tavistock South Ward, West Devon BC. LD gain from Con. LD 523 (45.8%, +30), Con 450 (39.4%, +6.2), Ind 170 (14.9%, -36.1). Swing of 11.9% from Con to LD since 2007.

Queens Park Ward, LB Westminster. Lab hold. Lab 814 (62.6%. +10.6), Con 211 (16.2%, -14.4), Green 152 (11.7%, +11.7), LD 123 (9.5%, -7.9). Swing of 12.5% from Con to Lab since 2006. This is in a parliamentary marginal.

Wyke Regis Ward, Weymouth & Portland BC. Lab gain from Con. Lab 579 (40.1%, +3.9), Con 486 (33.7%, -30.1), LD 268 (18.6%, +18.6), Citizens 111 (7.7%, +7.7). Swing of 17% from Con to Lab since 2008. This is in ultra marginal South Dorset.

Areley Kings Ward, Wyre Forest DC. Lab gain from Con. Lab 540 (38.1%, +5.3), KHCC 421 (29.7%, +0.5), Con 394 (27.8%, -7.4), UKIP 63 (4.4%, +4.4). Swing of 2.4% from KHCC to Lab since 2008. This is in a Tory parliamentary target.

The PBR and the warning of Ireland

I thought the PBR was a good social democratic response to the current phase of the economic crisis i.e. protect frontline services; concentrate on growth and recovery in the short term; and fund the protection of frontline services with extra taxation focused where possible on the best off.

Personally I would have added to the three frontline services the government is ringfencing (police, schools and hospitals) two others - the armed forces and children's social services. You can't get much more frontline than our troops fighting the Taliban or the people trying to stop another tragedy like Baby P, so it seems odd these were not given equal status to the three picked.

Economically I think Darling is right not to withdraw the whole stimulus package yet and to have one more year of deliberately not prioritising deficit reduction. My local Labour Party heard a very interesting speech a couple of weeks ago by Larry Elliott, the Guardian's Economics Editor, where he warned that even with what Labour is doing to stabilise the economy through maintaining public spending there is a serious risk of a W shaped recession - a second dip in the economy in Q2 of 2010 as people and businesses panic that they have overextended themselves during the current early recovery phase and rein in spending. He warned that the Tory plans for retrenchment on spending turn a W shaped recession from a high risk to an absolute certainty. Then we really would see the deficit spiral because tax take would fall again, benefit payments would rise again and even the most draconian cuts wouldn't cancel these changes out.

I'm alarmed by the way that the Tories and the media discuss public spending as though it was purely an economic tool to be switched off in order to reduce the deficit. Actually all the things government spends money on have a primary purpose which is intrinsic i.e. delivering services for citizens. Their economic effect is secondary. There seems to be some kind of fantasy that there are areas of public spending that are so unnecessary that taking an axe to them is actually desirable. Whilst there are undoubtedly a few percent efficiency savings that could be found in any government organisation, reining in public spending to the extent advocated by the Tories or even by the Government is very soon going to lead to the switching off of services that citizens feel they are entitled to and value.

If anyone wants to know what a Tory budget and a Tory approach to deficit reduction could look like they need only look at Ireland where the budget was delivered yesterday. Guido helpfully summarised it as his libertarian take is that it looked great. It included cutting welfare payments back to 2006 levels, cutting unemployment benefit and cutting public sector salaries by 5% for the lowest paid workers. So in Ireland the right's response to the recession is to make the poorest and those that are actually victims of it pay the price, along with the people who deliver public services. I'd describe that as evil, as well as economically insane. The political attractiveness of this slash and burn strategy is shown by recent opinion polls in the Republic which show Fianna Fail in third place behind Fine Gael and Labour when historically it has had a 20%-ish lead over the next party in most elections.

UPDATE: Iain Dale has posted: "Guido is right. The PBR the British Chancellor should have delivered, was delivered yesterday in Dublin. Hopefully George Osborne is studying it in great detail."

NATO holds bloggers' briefing

As Sunny at Liberal Conspiracy has posted, I was one of eight bloggers taken over to NATO HQ in Brussels yesterday for NATO's first ever briefing day for bloggers.


I haven't posted much about Afghanistan before as I didn't feel I had any knowledge on the issue beyond what was already in the media, and in recent months I had started to think the conflict there was un-winnable, not something I wanted to put in writing as I didn't want to undermine our troops there.


The on the record briefing we had from Canadian Brigadier General Eric Tremblay, ISAF spokesperson, convinced me that I've been unduly pessimistic and so has much of the media. Tremblay is on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan and was back in Brussels just for a few days. "Winning" clearly isn't a done deal but I came away at least believing that a stable Afghanistan that didn't act as a base camp for terrorists threatening the UK was a possible outcome, and our troops' sacrifice need not have been in vain. Things he said that particularly struck me were:

• The centre of the NATO effort is "to protect the Afghans" both from the Taliban (counter-insurgency) and by "removing malign influences at the local level" e.g. grossly corrupt officials, narco-traffickers.
• Counter-insurgency is about separating the Afghan people from the Taliban but this is very tough as they wear no uniform and do not control defined areas.
• The objective is to transition to the Afghan people taking responsibility for their own defence.
• 76% of Afghans live in rural areas and 75% are under 25 years old.
• The NATO deployment is "population-centric"; aimed at protecting centres of population and the transport, water and power infrastructure that they depend on. It extends a lot further than the city centres only image portrayed in the press.
• The idea is to deliver an alternative model of governance and development to the one offered by the Taliban so the Afghan people can decide which of the two paths they want to follow. In the cities people can already see the public services and other benefits of having a central government. In the rural areas, some people live so remotely from Kabul they may not even know there is a government yet. The "security bubble" has yet to reach all communities.
• BBC polling shows 85% of Afghans don't want the Taliban back. Polling by the Asia Foundation shows only 5% support the Taliban, 70% support the presence of Western troops.
• The period from now until 18 months time is crucial for demonstrating success of the strategy so that the domestic political audience in the West back the continuation of the transition mission.
• The Afghan government is functioning better than it was last time Tremblay was there but still has a long way to go. He does not believe a "strong" government is needed, just an "efficient" one, seen to be doing things for the people.
• The Afghan people are very resilient. On the whole they are staying in the country, not leaving. Given they don't want the Taliban back, it will not take much for momentum to set in, which is why the Taliban are desperately trying to break the government and set back development projects.
• Characterisation of Afghanistan as never having had good government is wrong. Until 40 years ago it was a relatively prosperous, stable society.
• Polling has shown the vast majority of Afghans are proud of the new Afghan National Army as a national institution, and even have positive views of the police, despite its well reported failings.
• Success "is achievable" - defined as "the ability ... to build the security forces" so that the Afghans take responsibility progressively for their own sovereignty, district by district, and that governance and development are improved too.
• To create the conditions for this district by district transfer of security ISAF needs to reduce the capacity of the insurgents and train the Afghans to provide their own security.
• Already 1/3 to 1/2 of security operations are Afghan-led with NATO just in a supporting role.
• Key principles of the counter-insurgency operation are limiting civilian casualties, respecting Afghan culture, enabling governance and development at a local level, separating the insurgents from the people, and removal of "malign influences" e.g. narco-traffickers and corrupt officials.

