KEIR HARDIE

UK Uncut Needs To Get Serious

2011-01-30T15:18:00.007Z

Does anyone at UK Uncut know this man?

Keir's continuing his critique of the UK Uncut movement.

Today saw yet more store occupations. It has been a trademark protest from the group, determined that they will make the likes of Sir Philip Green and bosses of Tesco, Vodafone and Boots pay their fair whack of tax.

It's a novel idea. Keir understands that the thinking is that if they continue to shut these stores down, infrequently and for short periods of time, then it will affect the profits of these companies enough to say "Ok, we'll pay our tax". It could also act as a tool to embarrass the businesses and their bosses.

Now, in the 12 months until August 29 2009 Arcadia, parent company of Topshop, made £213.6m in pre-tax profits. Arcadia owns around 2,500 stores in the UK. If we work on the basis that each store creates the same profit (which it doesn't, but bear with Keir), we can deduce that every Arcadia-owned store makes £85,440 profit every year.

There were 253 business days in 2009. So let's say each store therefore made £377.71 profit for Arcadia every day. Today's demo was scheduled on the UK Uncut Facebook event page to run from 1pm until 3pm. Let's assume every store opens from 9am until 6pm; it would make £37.52 in profit per hour. So, if UK Uncut successfully shut down stores for the 2-hour duration of their demos, they will stop around £80 of profit being made.

And frankly, anyone walking by and realising they can't go in because it's been shut will probably pop back later if it's that important.

Keir knows that constant, national occupations of this kind will block more profits. And he knows the maths aren't as simple as all that. But the point should be clear; these demos don't really hurt the big businesses. And even if they did, business owners like Sir Philip Green would probably hire more security instead of paying their taxes.

These store occupations are nice, novel profile-raisers. And Keir understands that certain people like to think they're making change by Tweeting the numbers of police officers who use pepper spray. But middle-class angst at the police won't change much.

UK Uncut needs to move on if it wants to achieve anything. As Keir explained the other day, movements need to win if people are to be kept and drawn in and if the power of the movement is to be respected.

David Gauke, pictured above, is the Conservative Party Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire South West. He is not as high-profile as Sir Philip Green, nowhere near as rich and people don't go to his empire for fast-fashion fixes. He is, however, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. And he has the power to change corporate taxation policy. He is also responsible for the "strategic oversight of the UK tax system including direct, indirect, business and personal taxation" and is the "Leader Minister on European and International tax issues."

David Gauke can change tax policy. Topshop and Boots store managers cannot.

It's time for UK Uncut to get serious if it wants to force change. If it doesn't, then by all means it should keep up the store occupations as some weekend fun to cure boredom and a tool for Laurie Penny's career progression.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Flames Of Discontent Appeased By Defeat

2011-01-26T18:50:00.005Z

Keir, like many others, has watched as a movement of people have been stirred into action since the appointment of the slashers in Her Majesty's most recent Government. To say this has been a movement of peaks and troughs is to state the glaringly obvious.

It's hard to ascertain when this whole movement started. And it has at times been a broader movement, encompassing other organisations. The nadir of its turnout and exposure was undoubtedly on 10th November 2010 when an estimated 50,000 people lined the streets of London, mobilised by the NUS, the anti-cuts movement, single-issue groups and political parties. Keir watched on as an event full of potential descended into chaos.

This was followed by another protest 2 weeks later with varying reports of turnout size; "several thousand" appears to be the consensus. After this demo, "kettling" entered mainstream language as something unconnected to a cup of tea and, rightly, the police became the target for a lot of anger from the public.

Meanwhile, occupations were taking place at University campuses across the country. Some of these were pretty impressive, especially when NUS President Aaron Porter was held to account for his foot-dragging at an occupation at UCL.

40,000 people were then expected in the capital on December 9th as people took to the streets to fight the proposed rise in tuition fees that had become the central issue of the broader anti-cuts movement. This was the day of the vote in parliament; a vote that was won by the Government and the fee increase went into law.

Since then, the anti-cuts movement has, arguably, focused on tax-avoidance by large companies such as Vodafone and Topshop. Occupations in branches of these companies have at times shut down stores and have highlighted the cause. But, as with the tuition fees issue, nothing has been won by the movement.

A look at the (very good) mapping of actions on the UK Uncut website gives an idea of the way things have gone since. Turnout at actions around the country have varied. A Saturday protest in London drew 50. Also, 25 people took to the streets in Cardiff on a Saturday afternoon in December, 30-40 got their gloves on in Bristol and a dozen turned up for an event in Birmingham just a few days ago.

And just today, whilst attending another event, Laurie Penny, online mouthpiece for the UK Uncut demos, tweeted:

"In trafalgar square. There are actually more visiting school groups that [sic] protesters. This SUCKS. Get it together guys!"

First of all, Keir must commend Penny for her excellent, positive language in her attempt to mobilise people. Frankly, if someone told Keir to "get it together", he'd be straight onto his white horse, sword in sheath, ready to bring down the Establishment. Inspirational stuff.

But there's a serious point. Keir wants the same end that these demonstrations seek. He didn't want fees to go up and he wants Philip Green to pay his taxes. Most people probably feel the same. But the decline in turnout during the course of the last few months speaks of the deep problem of this movement.

What has been won? Nothing. In fact, some things have been painfully lost as we all saw when the cowardly Liberal Democrats became complicit in the rise in tuition fees.

Penny and her cohorts need to understand that not everyone is driven by cloudy idealism. People like winning. And consistently picking, and inevitably losing, unwinnable fights just disheartens them. Not only does losing turn people off, but winning will draw people in.

That's not to say losing never helps a movement to grow. It of course can. But it only can if your movement is strong, close and powerful; built on an interwoven strand of tight relationships that will last through victories and defeats. This movement though, as is attested to by many involved in it, is built mainly on social network "relationships". Penny herself says,

"Solidarity has gone hypertextual. The student movement that made its voice so powerfully audible was largely organised on Twitter."