Will Straw has also reported on this here: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/12/nato-we-wont-bugger-off/, as has the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/12/nato-afghanistan-taliban.

Thanks to Dave Cole at the Atlantic Council for organising the visit, and to the NATO Public Diplomacy Division for hosting it.

Tory lead narrows again

Another pollster has got the Tory lead dropping into single figures. Populus, out tonight, has:

Con 38% (-1)
Lab 30% (+1)
LD 20% (+2)
Others 11% (-3)

The http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/ seat predictor has this producing 299 Tory MPs (27 too few for a majority), 267 Labour, 53 LDs and 31 others.

This should be in the manifesto

Great idea from James Purnell and Graeme Cook in the FT today - you can read it here - "The government should guarantee everyone a job, to end long-term unemployment... the government is already doing this for young people aged under 25... The lesson from the last year is that investing to prevent long-term unemployment is not just socially just, it reduces the deficit. So as the recovery starts, this approach should be extended, not unwound.
Rather than offering this guarantee for young people only, it should be extended to all jobseekers, of all ages at risk of long-term unemployment. Where the market does not provide work, government must step in... This is the final piece of the puzzle of welfare reform. It makes the welfare state more supportive and more demanding. On the one hand, it is real protection – instead of offering people a life on benefits, it offers them what they really want: a job, and a chance to get their career back on track.
On the other hand a jobs guarantee also becomes a backstop. Claimants have to take a job when it is offered. That exposes those who are working on the side and claiming fraudulently... Initially, the guarantee would come into effect for older jobseekers after the Flexible New Deal (once they had been looking for work for two years).
This could be funded from the money allocated at the Budget to help people back to work, which is now being underspent because of lower-than-expected unemployment.
Over time, the system should be reshaped so that jobseekers spend the first year looking for work with the support of Job Centre Plus and private and voluntary providers, with the jobs guarantee kicking in at 12 months. This could be funded by a combination of some of the money currently spent on the Flexible New Deal and switching resources from the skills budget."

Let's hope that even if this doesn't get picked up in the Budget it is considered for the General Election Manifesto.

Council by-elections

Two by-elections yesterday:

Ormesby Ward, Redcar & Cleveland UA. LD hold. LD 1084 (73.5%, +12.4), Lab 210 (14.2%, -5.1), UKIP 103 (7.0%, +7), Con 77 (5.2%, -14.4). Swing of 8.8% from Lab to LD since 2007.

Dane Valley Ward, Thanet DC. Lab gain from Con. Lab 318 (34.2%, -3.9), LD 260 (28.0%, +28), Con 222 (23.9%, -19.7), Ind 130 (14.0%, -4.3). Swing of 16%from Lab to LD since 2007.

Is the Sun already turning against Cameron?

It's a shame that

a) all us Labour people have stopped buying the Sun since it turned against us (or we just buy one to rip up in the style of Tony Woodley)

and

b) that Rupert Murdoch is such a Luddite when it comes to free content on the Internet that this article isn't linkable to online

because you'll just have to take my word for it that there's an absolutely searing attack on Cameron and the Tories in today's Sun by former editor Kelvin MacKenzie.

He asks why Cameron is only on 37% in the polls when Michael Howard was on 33% "when we were all billionaires".

He concludes it is because Zac Goldsmith "represents the rich boys club which so dominates the leadership of the Tory Party ... I worry that they don't really understand the ordinary working man and woman in this country ... The trouble is, I'm not sure that the Tories haven't simply become a Jobcentre Plus for Old Etonians. Gordon Brown has made a terrible hash of things but his heart has always been in the right place. If the Tories want to run our country, they must prove to the electorate that the heart is not something simply next to the wallet."

Seems like the PM's attack at PMQs on the Old Etonian wing of the Tories has not gone down too badly with the spiritual heirs to the Norman Tebbit wing of Toryism.

MacKenzie won't have written this article without clearance higher up in the News International hierarchy. Extraordinary that they have on a day when Mandelson has been attacking them.

Is the Sun's honeymoon with Cameron going to be the shortest on record?

What has Dave done to upset Rupert and his gang?

Does Rupert want to see a repeat of the leadership coup in Australia's Liberal Party (i.e. their Tories) where climate change deniers ousted centrist leader Malcolm Turnbull, who was looking to pursue green policies, replacing him with a hardline rightwinger?

Just this once it is worth gritting your teeth and buying a copy of the Sun to read the whole thing (hopefully that plea will stop News International from suing me for quoting from their precious intellectual property) - who knows if the circulation spikes they might reconsider their overall editorial stance on the next election?

Tory hypocrisy on health and safety

Hat-tip to John Spellar MP for spotting the case of pots and kettles in David Cameron calling for an end to the UK's "over-the-top" health and safety culture.

In a speech today, he said this had created a "stultifying blanket of bureaucracy, suspicion and fear". In recent years, he added, children had been told to wear goggles to play conkers and trainee hairdressers had been banned from using scissors

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8388025.stm

Maybe the Tory researchers who got him in to trouble at PMQs last week should have told him that it is Conservative Councils who lack common sense and are guilty of the worst excesses of health & safety culture.

Forcing children to wear goggles to play conkers.
This story (in it’s latest incarnation – it's a bit of an old chestnut!) hails from a school in East Cheshire which is a Conservative-run LEA. The Health and Safety Executive have said “the dangers of a game of conkers had been exaggerated and there was no national ban”.

Banning Scissors.
It was in a Camden Council run library which is run by a Tory/Lib Dem administration that a woman was refused the loan of a pair of scissors because of health and safety worries.

In other cases –

A school crossing patrol officer was banned from tying tinsel on his lollipop stick by Tory Hampshire County Council because of health and safety fears. Despite protests from parents, council officers banned him from using the tinsel after an anonymous complaint from the public. Lollipop Man Kevin Simpson said that he decorated his stick each Christmas and that he and the school children who use his crossing were in tears over the ruling. Tory Leader Ken Thornber failed to condemn his council officers and meekly promised to “see if a balance can be struck between fun and safety”.

Tory run Barnet bans its Sikh pupils for wearing traditional ‘kirpans’ on health and safety grounds – not recognising that the Kirpan poses no greater risk than scissors or cutlery that exist in the school.