From 50,000 in November, to a dozen in January. It's maybe a slight misrepresentation to compare those two figures, but the point is clear. Turnout, and therefore power, has nose-dived.

That lack of power has meant nothing has been won. The Government continues to savagely cuts funding to our most valuable services, meaning we pay more. Meanwhile, the blind eye remains turned to the tax-avoiding billionaires who refuse to pay their bit back to the society that set the conditions for them to flourish, in order that the most vulnerable can put food onto their table.

And if the power of the anti-cuts movement keeps sinking at its current trajectory nothing will be won. Before long all that will remain will be Laurie Penny sitting alone at Trafalgar Square, tweeting "This SUCKS" every weekend.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Legitimacy Of Appointments Manifested In Glasman

2011-01-16T20:15:00.005Z

Keir couldn't help but notice the collective gush from those in attendance at the Fabian Conference after hearing Maurice Glasman speak about the future of the party. That gushing continued after the newly ennobled academic was the feature of an article in The Observer today.

From what Keir knows of Glasman, he seems to be a very knowledgeable guy. He has worked closely with Community Organisers in the UK and has been very influential within the Labour Party to try and guide the organisational culture towards a more relational, more mutualistic and more action-fuelled model. His influence could be felt in Ed Miliband's speech at the same Fabian Conference he attended, just as it could in the famous Gordon Brown speech of May 3rd.

A man with considerable expertise, wisdom and knowledge, now appointed to our second chamber to help scrutinise the conduct of Government. Many people would agree with Keir, it seems, that he is an excellent addition to the House of Lords.

So, Keir couldn't help but wonder how many of those people, so complimentary of Glasman and his appointment to the House, would also back proposals to make the House an elected chamber.

You only need to read the Guardian article to realise that people like Glasman are acutely able to perform the duties of peerage. They are thinkers, they are quiet and they work in the shadows. They are also highly unlikely to run for election.

Now, Keir is a democrat. But modern democracy is about more than merely giving people a vote on everything. The House of Lords is meant to scrutinise Government, delay and amend legislation and, on occasion, throw policies out. It is also to remain, always, in the shadow of the primacy of the Commons. If we are to elect both Houses, this primacy will be gone. In the 2001 General Election, turnout was below 60%. A Commons, elected by just 60% of the people, scrutinised by a Lords elected by the same amount? Keir doesn't fancy that.

Furthermore, some proposals suggest Lords elections at different times to Commons elections. Frankly, that's crazy. What if the election for the Commons gets a 60% turnout and the Lords election gets a 75% turnout? Could the Lords lay claim to being more democratically legitimate? Probably. And if this happened, our Parliament would be finished as we know it.

As honourable as many MPs are, we know that politics has become a career these days. That is absolutely fine. Being an MP is a difficult job and the professionalisation of Members of Parliament is, in Keir's opinion, a good thing. But the House of Lords contains people with explicit expertise, abilities and knowledge. They are not careerists; they are selected by our elected representatives (elected representatives who we entrust with the power to govern) to help to scrutinise them. They are from all trades, professions, religions, businesses, cultural institutions, sporting institutions and many other areas of society.

We have 650 elected Members of Parliament in Westminster, 60 Welsh Assembly Members in Cardiff Bay, 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood and 108 Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland. Add to that some 22,000 elected Councillors throughout the United Kingdom. We have a flourishing democracy in terms of voting. Let us not spoil the functional aspect of our democracy with the lazy symbolism of creating a wholly-elected second chamber.

There's even more to the argument, but everyone hates a lengthy blog post.

Don't misunderstand; the House of Lords needs reforming. There are too many peers and there are too many unjust peerages dished out. Life peerages are questionable and there needs to be more faith leaders than just Christian leaders. But if we want people with the considerable talent of the likes of Lord Glasman, another elected House is not the way to go.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ie Dros Gymru

2011-01-12T20:20:00.004Z

Keir has awoken from his long Christmas slumber. So hello to you all and Happy New Year.

Pleasantries out of the way, now to address the first issue of 2011.

A few days back, Keir attended the launch for the "Yes For Wales" campaign in Cardiff. Both contributors here at Keir Hardie Blogs are wholeheartedly behind the campaign for a "Yes" vote in March's referendum and here's very brief summary of why.

Wales has grown in many ways since devolution was voted in so narrowly in 1997. Culturally, economically, politically...even linguistically. However, arguably the moment when the maturity of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) became clear to all was on November 30th, 2010. It was on this day when Wales took the most talked about issue at the time and, hand-in-hand with the progressive political make-up of WAG, showed that there was an alternative to the devastating Tory cuts. Leighton Andrews, the WAG Education Minister, announced that Welsh domiciled students will see no increase to their tuition fees, just days before the UK Government in Westminster gave it's blessing to Universities to raise fees to as high as £9,000 per year. Until this moment, Keir was in the "Yes" camp, but not vehemently. But after this display of political direction, that vehemence was attained.

The timing of this referendum is perfect for Wales and for "Yes" enthusiasts. Attitudes to devolution have changed massively since the narrow victory in the 1997 referendum. A survey conducted in 2003 showed that whilst only 22.4% of people saw the Assembly as having the most influence over how Wales is run, 56% thought it ought to have the most influence. In the same survey, 43% of people said the Assembly's power over Health had seen services improve whilst only 9% said they thought services had reduced in quality and 31.4% said Education had improved compared to 6.7% saying the opposite.

However, most telling, in Keir's point of view, was the impact on the identity and culture in Wales that the survey showed devolution has had. Attendance at Welsh schools is up, the take-up of Welsh GCSE and A Level is up, the number of Welsh speakers is up. And this identity growth is also reflected in the survey. In 1997, 17.2% of people said they felt "Welsh, not British," and 25.7% of people said they felt "more Welsh than British". By 2003, those figures had increased to 22.7% and 28.1% respectively. When broken down into age groups, these attitudes are even more promising. The percentage of 18-24 year olds who said they felt "Welsh, not British", was higher than the national average, at 27.4%. Also higher than the national average was the 36.9% people in that age group that said they felt "more Welsh than British". Keir would hazard a guess that now, in 2010, those percentages are even higher. The fact that the younger you go down the scale, the "more Welsh" people feel shows the impact that devolution has had on identities.

For these reasons, and others not outlined here (mainly because of laziness) Keir will be voting "Yes." And for these reasons, Keir is confident of a win for the "Yes" campaign far greater than that famous win in 1997.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Labour Isn't Winning

2010-12-20T23:17:00.004Z

A YouGov poll that showed -18% approval for the Government has sent many Labourites into rapture. Sure, it’s good that people are seemingly taking issue with the Government’s indiscriminate, ideology-inspired cuts. But we need to take this with a pinch of salt the size of which would ensure the whole of the M25 doesn’t freeze over ever again.

Read between the lines. In the same poll, YouGov showed that 40% still said they would vote Conservative, with 43% saying they’d vote Labour and 8%, apparently those living under rocks, still vouching for the LibDems. Does it really make sense that, despite a -18% Government approval rating, 40% would still vote for the main party in that Government?

Read a bit further. In an IPSOS poll this week, David Cameron received +4% approval to Nick Clegg’s -12%. Ed Miliband, Labour Party leader, received an approval of +4%; but a whopping 30% gave “Don’t Know” as an answer when asked if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Ed was doing his job as leader of the party. To show how big that figure is, Cameron and Clegg received 8% and 11% "Don't Knows" respectively. ComRes showed a worse picture with Ed’s approval at a lowly -16%, very similar to aforementioned Government approval rating that Labourites have been gushing over. Even in that poll, a massive 50% said they “Don’t Know” if Ed is turning out to be a good leader of the Labour Party. Nick Clegg had a dire -23% approval rating in the ComRes poll, with the Prime Minister on just -2%.

We know that LibDem polling has plummeted. ComRes had them at 23% in the middle of June. Their drop to 8% in the latest YouGov poll shows, Keir thinks, that the Government approval rating of -18% is largely due to anti-LibDem sentiment; not anti-Tory sentiment.

Labour isn’t winning. The Tories are. Government approval may be sinking, but their polling is stable. And we also now have the reason why we do need to act fast, contrary to what many Labourites would argue. Though Keir doubts he would or could, if Uncle Vince pressed his big red nuclear button, we would not win a snap election. In all likelihood, the Tories would win a majority as Labour are yet to propose an alternative, and the leader’s ratings are not good enough to carry the party in that situation. Now Keir doesn't suddenly think Cable has developed some fortitude and would actually be able to do that, but the point here is that this Coalition is fragile and we need to be ready if they capitulate.

It's not all gloom though. The amount of “Don’t Knows” in the questions about Ed’s leadership shows there is a vacuum to exploit that would not only make that Government approval sink further, but would make Labour’s polling percentage grow at the expense of the Tories; the real enemy. Labour MPs have been doing a sterling job on certain issues. Stella Creasy's campaign against legal loan sharks is the Labour Party as it should be. Jim Murphy's excellent use of the internet and his sterling work with genuine new ideas on Defence is offering credible plans. Bob Ainsworth's call for a new way of looking at drugs policy is laudable if only for his suggestion that we have an intelligent debate. And Ed Balls and Andy Burnham continue to offer stern opposition to their two Cabinet rivals across the dispatch box. Both are expertly exposing two of the most ideologically-driven Tories in the business.

But, on the whole, people don't vote based on their impression of Shadow Cabinet members. They look to the Leader. So now, yes now, nearly 3 months after taking up the post of Leader, Ed Miliband must start converting the “Don’t Knows”.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Nails

2010-12-10T15:02:00.000Z

Keir wouldn't have been able to stay controlled...

Habits Die Hard As Left Continues To Lose Winnable Arguments

2010-12-09T19:17:00.003Z

Keir's noticed something since the Coalition took control of the State. We on the Left cannot help sticking to habits, some older than others, and losing arguments that are entirely winnable.

I give you two very different cases:

Exhibit A: The recent protests against the increase in tuition fees.

Exhibit B: David Lammy's recent piece about Oxbridge elitism.

Keir has discussed Exhibit A before. The national day of demonstration, branded "DEMOlition" by the NUS, was a day of great potential. Here we had over 50,000 people on the streets of London protesting against one issue. And the argument was sound: by increasing tuition fees to £9,000 a year, the Government was ending aspiration for countless young people from poorer backgrounds up and down the country. It was also an argument which most people would sympathise with. Indeed, most people in parliament itself sympathised with it until May. Yet this day of demonstration turned into disorganised chaos as out-of-control protesters proceeded to storm and vandalise Conservative Party headquarters. From my point of view, the argument was lost that afternoon at Milbank. Effort has been made since then and peaceful occupations of University campuses combined with things like actions on NUS President Aaron Porter within those occupations have restored some order and reasonableness to the protest. But it was too late.

The fact that the vote was passed in parliament by just 21 votes shows that this was entirely winnable. Abstainers and a few backbench LibDem MPs could have beaten the fee increase. I don't buy the standard, "oh those politicians never listen" response. The fact is the protest, the movement, the lobbying... none of it was organised or powerful enough. The NUS, as Keir has argued, missed the opportunity to organise a truly meaningful and effective demonstration. There were methods it could have used but the Union was not organised adequately. This incoherent, disorganised, factional left-wing response is an old habit. It has lost this argument.