Tory controlled Daventry District Council told a local head teacher to call off a school play to avoid the threat of jail and a £20,000 fine because the school did not have an entertainment licence. The play was not open to the general public and was not going to make a profit although a small entry fee was being charged to raise money for charity. The Tory council said that they were unable to apply any discretion.

Tory controlled Sherborne Council in Dorset branded a pensioner who voluntarily cleared rubbish from a disused allotment adjacent to her own plot a ‘vigilante’ and told her to desist her good deed immediately. They were shamed into apologising after Mrs Dunn attended a council meeting to give councillors a piece of her mind.

Tory Dudley Council have spent more than £5,000 on Braille signs to advise squash players what colour sport shoes are acceptable and tell users about safety on court. The Royal National Institute of Blind People said, “Blind and visually-impaired people are able to play many sports but not squash.” A council spokesperson said, “The signs conform to legislation set out in the Disability Discrimination Act”.

Also in Tory run Dudley roadside snack vans will be forced to close unless they offer healthy alternatives such as salads and low fat yoghurts, environmental health officers from the Tory authority will inspect menus during routine hygiene checks. A council spokesperson said “the aim is to give consumers a wider choice and move away from the sole provision of high calorie, high fat fast foods”. Anyone who fails to meet the strict new standards will lose their street traders licence.

A gardener in Tory run Bromsgrove in Worcestershire who fenced off his allotment with a 3 foot high ring of barbed wire after being targeted by thieves has been ordered to take it down by the Tory council – in case intruders scratch themselves. Mr Malcolm erected the fence in desperation after around £300 worth of equipment was stolen, the council ordered its removal on health and safety grounds.

As Tory Blogger Iain Dale has said...

“I'm not going to rant on about it all being political correctness gone mad (although it is). What it demonstrates is that these councils are presided over by weak politicians who have little control over their officers. It's about time they learned what the word Conservative actually means”.

Exclusive: Labour hires 30 extra election staff

I've been told that the Labour Party has finally overcome its financial difficulties enough to go on a hiring spree, with the funds now available to recruit 30 new frontline staff for the General Election.

Donors have funded the new posts with ring-fenced cash so that they know their donations are being spent directly on the election campaign.

Recruitment is starting immediately, so Labour activists who want to work as full-time staff on the election campaign should look out for the posts starting to be advertised here: http://www.labour.org.uk/new_job

Whilst the Party isn't out of the woods yet financially, this proves the media and Tory blogosphere hype about us being unable to fund a proper campaign is wishful thinking, and Labour is gearing up for a professional, hard-fought election campaign.

Council By-elections

Tonight's results - Tories losing three seats to LDs (two of them in target parliamentary seats), Labour gaining one from the LDs:

St Austell Bay Ward, Cornwall Council. LD gain from Con. LD 690 (48.2%, +14.7), Con 675 (47.2%, -12.2), Lab 66 (4.6%, -2.4). Swing of 13.5% from Con to LD since 2008.

Northop Ward, Flintshire CC. Ind hold. Ind 343 (27.8%, -41.5), Con 280 (22.7%, +22.7), Ind 227 (18.4%, +18.4), Lab 197 (16%, -14.7), LD 187 (15.2%, +15.2). Swing of 32.1% from Ind to Con since 2008.

Clifton Ward, Fylde DC. Con hold. Con 387 (35.4%, -10.8), Ind 372 (34%, -6.6), LD 241 (22%, +22), Lab 80 (7.3%, -5.9), Green 13 (1.2%, +1.2). Swing of 2.1% from Con to Ind since 2007.

Bushey Heath Ward, Hertsmere DC. Con hold. Con 748 (74.8%, -3.9), LD 157 (15.7%, +6.8), Lab 95 (9.5%, +1.3). Swing of 5.4% from Con to LD since 2008.

Blackbrook Ward, High Peak DC. LD gain from Con. LD 689 (56.9%, +20), Con 470 (38.8%, -24.3), Lab 52 (4.3%, +4.3). Swing of 22.2% from Con to LD since 2007.

Halewood South Ward, Knowsley MBC. Lab gain from LD. Lab 607 (46%, +12.1), LD 486 (36.8%, -9.8), BNP 113 (8.6%, +8.6), TUSP 52 (3.9%, +5.3), Con 32 (2.4%, -3.5), Ind 30 (2.3%, +2.3). Swing of 11% from LD to Lab since 2008.

St Dogmaels Ward, Pembrokeshire CC. Ind hold. Ind 483 (69.5%, +13.8), LD 163 (23.5%, +3.6), Ind 49 (7.1%, -10.9). Swing of 5.1% from LD to Ind since 2008 by-election.

Stratford Alveston Ward, Stratford DC. LD gain from Con. LD 888 (47%, -2.1), Con 834 (44.1%, +1.8), Lab 111 (5.9%, +5.9), Green 58 (3.1%, +3.1). Swing of 2% from LD to Con since 2008.

Moreton West & Saughall Massie Ward, Wirral MBC. Con hold. Con 2255 (70.1%, -1.7), Lab 615(19.1%, +3.6), LD 134 (4.2%, -1.6), Ind 121 (3.8%, +3.8), Green 92 (2.9%, -0.5). Swing of 2.7% from Con to Lab since 2008.

Tory Cash

The Mirror has been running a great investigation into how much the Tory front bench will personally benefit from their policy of raising the inheritance tax threshold for the very rich to £2 million.

The Mirror reports that "Eighteen out of 32 super-rich members of the shadow cabinet will be better off by at least £120,000. And the estates of Mr Cameron, shadow foreign secretary William Hague and shadow chancellor George Osborne will all benefit by more than £500,000 each.In total Mr Cameron's closest Tory chums will make more than £7million from his plans."

This is in the context of the Tories proposing massive cuts to public services.

The Mirror article (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/25/old-pals-tax-115875-21848294/) includes this interesting league table:

Spot the difference competition

It's good to see that Grassroots Alliance member of Labour's NEC, Christine Shawcroft, is busy sending reports to members in Leyton & Wanstead and Sherwood CLPs. It may be a total coincidence that those two CLPs both have pending parliamentary selection contests.


Oddly, Christine seems confused or inconsistent about where she lives.






When writing to members in Leyton she uses headed paper with an address in nearby London E14. When writing to members in Nottinghamshire the address is given as Nottingham NG2.


Perhaps she just has two homes in anticipation of being an MP.

Labour closes the gap to just 6%

Tonight's Ipsos MORI poll shows a huge boost for Labour, with the Tory lead down by from 17% to 6%:

Con 37% (-6%)
Lab 31% (+5%)
LD 17% (-2%)
Others 15% (+3%)

On a uniform swing this would produce a hung parliament: 296 Tory MPs, 278 Labour, 44 Lib Dems and 32 others.

This is the lowest Tory lead MORI have found since December 2008.