Exhibit B showed the how another, slightly more modern, habit can also lose us arguments. David Lammy's article, put simply, argued that Oxford is elitist. Very few people would dispute that. However, because of a sneaky piece of spin, Lammy's argument was forgotten within hours. It turns out Lammy had used what Keir would consider misleading language. The sub-heading of the article reads:

"One college has not let in a black student for five years"

On the day of the article's publication, Lammy tweeted a few stats relating to "black" students and teachers. Fine. But then within the article, Lammy says:

"The picture on race is no better. Just one British black Caribbean student was admitted to Oxford last year. That is not a misprint: one student."

Keir, like many others among the Twittosphere, was livid. One! But we had all been fooled. It was probably our own fault that we didn't think to question that "British black Caribbean" criteria and Keir certainly felt a fool when, just a few hours later, a fellow blog exposed the real stats about black entrants to Oxbridge. And it turns out Lammy had also misled when he said the Universities had been "obstructive" when responding to his inquiries about these stats: Oxford University had published the information on its website.

Here we see a newer, but still ingrained, habit: spin. And Lammy's point was lost as soon as it became clear he had spun and misled with his language. For the rest of the day, the debate among bloggers and Twitteratti was about the stat spinning and misleading language, not Oxbridge elitism.

Two completely winnable arguments, both lost.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Is T.I.N.A. Working?

2010-11-27T19:17:00.006Z

More polling from the lovely people at IPSOS. And you know how Keir loves giving his view on what it all means.

It shows that 39% of people see the economy as the most important issue facing Britain today. And 54% gave the economy as an answer when asked to state which issues other than their chosen "most important" issue were important.

We could read this as being obvious given the times we live in.

However, Keir found the percentages of the other issues intriguing. Just 2% said the NHS was the most important issue. Also, 2% said education and 2% said housing. These are staggeringly low. Even in the second question, education only got 15%, the NHS 18% and housing 8% when people were asked to state other important issues.

What this tells Keir is that the Conservative narrative is working; T.I.N.A. is fooling the nation.

The Tory changes are going to hit education hard. The cuts and the barmy "free schools" policy are going to begin the ideological dismantling of the school system. The NHS is looking down a similar barrel.

And the cuts to housing benefit alongside changes to social housing tenure rules will, as the Tory Mayor of London put it, cause "Kosovo-style social cleansing."

So why don't these issues poll higher on the IPSOS Issues Index?

Keir thinks it's because the Tory line is working due to there being, in Political terms, no alternative. Labour is inactive. Whenever the Tories are challenged on a cut they are making, they respond with;

a) T.I.N.A.

b) "Difficult decisions to cut the deficit"

c) Big Society bullshit

d) "We inherited the biggest deficit since Alexander marched into Egypt"

Okay so the last one isn't quite accurate. But you get the point. They are smoke-screening all of their savage policies and cuts with these lines that are scaring people into going with the narrative. That is what is leaving issues like the NHS, education and housing so low down on the list of priorities.

Until Labour finds its alternative, that smoke will only get thicker.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau Is Not Dear To Cheryl

2010-11-26T17:29:00.008Z

Says it all

Keir watched from the gallery yesterday as Welsh MPs Huw Irranca-Davies and Chris Bryant became noticeably agitated by the statement made to the House by Transport Secretary Phil Hammond.

Further to Keir's last post about the issue of rail electrification, it seems the Government is indeed intent on leaving Wales with a 20th century rail infrastructure as the rest of the UK moves into the 21st. Despite gleefully confirming a wad of investment for England's rail lines, Hammond stalled on committing to electrification from London through to Swansea, all but affirming rumours that the improvements will stop before the border.

Hammond tried to fob the issue off onto the Welsh Assembly Government but, as the First Minister pointed out, this is not a devolved issue.

Now, Hammond is just doing his job. But one person who isn't is Cheryl Gillan. The Welsh Secretary, surely the first Minister who will lose their job in some way or another, has evidently been putting no pressure on her Government on this issue. Gillan is facing increased pressure to resign from her constituents who, as if to highlight the difference between Wales and the place where she resides and represents, are outraged at plans to run the new HS2 rail line through the affluent English constituency. According to Irranca-Davies, Mrs. Gillan has now said she will resign should the HS2 development go ahead; surely she should be making such principled stands on behalf of Wales as well? She isn't. Instead she is making non-committal remarks about how she remains "fully supportive of electrification" and that she "hoped to work with WAG" on the issue.

And the Government's suggestion that there needed to be a stronger business case for electrification to extend to Wales was shown to be nonsense by Rhondda MP Bryant. South Wales and the Valleys needs this development to increase its ability to grow. But it seems the Government is playing stick and stick with Wales; forcing thousands of redundancies from the public sector whilst killing plans like this that would have stimulated private sector growth.

Keir's got a suggestion for a carrot the Government could use though: sack this useless Welsh Secretary and appoint someone to the role who can effectively represent the interests of Wales in this Cabinet of millionaires.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Wales ConDemned. Again.

2010-11-23T02:05:00.007Z

"Just get on the Megabus, Katherine"

Was meant to post this about a week ago; forgive Keir's tardiness.

Keir, along with other alert Welsh folk, anticipated the Conservative Government leaving Wales behind as the axe was wielded across the UK.

And last week we were given further evidence to support that.

Friend of the blog Huw Irranca-Davies MP took yet another concern of the Welsh people to Westminster, asking for clarification from the Government to quash rumours that the planned rail electrification between London and South Wales was going to be halted before it even reached the toll booths of Pont Hafren. The electrification of the rail line would provide jobs and a faster, greener, more reliable service at no extra cost to fare-payers. A Labour initiative from last year, it would keep Wales in line with the rest of the country in terms of infrastructure development. Yet now, as ever, the Conservatives seem to want to leave Wales behind.

And this would not merely be a short delay; according to one expert, if it doesn't happen now, it won't happen for a very long time. But then, he is using big theories like "economies of scale" that we can't expect our novice Chancellor to understand. In the same article, we are warned that failure to expand the electrification to Swansea as planned would be an economic "disaster" for South Wales.