A medley of links

Just catching up on posting some links to a variety of things that have taken my interest or been sent to me:

Labour List tells us that Sir Jeremy Beecham is stepping down as Labour Group Leader at the Local Government Association and from the local government section of Labour's NEC. I wanted to put on the record the huge debt we in Hackney owe Sir Jeremy for defending local democracy here when the council was hung and failing and some in government wanted to take it over or shut it down. He took a gamble when Hackney Labour Group said we could provide a political solution by winning back control and then improving the council. He convinced others, including then DTLR Secretary Stephen Byers (whose decision to step down as an MP I also regret) to give us a chance to turn Hackney round, and now we are one of the success-stories of improving local government. This is just the local example I have of his work in fighting for local government against the centralising instincts of some in Whitehall.

Unison in the East Midlands are doing a great job exposing the loopy politics of the new Conservative administration on Nottinghamshire County Council, whose slash and burn approach to local services gives a frightening foretaste of what a Cameron government would do nationally. There's loads of detail here: http://unison-em-locgov.blogspot.com/, particularly this post and also a more scurrilous and gossipy look at Tory Notts by an anonymous blogger here: http://parishofnottinghamshire.blogspot.com/.

Hackney Council has launched a "Be Fare to Hackney" campaign: http://www.hackney.gov.uk/befareboris.htm aimed at getting Boris Johnson to reverse his decision to increase bus fares by 20% in the New Year. The increases, which will come into force from January, will raise the cost of a single pre-paid Oyster bus journey from £1 to £1.20.
Over the course of a year, this mounts up to at least £263 for a household where two people go to work by bus. This is the equivalent of Hackney’s share of the Council Tax rising by nearly 27%. Hackney will be hit harder than most other London boroughs, because bus usage is very high here, and car ownership lower than virtually anywhere else in the Capital.

Owen Jones of the Labour Representation Committee has written an interesting article from a hard left perspective, but with some perceptive points made, about how the left needs to re-engage with working class voters: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4789

My neighbours in Hackney Central Ward have started a great new blog focused very much on ward issues: http://www.hackneycentrallabour.blogspot.com/

Liam Byrne MP has relaunched his blog - http://www.liambyrne.co.uk/ - again with a very local focus.

And finally Paul Richards has used his Progress column to provide an endorsement of my NEC candidature which is a nice antidote to Bob Piper's rant this week. Ironically this week's NEC meeting voted to go for a timetable where NEC nominations don't happen until after the General Election - I'd announced my candidature, as had other runners and riders, on the assumption nominations were happening between January and March. This is great news as it means we can all focus on the real task - getting Labour re-elected locally and nationally, and leave the NEC election (and the first ever OMOV elections to Labour's National Policy Forum) and its debate on Labour's future direction until after polling day. I was concerned about the task of getting nominations for the NEC contest distracting me from my role as Campaign Manager for the May Hackney borough elections. Now it won't so my multi-tasking skills will be a little less challenged.

Council by-elections

Yesterday's results:

Cholmondeley Ward, Cheshire East Council. Con hold. Con 1764 (77.6%, +6.5), LD 508 (22.4%, +5). Swing of 0.8% from LD to Con since 2008.

Rossington Ward, Doncaster MBC. Lab gain from Ind. Lab 637 (26.9%, +1.1), Eng Dem 551 (23.3%, +23.3), Ind 501 (21.2%, -21.8), Ind 420 (17.8%, +17.8), BNP 101 (4.3%, +4.3), LD 78 (3.3%, +3.3), Ind 76 (3.2%, +3.2). Swing of 11.1% from Lab to Eng Dem since 2008.

Bo'ness and Blackness Ward, Falkirk Council. SNP hold. SNP 1604 (57.5%, +10.3), Lab 823 (29.5%, -2.4), Con 283 (10.1%, -2.6), LD 79 (2.8%, +2.8). Swing of 6.4% from Lab to SNP since 2007.

Coleford East Ward, Forest of Dean DC. Ind gain from Con. Ind 267 (29.8%, +1.2), LD 230 (25.7%, +25.7), Con 210 (23.5%, -17.7), Lab 188 (21%, -9.2). Swing of 12.3% from Ind to LD since 2007.

Open letter to Bob Piper

Dear Bob,

I was a bit surprised by your vituperative attack on me yesterday (http://www.bobpiper.co.uk/2009/11/not_in_my_name_2.php).

I know you are on the left of the Labour Party and I'm not (by any stretch of the imagination) so I don't expect you to agree with me on everything or vote for me in the NEC elections. What I don't expect is an ad hominem attack accusing me of being "someone who is so sectarian, negative and divisive [he] is not fit to be a member of our NEC."

We've only met once and it was perfectly amicable. I know from talking to your local MP John Spellar that you are a great local councillor and a good campaigner. My take on you was that we were actually kindred spirits even though from different ideological wings of the party - people that are passionate about their politics, enjoy the legitimate cut and thrust of debate within the Labour Party as well as taking on Labour's opponents and put public service and campaigning first.

Your accusation of sectarianism, negativity and divisiveness just isn't borne out by my record:

• working with people from the Labour left to run election campaigns in Bristol, Camden, Hackney, Aldershot and Castle Point;
• yes expressing my views robustly in meetings but being comradely about the way I do it and not confusing the personal and the political;
• consistently upholding the rulebook and defending party democracy so that as Chief Whip in Hackney I was more often than not the one arguing against suspensions from the group etc., on our LGC I was the one fighting for every ward to retain its right to select its own candidates; when I have sat on regional appeal panels etc. I have a record of scrupulous fairness and regularly find in favour of people with the opposite political views to mine;
• having personal friendships that extend across the spectrum of Labour politics because I can disagree with people without it descending into acrimony

Then I thought, fair enough Bob hasn't actually been in the same region or CLP as me so maybe he's judging me just on the blog. So I did a trawl through to see if what I had written in the last three months since I came out of hospital justified the description "sectarian, negative and divisive".

The following could broadly be described as positive and unifying from a Labour perspective:

• Anti-Tory 11 posts
• Pro-Labour 5 posts
• Praising individual Labour politicians (Ed Miliband, Blair, Mandelson, John Woodcock) 4 posts
• Anti-LD 2 posts
• Anti-BNP 2 posts
• Reporting my speech to conference about the NHS 2 posts
• Calling for unity at Party conference 1 post
• Calling for a May election date 1 post
• Calling for retaining the fourth Trident submarine 1 post
• Promoting local achievements in Hackney 1post
• Calling for action on pleural plaques 1 post
• Praising Norway's Labour election victory 1 post
• Obituary of left wing Castle Point activist John Trollope 1 post
• Announcing my own NEC candidature 1 post
• Linking to trade union websites 1 post
• Linking to articles I agree with 1 post

Then there were some neutral ones:

• Reporting council by-election results 11 posts
• Reporting opinion polls 6 posts
• Commenting on the timing of election counts 1 post
• Personal stuff about my illness 1 post
• Reporting this blogs rank in a league table 1 post
• General psephology 1 post
• Analysis re. political role of trade unions 1 post

The only ones that could be defined as negative are:

• Reporting on the GRA slate for the NEC - 5 posts (incidentally all just repeating what Peter Kenyon and other GRA members are saying, not attacking them directly)
• Attacking Compass 3 posts
• Attacking Charles Clarke 2 posts
• Calling for resignation of Baroness Scotland 1 post

So, 69 posts in 3 months: 36 of them positive, 22 neutral and just 11 negative, of which 3 were having a go at people on the right of the party not the left, and 5 were just reporting gossip.