Keir can't help but wonder whether it may help to have a Welsh voice on the Cabinet Committee for, hmmm I dunno, Economic Affairs?

Anyway, Keir would like to echo the words of the Ogmore MP:

"I would urge the Secretary of State for Wales, Cheryl Gillan, to stand up for Wales and ensure that we are not left behind."

Maybe we can also call on the Government patsies to help the cause? LibDem Norman Baker wanted to take electrification even further than South Wales when he spoke on the issue last year, declaring, "The Liberal Democrats want virtually the entire network electrified by 2040."

A LibDem promise. Fear the worst.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Competition Winner Announcement

2010-11-18T18:04:00.003Z

Congratulations to Duncan Bruce who Keir has selected as the winner of the competition.

Duncan's suggestion for the best Prime Minister or American President that we never had was Robert F. Kennedy. A fine choice indeed. And excellent reasoning given too.

Kennedy's platform for government would have truly revolutionised America at the time.

Despite a number of excellent entries, Keir thought RFK was the stand-out suggestion.

Well done Duncan!

This Royal business

2010-11-16T17:48:00.001Z

Keir is not a particular fan of the Royal Family, and will not be commenting on the issue, other than this post. If you ever needed any reminding how out of touch the Daily Mail is, and how completely out of time much of the upper classes are:

However, Kate has not escaped speculation as to her traditional suitability as an untouched royal bride.

The Spectator magazine once commented that she 'may still have her V-plates intact'.

From today's Daily Mail

Lib Dem Liars and the Lies they tell

2010-11-15T18:38:00.000Z

A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."

From Saturday's Guardian.

This from a Jenny Willot leaflet delivered in the final few days of the election campaign from here

It's a simple equation. Jenny Willott won because of students. Students voted for her because her party said if elected they would get rid of tuition fees. Information now shows that was not the case.Cardiff North Liberal Democrat Assembly candidate Matt Smith (The Cardiff North perv) is already spinning away on Twitter, saying that abolition of fees wasn't one of their 'four key pledges' and that to implement policy you need a majority government. To Keir, it is simple. They campaigned on lies. They knew, even in their wildest dreams that they would not form a majority government and would be left to be junior partner in a coalition.

This is yet another reason that Keir will be saying #no2AV, as not only do the Lib Dems like to see themselves as "moderators" of the other parties, they also see themselves central in the practically permanent coalition that AV would result in; and Keir could do without their rancid smell. Alongside this, the Fib Dems jetissoning of their tuition fees policy is an example of what happens in coalitions. People vote for party A because of policy x, only for Party A to need Party B to get into government. Party B don't much like policy x, so don't support it. When policy x is as influential in garnering votes in certain places as the abolition of tuition fees has been; there is a problem.

Keir would rather be anyone than a Lib Dem activist out in student areas over the next few weeks.

Speaking in a Personal capacity

2010-11-12T15:01:00.001Z

Remember this?

At prime minister's questions, Mr Clegg said Labour's Jack Straw would have to account for his role in the "disastrous" decision to invade.

Mr Clegg later stressed his opinion was a "long-held" personal one.

As he is wont to do when under pressure, while questioned on the Lib Dems involvement in the Coalition government the Cleggeron returned to his holier than thou default and said "Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Iraq Wah Wah Wah Wah illegal." This was later clarified as being his "long held" personal opinion. At the time Keir thought that a bit odd, as when you speak at the Dispatch Box you speak for the government you represent, but still...

And it's happened again. Guess who this time?

Vince Cable has described his own department's plans to scrap regional development agencies in England as "a little Maoist and chaotic".

...

A spokeswoman said the business secretary was speaking in a private capacity when he made the comments.

Now Keir knows the Liberal Democrats have never been in government before, but come ON! You would have thought they'd have got used to it by now. Really begs the question, do we have to take every pronouncement by a Lib Dem Minister with a pinch of salt? Maybe they should hold their hand up while speaking for the government, just so we don't get confused.

Oh and while we're at it, how can a government minister think his own plans are "...Maoist and chaotic"? Sort them out then Vinny!

Irony of Ironies

2010-11-11T18:01:00.001Z

From the Gruniad.

Pickles, who has declared war on waste in the public sector, also spent £256.64 of taxpayers money hanging a new print of a photo of the Queen in his office reception.

The Lib Dems and their barcharts

2010-11-11T17:51:00.000Z

In the week after Phil Woolas was exposed as a liar, and his appointment as Shadow Minister probably Ed Miliband's biggest misjudgement since becoming leader, Keir thought he would cast some light on one of the Lib Dems best known and loved campaigning practices. In the shadow of what has happened in the past week, Keir feels he must state that of course this practice is all above board and not at all designed to be misleading...

Drawn to Jenny Willott's (Useless, Cardiff Central) website after having to apologise in the house after supporting changes to housing benefit she had previously criticised (note Keir flagging up the sloppy editing of her website) Keir spotted a very odd looking barchart on the side of the page. It just didn't look right, and maths wasn't one of Keir's strongpoints:

So, geniuses, in the General Election if the Tories had doubled their vote to 42% they would have won, but according to Jenny, 42% would have STILL put them behind Labour, while +10% for Labour would have probably put them into the lead! Well well well, those nasty lying Lib Dems.

Keir clicked on the bar chart and was taken to this page, where the numbers and the proportions look more accurate. To help, Keir tidied them up for you and put them in a graph:

But, unsure even of trusting the Lib Dems this much, Keir made his own: (1 is Lib, 2 Lab, 3 Con: his Excel skills don't stretch that far!)

So, this is a question of proportion. Why, one wonders, have the Liberals been so loose with the truth. I am sure this could be repeated in umpteen different constituencies throughout the country. Of course, in Cardiff Central the reason is that many Liberal voters are anti-Labour voters rather than dyed-in-the-wool yellowbellys, and if those voters in their nice houses in Cyncoed realise that a Tory win is plausible, they may go back home, leaving the Labour vote to stand up and nick it. Also, they motivate not only these anti-Labour voters but also their base by overemphasising how near the Labour vote is.

So, what's the rationale behind this post? Well, its quite simple. The Liberal Democrats not only lie on a large scale: about things like tuition fees, they are amongst the most insidious campaigners on the ground and this is one of the main reasons why they are detested by so many of all political persuasions.

Keir has a question for Jenny Willott's staff:

"In the interest of openness, especially after the ruling in Oldham last week, can you tell me exactly why you produce such a misleading bar chart on your website?"

Can't imagine there will be a reply mind...

A Day At The Demo: Students Will Need A Resit

2010-11-11T00:17:00.010Z

I presume he had a hammer because he was planning on doing some manual work in London yesterday afternoon?

Keir watched events in London yesterday closely. From Trafalgar Square right down to Millbank Tower, with a few stop-offs and diversions in between, he cast his beady eye over the protest which started with so much potential and ended in utter disorganised chaos.

The nation seems to have graded the protest as a fail. Keir agrees.

The NUS has tried to distance itself from the unlawful acts of some of the protesters. Indeed, the speeches by UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt and NUS President Aaron Porter were very good and had a clear, non-violent, non-partisan message. These were, however, rare instances when the message was clear.

Keir was at Trafalgar Square at 11:30am and the crowd that had amassed the length of Whitehall by 12:30pm was impressive. A feeling of the seemingly boundless potential of this demo suddenly descended over this observer. That feeling was very quickly extinguished. The futility of tens of thousands of people, when poorly organised, became very apparent.

The message of this demo was to fight increases in tuition fees. It was only 1pm when I began hearing "Nick's a prick" chants as well as some particularly vulgar chants about Tories. Now, I despise both Clegg and the Conservatives, but on a march intended to halt tuition fee increases this sort of nasty partisan chanting is totally ineffectual; even counter-productive. Party politics was not the issue here. Students should have been trying to make the people in power hear them and listen to their argument. Calling them a "prick" probably isn't going to do that.

"Surely these people have been briefed?" Keir wondered. Turns out they hadn't. Sources close to Keir confirmed that the NUS had given no sort of briefing to University Union branches as to what the focus of this protest should have been. The NUS should have clearly briefed all Students' Union heads from every participating University that this march was about tuition fee increases and nothing else. Each of these people should have then gone back to their campuses and relayed this message to all of their attendees. With energy focused on one explicit issue the message would have been much clearer to the onlooking nation and would have also presented the students in an organised, powerful light. As it happened, "Fuck Off Tories" chants and placards suggesting Nick Clegg and David Cameron have engaged in penetrative homosexual activities with each other made even me, a student, think, "bloody students".

Keir then took a short-cut around the back end of Parliament Square, behind Westminster Abbey and around onto Millbank; thus getting ahead of the bulk of the crowd. Whilst on this route, it became apparent that Keir's lovely winter coat that his Nan had bought him last year was yet to be adorned by a Remembrance Day poppy. A quiet, reflective walk through the poppy vigil in the front garden of Westminster Abbey was a nice retreat from the loud protest and the £2 donation to the British Legion was worth not only the poppy, but also the lovely conversation with the fellow Welshman who was manning the poppy stand at the time. Then, whilst on my way out of the Abbey, some students decided to walk through the poppy vigil, waving their placards and singing their songs. After being given a negative impression of the protest so far already, this did nothing to help. I've lived on campus, but it's not that far removed from reality that you begin to lose all perception of what is acceptable behaviour in the eyes of anyone with an ounce of sanity and sensitivity. About 15 solemn mourners had their moments of remembrance disturbed by a few half-cut students. Utter disgrace. Although one person thinks there's a perfectly good reason why those protesters were doing nothing wrong. This particular person appears to be a former Officer at a Students' Union. I should add that these students marching through the vigil were clad in NUS gear, with UCU placards.

So how distant was the NUS from some of the more distasteful scenes?

Anyway, back to the events of the day. Keir arrived at Conservative Party HQ just after a small crowd had gathered. The very united chant of "no ifs, no buts, no education cuts" started to restore my faith that this protest could achieve something. That was until a colleague pointed out that David Cameron was in China. "Who's the target at CPHQ then?"

Said colleague just shrugged his shoulders. Indeed.

As we turned the corner into the courtyard of the targetless building that the protesters had gathered at, it then became clear that something else odd was happening. Fire.

Fine. "Could be fun. What are they burning? Effigies? Some sort of metaphor for the broken dreams of ordinary kids?"

Nope. They were burning their own placards. I became confused. Did this mean they were burning their message? One placard said "Not in my name". It was now burning. Did that mean the previous owner of that placard now wanted it all to be in his name? "Stop Education Cuts" placards were also being burned. Had the protesters performed a dramatic u-turn and decided their message was worthy only of being thrown into a fire; reduced to ash?

Nope. They just wanted to see some fire.

The window smashing, fire-extinguisher throwing, building-storming and roof-mounting that followed just rounded things off really. The message and the purpose had begun to descend into fragmented chaos from 1pm when the chants turned nasty and personal. Still, some people have even said that all of this was justified. A mystery person called Emmeline took part in a BBC 5Live debate to say that she felt this was the only thing that could force the government to make a change.

One protester, on a video at the Telegraph website earlier in the day, said of the destructive acts, "It's probably not the best way but it's the only way." So students have exhausted every route to a peaceful resolution in the month since the Browne Report have they? The irony is indescribable: I wonder how many of those people think we should have given Saddam more chances for peaceful resolution before we invaded Iraq?

The videos, apart from showing how many identityless morons we have in this country who just think that acting like Cook from Skins will give them meaning in life, are a damning indictment of the epic failure that was this protest. They also have UCU and NUS placards and banners all over them. I think it's time to accept that this was badly organised.