The hook for your attack was just bizarre, a post where I linked to a Labour party political broadcast that praised the party's radical past and included footage of Michael Foot, and then a plea for the PLP to fight the Tories not quit or plot against the PM! The targets of this weren't the left - one of the best fighters in the PLP is Denis Skinner. I have no idea what annoyed you about a statement of the bleeding obvious - that we need to unite, focus on fighting the Tories and not give up.

As for my post this week on Compass if it is now off-limits to criticise people who are calling for a leadership coup just months before a general election, then I plead guilty ...

You say you've "been around the Labour movement and the Labour Party longer" than me but given I've been a Party member 21 years through good times and bad, since I was 16, that's only because you are a couple of decades older than me.

You make the throw away comment that I am someone who "can't think for themselves, and who thinks every utterance from the Party leadership has to be swallowed whole" but even the briefest effort to read this blog would reveal that to be a lie.

I always knew that some people would find my NEC candidature hard to stomach - I've not been running for a popularity contest writing this blog so it might turn out I'm not popular! I'm resigned to people picking on one thing I write and using it to have a go, that's fair play in politics.

But Bob your post overstepped the mark and presented a caricature of me that doesn't reflect my real record or my real views.

I'm proud of my politics and happy to take stick for my views where they are contentious. But running for office in the Labour Party, or writing this blog, doesn't give people who disagree with me a licence to smear my character, behaviour or motives.

Looking forward to debating Labour's future with you on a comradely basis going forward, and best wishes for the coming elections in Sandwell,

Luke

Fighters and Believers needed here

Great new PPB from Labour, the first to feature Michael Foot (and Herbert Morrison's Hackney committee rooms) for some time ...

As Nick Robinson pointed out on Monday the PLP divides into fighters, quitters and plotters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/11/plotters_quitte.html

I wish the quitters and plotters would both quit and let the fighters get on with taking on the Tories. A precondition of even the slightest chance of victory is preparedness to go down fighting.

Who do Compass think they are?

I try to avoid looking too obsessed by Compass, honestly I do.

But today Compass has been singularly unhelpful to the Labour Party, which it purports to support, by reopening the question of the Party Leadership, as reported in today's Guardian.

Their timing could not be more destructive – on the day of the final Queen’s Speech before a General Election, and just as the first tentative steps towards a Labour recovery have started with a thumping by-election win in Glasgow North East and a 4% boost in this week’s ICM poll.

Who do the Compass “Management Committee” think they are to sit around plotting to undermine a Labour Prime Minister? And more to the point what do the Guardian think Compass is, publicising the self-aggrandising sectarian scheming of a small group as though it was major news?

The Guardian consistently calls Compass a think-tank. This is insulting to real think-tanks that work objectively to generate new policy ideas. Compass is a political faction, the only policies it publishes stem from its own prejudices, not objective research.

The Compass claim to have 4,000 members and 30,000 supporters is repeated without scrutiny, yet the membership list includes people who swear they have resigned from it or never joined, and generated a paltry 237 voters when Compass held internal elections; and the 30,000 “supporters” is a mass-spamming exercise sending emails to anyone unlucky enough to have their address fall into Compass’ hands. I get two emails to different addresses from Compass yet I’ve never indicated support for them.

At their AGM last weekend Compass "General Secretary" Gavin Hayes (winner, most pompous title of the year award 2009) compared himself to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, saying:

"And on the Labour Party I have to say I think my counterpart Ray Collins could learn a thing or two from Compass, and let me tell you if you’d wanted a robot for a General Secretary then you might have picked him. It gives me no pleasure to say that over this last year, as a long-serving loyal Labour activist myself, I’ve stood back and watched in utter aghast at some of the goings on in Labour’s Ivory Towers. Whilst this week may mark 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, increasingly the New Labour machine looks a bit like a clapped out Trabant, feels a bit like the dog days of an Eastern European Communist Party – an ossified party state welded to a dogmatic ideology, entrenched elites, dormant party organisations and a stagnant economy."

Not only is it hubris on a massive scale for the head bureaucrat of a staff of four to compare himself to the General Secretary of the Party in government; it's unfair to personally attack a paid member of party staff who is prohibited by their contract from responding to these kind of attacks, and massively insulting to the hard-pressed and hard-working staff who are working their socks off to try to win the General Election.

This confused grouplet, who advocate a lurch to the left for Labour but are reported to favour Blairite candidates Alan Johnson and David Miliband for Party Leader; and who claim to back Labour but give platforms to the Green Party’s candidate in a seat they hope to take of us, gets far more publicity than it deserves.

Labour Party members should concentrate on trying to prevent a Tory General Election victory and reject the sort of sectarian plotting and undermining of Party unity that Compass is indulging in.

The spread of the Turnip Taliban

Yesterday's showdown in Swaffham over the attempt by the redneck wing of the Tory Party, AKA the Turnip Taliban, to deselect their PPC for not telling them loudly enough about her fling with a Tory MP, won't be the last bit of Tory infighting over selections.

David Cameron seems determined to scrub what few elements of internal party democracy have ever existed in the Tories as he seeks to use the flurry of late selections to create a parliamentary party in his own image and owing its loyalty to him personally for shoe-horning them in against the (admittedly bigoted) wishes of local activists.

In doing so he is exhibiting more control-freakery than Tony Blair was ever able to dream of even in the heyday of year zero New Labour.

In the Labour Party the usual selection procedure involves nominations by local party branches and affiliates, shortlisting by the constituency General Committee, and a final all-member vote at a hustings. Thus ordinary local activists get an input into the process at every stage.

In the new Tory set-up the choice of candidates who the constituency members get to see and vote for isn't in the hands of local activists. Instead the shortlist is picked by a joint meeting, at CCHQ in London, of six constituency representatives with, on the other side of the table the intimidating presence of Eric Pickles MP and massed ranks of Central Office enforcers and apparatchiks letting them know exactly whom the leadership want to get given a hearing in their seat. So even if local members don't get the choice of candidate taken away from them and handed to an open primary (so far only used in Totnes) or an open caucus misdescribed as a primary (as used in Bedford), they can still only pick from those six people Cameron, Pickles and the CCHQ bureaucracy have given the nod to. The reality behind the Truss incident is that her alleged non-disclosure was probably just the excuse the locals latched onto to try and reopen a selection where they felt the local candidates hadn't made it onto the shortlist and had been stitched up for one of the Notting Hill set (a bit unfair as Truss is actually based in Greenwich, though that's equally far from SW Norfolk).

Other constituencies where bust-ups between the local Tories and CCHQ have leaked into the public domain (mainly thanks to ConservativeHome) are:

Bethnal Green & Bow: The locals refused to ratify the candidate selected by an open primary. They have yet to select an alternative candidate. Why this fuss over a seat where the Tories are in a notional fourth place?

Bracknell: ConservativeHome reported “Bracknell councillors unhappy at "CCHQ’s shortlist"".

Bromsgrove: The local association seem to be backing Julie Kirkbride's attempt to overturn her resignation over expenses.

Bournemouth West: Camden Councillor Mike Greene won an open caucus and then the locals overturned the result and sacked him as candidate after he had given up his council seat and moved there.

Cambridge: Former CCHQ staffer Richard Normington resigned as candidate after falling out with the association officers.

Cambridgeshire North East: Local activists discovered that only A-listers were informed about the selection timetable for the seat, excluding local candidates such as the Eurosceptic Lee Rotheram. There were also allegations that CCHQ promised more campaign support for local associations which chose a female candidate.

Dudley North: CCHQ had to stop the selection after the local members refused to implement quotas and short listed nine men and three women.

Gosport: Local members are angry that the shortlist doesn’t include anyone actually from Gosport.

Macclesfield: Another case of CCHQ blocking local candidates from the shortlist. Two leading members have resigned in protest.

Mid Norfolk: Mid Norfolk ignored the CCHQ criteria and refused to have a quota on their shortlist.

Penrith & The Border. Local members want to sack their new and high-profile candidate
Rory Stewart after none of the shortlisted candidates was local.

Plymouth Sutton: As in Bethnal Green and Bournemouth the local activists refused to endorse the candidate picked by an open caucus.

Tynemouth: An A-lister was picked over a local councillor, causing a public row.

Woking: This time the row was over timetabling, with CCHQ wanting to delay the process until they could vet all of the applicants while the local party wanted to select as soon as possible.

Wycombe: the selection has been suspended by Eric Pickles leading to the resignation of a member of the association's management committee.

The Tory Council Tax boomerang

Today's Sun ran an article about figures that the Tories have obtained through parliamentary questions to claim that council tax bills have "doubled under Labour".

The Sun’s list of councils with the biggest rises since 1997 is as follows:

1. City of London (Independent)
2. Tower Hamlets (Labour)
3. South Cambridgeshire (Conservative)
4. East Cambridgshire (Conservative)
5. Fenland (Conservative)
6. Westminster (Conservative)
7. Wandsworth (Conservative)
8. Brent (Lib Dem/Conservative)
9. Hackney (Labour)
10.Torridge (NOC – Conservative Leader, no Labour councillors)

Local councils are responsible for setting their level of council tax and only two of the top ten councils listed are Labour controlled, while seven are run by Tories.

Of the two Labour authorities; my own council Hackney is the first local authority in the country to freeze its share of the council tax for five years running and Labour only regained control of the council in 2001. Tower Hamlets council tax is the sixth lowest council tax in London despite the increases quoted. The Tories and their new friends at The Sun are playing games with statistics to make a self-defeating argument.

It’s a surprise that in choosing their weapon to aim at Labour, on this occasion the Tories have plumped for a boomerang.

Yet more GRA NEC positioning

The harmony that exists on the left of the Labour Party is revealed in public in the comments on Peter Kenyon's blog.

This is Susan Press, selected on Saturday as one of the LRC's candidates for the Grassroots Alliance slate for the Labour Party NEC, talking about CLPD, a partner organisation in the same slate, and Ann Black, a sitting member of the NEC elected on the Grassroots ticket:

"Agree entirely but CLPD has consistently opposed democratic hustings for the NEC slate. I recall heated arguments with the CLPD Exec...... when I was on the STLP exec
Good luck in the ballot. I heard a rumour Ann Black was CLPD's candidate. Odd, given her track-record expelling and witchhunting members - and of course de-selecting left candidates in places like Calder Valley."

Goodness, Grassroots Alliance campaign meetings are going to be comradely and fun if Ann and Susan both make it through to the final slate together. Perhaps Ann is on the wrong side in this election?

Meanwhile, an anonymous CLPD apparatchik snaps at Peter Kenyon:

"Strange you say you're "looking forward to hearing how [CLPD is]...going to select possible candidates for the slate."
About seven hours before you posted this I remember hearing you talking to CLPD committee members in the lunchbreak at the LRC conference about how they will choose their nominees, and they said it would, as usual, be a decision of their Executive Committee.
It may not be a ballot of the membership, but it's up to CLPD how it nominates.
Still, there will probably be more people present at that meeting than vote in the Save the Labour Party ballot."

And on this blog John Wiseman, defeated in the LRC ballot says darkly:

"There is a long way to go yet in the CLGA elections. I would suspect it is still not over for me and gary heather."

So basically a bunch of people who can't agree on six candidates to run in an internal Labour election without biting chunks out of each other in public aspire to tell the rest of us how the Labour Party should be run.

The plot thickens

I'm grateful to Peter Kenyon for explaining a bit more about how the Grassroots Alliance slate of left candidates for Labour's NEC is picked.

Seems I was a bit premature in my post below about assuming Peter was part of it, particularly as the rather snippy exchange in the comments on his post suggest he is not getting on particularly well with everyone in the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD).

So the new info in Peter's post is in summary:

• He hasn't been selected by Save The Labour Party (STLP) yet. There's a ballot between him and Garry Heather (Islington North CLP Chair). Which is strange as I thought Garry had already run and lost in the ballot at the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) AGM.
• Winning the ballot in STLP or LRC doesn't guarantee you get on the final Grassroots Alliance slate. Which begs the question how is this negotiated or agreed on and by whom?
• The CLPD doesn't hold a membership ballot for its nominees.
• Peter implies Compass Youth are part of the Grassroots Alliance but that Compass proper isn't.
• He also implies "Progressives for London" are involved, which is strange as this is a broad alliance of people opposed to Boris and keen on getting Ken Livingstone back in as Mayor, and goes beyond Labour ranks to include Greens and others. I almost joined Progressives for London. If I had would that make me eligible for the Grassroots Alliance slate?
• He alludes to a mysterious meeting between Neal Lawson of Compass and Ken Livingstone of Progressives for London, presumably about Ken running with Compass support, or Compass separately getting a place on the Grassroots Alliance slate ... or is there going to be a separate Compass slate that backs Ken and Ann Black but not the other Grassroots Alliance candidates.