Every Labour MP asked to comment on what could have been a powerful protest will now have to begin their answer by condemning the violence. That immediately softens the blow of the anti-fees message.

Keir is 100% in support of the fight to stop this ugly coalition ending aspiration for poorer families with these fee increases. But there was so much wrong with yesterday's protest.

Even more than the things mentioned above.

Why attack Tories? Lib Dems should surely have been the targets.

Why attack a building? Does a building have a vote in parliament?

And if you really, really have to attack a building, surely go for the building where the power to make the change you want is represented?

I could go on for a lot longer. But I shall save you; dear, patient reader.

Needless to say, if it turns out to have been successful and the Coalition ends the fee increase because of this protest, Keir will happily eat his words.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

UPDATE: Fresh from Guido, it seems that elected NUS Officials are condoning and associating themselves with the actions of those who occupied Millbank. Keir will ask again: how distant was the NUS from some of the more distasteful scenes?

Monthly Competition!

2010-11-03T20:42:00.004Z

Keir Hardie presents his first monthly competition; the winner of which will receive signed copies of the first two volumes of ex-MP and Foreign Office Minister Chris Mullin's diaries.
i
These critically acclaimed books are much sought after, Keir assures you. Of the first volume, David Dimbleby said they were, "The most enjoyable and stimulating of all the political diaries I have read." And Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the second volume, saying, "Every once in a while, political diaries emerge that are so irreverent and insightful that they are destined to be handed out as leaving presents in offices across Whitehall for years to come...this is one such book"

So how do you win this competition, we hear you cry? Well, its really very simple. Tell us one thing:

Who is the best Prime Minister (or, if you like, American President) we never had? We're not going to judge this on politics, we're going to judge this on how good the reasons you give in support of your chosen candidate are.

The closing date is midnight on November 18th, so get writing. Entries to keirhardieblogs@gmail.com! Good luck!

Prisoners Voting

2010-11-03T16:27:00.000Z

Keir finds it odd the people he is agreeing with today...

Once you commit a crime, and take away someone else's human rights, why on Earth do you deserve to vote?

If Cameron was principled (as he claims he is with the deficit: doing it for the right reasons) then he would be principled here and let the prisoners sue, let the public finances take a hit, because letting, frankly, shitheads like John Hirst having the vote is absolutely disgusting. Wont be surprised however if the coalition somehow manage to blame Labour for a decision that is theirs to take.

Fib Demmery and Student Fees...

2010-11-03T16:12:00.000Z

The phrase LOL was invented for pictures like this...

Keir got a response to his email to the lovely Jenny Willott, MP for Cardiff Central, her of the new baby possibly conceived on the expensive bed that the taxpayer paid for. (It was so expensive, she claimed, to much derision at pre-election hustings, so it could be disassembled and got up the stairs of her terraced house. Anyone fancy getting onto Ikea and finding one cheaper for her?)

Keir was surprised actually, as until a frenetic few days of activity in the last week or so of October, she hadn't updated her website on any issues affecting her constituents; especially issues, such as the publication of the Browne Report affecting the ones that put her in place in 2005 and kept her their in 2010: students. (Something she still is yet to do)

2nd November 2010

Dear Mr. Hardie,

Thank you for your email about the Browne Review into tuition fees.

I absolutely understand your concern, I’ve campaigned against tuition fees throughout my time as an MP and long before I entered Parliament. I believe that university education should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances and I was therefore very happy to sign the NUS pledge in the election.

Towards the end of the last Parliament, Labour’s Secretary of State for Business, Lord Mandelson, commissioned Lord Browne to look into increasing fees. It is clear that Labour, who introduced Top-Up Fees in 2004 despite their manifesto promise not to, were seriously considering raising or even abolishing the cap on fees.

As you know, Lord Browne has now published his report and recommended abolishing the cap all together to allow universities to create a ‘market for education’. His review assumes that those who go to the best universities will earn more when they graduate and therefore these universities should be able to charge higher fees.

I do not support this approach. For a start many highly educated and intelligent people choose to become teachers, nurses or other public sector workers, or work in the charitable sector and will not make more money from going to a top university. I want to encourage the best people to study at the best universities and take up these types of jobs, not force them to choose between being able to pay off their debts or accepting a job which is of great benefit to society.

As a result I disagree with much of the Browne Review and, if it were to be implemented in full would absolutely vote against it. However, the Browne Review is an independent report and the Government has not yet announced what it plans to do. I, along with my Lib Dem colleagues, am currently lobbying Ministers to try to ensure that the final proposals do not burden students with further debt or prevent people from less affluent backgrounds from attending university.

I will not support an increase in tuition fees, but would like to see what the Government proposes first before deciding exactly what I will do.

I hope that this helps to explain my position. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if I can help further on this or any other issue.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Willott MP, Cardiff Central

Keir has emboldened and underlined the most salient issues in her response. She starts off with a nice bit of blame Labour. Yes there is evidence that Labour wanted a review of HE funding. They launched the report process. This is where her attempts at equivalence fall down, because so what if Labour were considering it? (Whether they were or were not is immaterial really) Does that make it OK for the Coalition to do it? Anyway, she is part of a government that IS raising the cap on tuition fees, not considering it.

She goes on to build a nice little get out clause, of course she would vote against the Browne report if implemented in full (which it almost certainly won't be). Leaves her a nice little grey area, and she ends on a cop out too, she 'will not support tuition fee increase, but...'. That isn't a flat out refusal to support it, that is deft footwork that Gareth Bale would be proud of.

If she does vote in support of raising tuition fees, then not only will the outgoing Lib Dem Jenny Randerson be replaced by the excellent Labour campaigner Jenny Rathbone in the Senedd elections next May, but come the first Thursday in May 2014/15 then Jenny Willott will be looking for another (well, her first *real*) job.