NEC Update

The left Grassroots Alliance slate for next year's elections for the constituency section of Labour's NEC is becoming a bit clearer, following Saturday's AGM of the LRC (Labour Representation Committee). This picked two candidates, incumbent NEC member Christine Shawcroft and blogger Susan Press (http://grimmerupnorth.blogspot.com) so my guess is that the full line-up is Shawcroft, Press, Ken Livingstone, Pete Willsman, Peter Kenyon and Ann Black.

Reading between the lines of this post by Peter Kenyon (http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/2009/11/compass-building-a-new-political-movement.html) I guess soft left grouping Compass, who also had their AGM on Saturday, have other priorities than elections within the Labour Party.

Personally I spent Saturday at the London Labour Party's General Election briefing for agents. Judging by the amount of campaigning that was reported to be going on or planned around London, and the number of constituencies with full-time staff (far more than when I was a full-timer in 1997) the seat-by-seat battle at the next election may give the Tories some unpleasant surprises.

Council by-elections

As well as the Glasgow NE parliamentary by-election there were two council by-elections yesterday:

New Romney Coast Ward, Shepway DC. Con gain from LD. Con 452 (51.4%, +2.2), LD 333 (37.9%, -12.9), UKIP 94 (10.7%, +10.7). Swing of 7.6% from LD to Con since 2007.

Totnes Bridgetown Ward, South Hams DC. LD hold. LD 522 (52.4%, +27.5), Green 265 (26.6%, +26.6), Con 162 (16.2%, +5.4), Lab 48 (4.8%, -4.1). Swing of 0.5% from Green to LD since 2007.

Worth staying up for

Glasgow NE result:

Labour - 12,231 votes (59.39%)
SNP - 4,120 votes (20%)
Tory - 1,075 votes (5.22%)
BNP - 1,013 votes (4.92%)

Not sure if that's a 2% SNP to Lab swing as reported by the BBC or a 30% one as Labour didn't stand in the Speaker's seat in 2005.

Either way a great result for Willie Bain and a great result for Labour. As with Glenrothes our team - politicians, staff and activists - showed we are very much alive and kicking.

Pleural Plaques

I've just had an email from Unions Together about their campaign on Pleural Plaques.

Pleural Plaques are scarring of the lungs caused by heavy and prolonged exposure to asbestos.
Until a few years ago, sufferers of the disease were able to claim compensation. In October 2007, the Law Lords scrapped this – meaning that thousands of people with Pleural Plaques would not be entitled to any compensation at all. Insurers have profited to the tune of £1.4 billion from this decision.

The Government are currently making a decision on changing the law on compensation for sufferers of Pleural Plaques. Unions Together are urging people to email Lord Mandelson and Alastair Darling to support the campaign. You can do that here:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/page/speakout/acallforjustice

NEC update

I'm grateful to some fellow Labour bloggers for these endorsements of my NEC candidacy (somewhat more eloquently argued than my own self-promotion), which I announced here last week:

Matthew Cain

Hopi Sen

Dave Cole

There's a Facebook group you can join if you are supporting me. Search for "Luke Akehurst for Labour's NEC" on Facebook to find it.

Meanwhile the Grassroots Alliance - the left slate - are selecting their six candidates. Last time there were two slots each for (approximately from left to right) the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) and Save the Labour Party (STLP). My understanding is that Labour Left Briefing is part of the LRC, whilst Socialist Action is involved in CLPD. There is considerable membership overlap between these organisations, but also rivalry and infighting over various arcane matters.

STLP held a ballot, closing on 7 November. I think this resulted in the selection of incumbent NEC members Ann Black and Peter Kenyon.

LRC are holding a vote at their AGM on Saturday to pick two from four: Calder Valley blogger Susan Press, incumbent NEC member Christine Shawcroft, Westmorland & Lonsdale PPC John Wiseman, and Islington North CLP Chair Garry Heather.

It's the CLPD slots that are most interesting. The big rumour is that Ken Livingstone is running. If this was the case it implies that veteran activist Pete Willsman has fallen on his sword to make way for him. Unless of course CLPD argues that Peter Kenyon should withdraw, making room for Willsman to run again.

Meanwhile it's not clear if the soft-left Compass organisation will join forces with the Grassroots Alliance, or sit out this election as it has done in the past.

Memo to the PM

Dear Prime Minister,

there are rumours circulating that you are considering 25 March as a General Election polling day.

I would urge you not to go for that date and instead to go for 6 May.

There's one simple reason. There will be local government elections, whatever the date of the General Election, on 6 May for every seat in every London borough, for 1/3 of seats in every metropolitan borough, 1/3 of seats in 20 unitary authorities, and in 78 district councils.

A quick look at the list (http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/elec2010.htm) shows this actually implies election of councillors in almost all of the major urban areas in England, i.e. exactly the places where Labour has the best chance of getting councillors elected.

Holding the General Election on the same day as these local elections would mean that turnout in the local elections would jump from the mid-30%s in most authorities to General Election levels of 50-60% or more if the General Election turnout goes up compared to 2005.

This is good for democracy but ought also to be particularly good for the Labour Party as our supporters have a lower propensity to turnout than Tories for socio-economic reasons i.e. the extra 15-25% of people who would vote in the local elections if they were on General Election day would disproportionately consist of Labour voters.

Thus, even if the General Election saw a Labour defeat, scheduling it for the same day as the locals could increase the number of Labour councilors elected dramatically. There is a proven linkage between the number of councillors a party has and the health of its local activist base so this would help ensure Labour started to recover faster organisationally.

In contrast, if the General Election was held in February or March and we were unlucky enough to lose, then the May 6 local elections would be likely to be a rout for Labour. Turnout would collapse as people won't want to vote twice within months. Levels of campaigning by Labour activists would collapse if our morale was low because we had just had a General Election defeat. Labour supporters would be particularly unlikely to turnout if we had just lost the national election. We know this because in 1992 council elections were held just after we lost the General Election and we got thrashed.

As Leader of the Labour Party you are not only responsible for trying to maximise the number of MPs we win, but also for rebuilding our strength in local government. Long term the two are linked.

Please do the right thing by Labour's members, supporters and councillors and council candidates by holding the General Election on the day already scheduled for council elections, 6 May.

Ed Miliband

This blog was already part of the Ed Miliband fan club after his impressive speech (earning a standing ovation) at Labour Party Spring Conference in 2008.

Even more so after the political courage he showed with his announcement on new nuclear power stations yesterday - good to see someone taking the not necessarily popular but correct decisions needed to tackle climate change.

Today's poll

Today's Populus poll:

CON 39%
LAB 29%
LD 18%

suggests there is still cause for hope for Labour supporters. This is one of the lowest leads reported for ages, takes the Tories below the psychologically important 40% barrier, and on a uniform swing only produces a Tory majority of 12.

John Trollope 1926-2009

I was very sad to read on Julian Ware-Lane's blog of the death today from cancer of our comrade John Trollope.

John was an absolute mainstay of the general election campaign in Castle Point when I was parliamentary candidate in 2005. At the then age of 79 he tirelessly went out canvassing with me and I greatly appreciated his company and good spirits on the campaign trail.

John and his wife Lorna have always been heavily involved in the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and hence from the opposite end of the spectrum of Labour politics to me, yet both of them were amongst the most dedicated members of my campaign team.

Castle Point Labour Party has lost one of its pillars, and many members there will have lost a good friend.

My thoughts are with Lorna and their family.

Council by-election

Another quiet week with just one council by-election on Bonfire Night:

Lower Sheering Ward, Epping Forest DC. Con hold. Con 302 (76.5%, +0.6), LD 93 (23.5%, -0.6). Swing of 0.6% from LD to Con since 2007.

Two articles

Two articles worth reading:

John Mann MP in the JC on antisemitism in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania: http://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/21392/europe-must-focus-baltic-hate

and David Aaronovitch on Cameron's allies in that part of the world:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6900013.ece

The vanishing referendum

Click on -

http://www.conservatives.com/Campaigns/Give_us_a_Referendum.aspx

oh dear – it’s vanished.

Luckily, you can look at a cached version here.

Rumours

I'm told that a tragic accident has befallen the Tory general election campaign.

The rumour is that their expensively-procurred national canvassing database has suffered a software crash and had to be taken offline.

Meanwhile they can't enter canvassing data, print off canvass sheets or access any of their historic canvassing records.

What a calamity.

I do hope they kept a paper backup somewhere.

Why I'm running for Labour's NEC

After a lot of deliberation I’ve decided to run for the Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC). One-Member-One-Vote elections for the six Constituency Labour Party representatives are being held next year and candidates are starting to emerge.

My hesitation has been because my illness and hospitalisation this year has meant that my main goals in life are rather more personal than political at the moment: still being alive in a few years time and watching my son grow up is my number one priority, and learning to walk again comes in a strong second.

However, I think I’ve got experience, skills and judgement to offer the Party as we enter choppy political waters and have therefore decided to throw my hat in the ring for the NEC.


The Party website usefully sets out what the NEC does:
"The National Executive Committee is the governing body of the Labour Party that oversees the overall direction of the party and the policy-making process. It carries out this role by setting strategic objectives on an annual basis and meeting regularly to review the work of the party in these areas.

All members of the NEC are members of the National Policy Forum. This body oversees the development of party policy through a rolling programme of policy development. Throughout the year, NEC members participate with government ministers in Labour Party policy commissions that prepare reports on different areas of policy which are then presented to and consulted on with the party membership before going to annual conference.


This forms the basis of Labour’s general election manifesto. The NEC is also responsible for upholding the rules of the party and propriety of Labour selection processes.”

So what sort of approach would I bring to the NEC?

· Transparency. As a constituency rep on the London Regional Board I report back to CLPs in writing after every meeting. I would want to do the same on the NEC (within the obvious constraints about any confidential agenda items). Too much of what the NEC does is shrouded in byzantine secrecy. Party members need to know what their representatives are doing in their name and what the justifications are for NEC decisions.

·Objectivity and even-handedness. When the NEC takes decisions that affect ordinary members there needs to be confidence that NEC members are taking decisions based on upholding the Rulebook and natural justice, not helping out their mates or political allies. My track record dealing with difficult disciplinary and selection issues as a council Chief Whip for seven years and a regional board member shows that I will do the right thing when confronted with contentious issues, not do what is politically expedient.

· Putting members first. Where-ever possible I would want to put control in the hands of local members and CLPs and maximise local autonomy and democracy – particularly regarding selection of candidates.

· Rebuilding the Party. Whilst there are geographical pockets where CLPs are thriving and there is excellent campaigning best practice, in too much of the country we have let our organisation atrophy. I want to see a priority made of regeneration of branches and CLPs nationwide and building their campaigning capacity. Members are our greatest asset but we haven’t systematically done a recruitment drive for over a decade. I don’t accept that we can’t aspire to be a mass membership organisation. We also need to rebuild our base in local government as there is a direct link between losing councillors and losing our local campaigning base.

· Focussed on campaigning. I’ve got 20 years experience of grassroots campaigning to bring to the table. Whatever the outcome of the General Election, we need to immediately start rebuilding for the electoral challenges that will follow it. What we don’t need is a prolonged period of navel-gazing, infighting and blame. We need to learn the lessons of the 1979-1983 period when Labour spent more time attacking its own record in Government than attacking the Tories.

· Resisting a “lurch to the left”. I’m proud of what Labour has achieved in Government and want to build on it, particularly in the area of tackling poverty and inequality. In the aftermath of the General Election there will be people who want us to veer sharply to the left. I’m not one of them, I want us to align our politics and policies with where ordinary voters are, not wander off into the electoral wilderness.

· Committed to the Trade Union link. I think the current constitutional settlement in the Labour Party, whilst it could be tweaked, broadly works. I’m very wary of radical proposals such as primaries that would sever the union link, which is fundamental to keeping us grounded in the practical concerns of ordinary working people.

· Positivity. My starting point is one of loyalty to the Party leadership and respect for the hard working professional staff of the Party. I’m no pushover but unlike some candidates elected in the past I’m not seeking to get on the NEC to undermine anyone or with a starting point of suspicion and blame. If we lose the General Election we will all need to be united and work as a team to make sure our period in opposition is as short as possible.

Links

A couple of union-related links.

First off, UnionsTogether (the trade unions affiliated to Labour) are running a campaign against the Tory plan to introduce tougher requirements for strike ballots - Cameron is reported to want turnout thresholds implying that a majority of people eligible to vote would have to vote yes - not just those people actually taking part in the ballot. This is obviously designed to make it more difficult to take industrial action. You can sign up here: http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/page/s/fightback

Also my own union Unite has launched a great site about the implications of the General Election for trade union members: http://www.unite4labour.org/ This site uses the Obama campaign model of trade unionists canvassing fellow trade unionists: if you are a Unite member and a Labour Party member or supporter as well you can log in and canvass fellow union members for Labour.

Council by-election

After a couple of bumper crops, there was just the one council by-election yesterday:

Huntingdon N Ward, Huntingdonshire DC. LD hold in a split ward. LD 243 (32.6%, +2.7), Con 213 (28.6%, -18.6), UKIP 167 (22.4%, +14.1), Lab 123 (16.5%, +1.8). Swing of 10.7% from Con to LD since 2008.