And in closing, this from a seasoned campaigner in Cardiff Central, where a mixture of faux outrage about student fees, Iraq, and their silly little focus campaigns helped them win in 2005 and just about hold on last time:

In[sic] student fees I love this quote from a Lib Dem in the local newspaper in 2004: "Cardiff's residents should see the recent rebellion by Labour MP Jon Owen Jones for what it is - a cynical attempt to win votes at the next general election" - forgive me for interpreting Jenny Willott's declared intention to vote against fees in exactly the same way.

Cuts, Cabinet Committees and Carwyn

2010-10-29T19:15:00.005+01:00

Okay, so 'Stiflegate' didn't really stick as a label for the issue. But whatever. In case you forgot, this was the name Keir gave to the situation facing Wales given that the new "Welsh" Secretary was only allowed a seat on one Cabinet Committee.

It was Huw Irranca-Davies MP who raised the issue in the Chamber with Mrs. Gillan after Keir sent his open letter to her. The response was typically guarded, defensive and unhelpful; typically Tory.

He didn't let it rest however, raising the issue again at the Welsh Grand Committee.

And the pressure is still on Mrs. Gillan from all over the constitutional framework. First Minister Carwyn Jones is now in on the act. Wales is suffering the consequences of the recent Comprehensive Spending Review because of a lack of "...clout around the Cabinet table," he said. Well, even more simply, it's because of a lack of presence around the Cabinet table.

She doesn't seem to be doing anything about this collective pressure though. Instead, Gillan, seemingly triumphant, declared this week that Wales would only be suffering from a 7.5% budget cut; 2% less than the UK average. Excellent. So Wales is the Koi-Takasu in this Hiroshima of spending cuts.

Every cloud, ay. (Pun intended)

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Labour Must Begin The Fightback In Wales

2010-10-28T02:24:00.008+01:00

As we watch painfully whilst our MPs in Westminster sit on the wrong side of the chamber it is easy to think that our party is unable to act. As Osborne, Cameron and the patsies swing their axe through the public finances, our MPs watch in helpless disgust and it is hard to imagine how we can begin our fightback when we look at this scene.

But there is hope. Take a short trip from Westminster, through the West Country and toward the longest river in the country. It will cost you at least £5.50, but as the Severn Bridge becomes Pont Hafren you enter a land where Labour can be reinvigorated again. Travel from the dry, cold ash of Westminster into Wales and you will discover the warm, glowing embers of our party. Far from dead, in Wales we must begin to launch our fightback.

Carwyn Jones, the recently(ish) elected First Minister, is more than prepared to take up the fight to the Conservative government in Westminster. A new, fresh face after the incredible service of Rhodri Morgan, Jones is clearly not fearful of taking Westminster on as his recent reaction to the proposal to close the passport office in Newport shows.

And just this week Welsh Labour chose its new General Secretary. In David Hagendyk, the party in Wales has appointed a young, progressive General Secretary who cares deeply about Wales, her communities and the party's role within them.

And despite the party's dire failure to elect any Welsh MPs to the Shadow Cabinet in Westminster, the Labour benches are littered with Welsh MPs ready and able to take on the Conservative government for every penny they intend to divert from Wales.

Peter Hain will doubtless continue to be a strong voice at the front bench against the English Welsh Secretary.

Huw Irranca-Davies wasted absolutely no time getting stuck into the terrible decision to appoint an English MP as Welsh Secretary. And not only that, but a succinct attack on the lack of air time the said "Welsh" Secretary will get in the Cabinet Committee meetings of this government. He also holds quite an important position considering the potential areas of economic development in Wales. As a Shadow Energy and Climate Minister, it will be part of his job to ensure the government delivers new green industries into Wales. It's not like the Tories will necessarily know where exactly he means though; so Huw may need to provide the likes of Jeremy Hunt with directions. Irranca-Davies is also of a rare breed: a politician with a decent website.

Then there are committed community MPs such as new boy Nick Smith in Blaenau Gwent. Keir was in the area not so long ago to watch David Miliband give the annual speech in his name. Upon speaking to some of the locals, it was clear that Mr. Smith is highly respected in the area and his involvement in the community shows Labour is far from powerless on those streets where Bevan once walked. His participation in the successful "Turn On The Lights" campaign is one example of such action.

Newport East MP Jessica Morden is another seemingly intent on making sure the new government do not leave Wales in the wilderness.

The list goes on: from seasoned veterans like Alun Michael to the newly elected Susan Jones. We've even got the youngest councillor in Wales, with 19-year-old Luke Bouchard recently elected in Treherbert following a 10% swing from Plaid.

And, in true Welsh tradition, a poet! Chris Bryant's poem however, has a very serious point that should not be missed.

Far from navel-gazing, the party in Wales is looking outward and trying to find ways to bring our communities together and engage more people than just the same, committed members who turn out for us in whatever the volatile Welsh elements throw in front of them. Keir has wind of an event in Cardiff as soon as this weekend where members will be discussing how they engage with the people in our communities.

As Keir has commented countless times before, Wales is directly in the firing line of this government. We all know what they are doing is wrong, but we must be clear about one thing. As Mr. Miliband noted in the aforementioned speech, this government is "weak in principle, but sure of purpose."

"Weak in principle, but sure of purpose"

Combined with this, and another thing Keir has pointed out before, is the fact that the public, for now, are going along with these cuts. Some initial signs are good. Polling for next year's Assembly elections shows Labour up 10 percentage points from 2007 and hitting 40%, with Plaid next on 23%. UK polling is also showing Labour creeping up on the Conservatives and even taking the lead with some pollsters.

But we need more. To fight back, Labour cannot look inward, it must use what power it has and it must get back into the communities throughout this country to reignite the flames from the embers left over after May's election and build more of that power.

And that must start in Wales.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ed's Getting Comfortable

2010-10-25T15:26:00.004+01:00

One of the big catchphrases of the leadership campaign was "comfort zone".

David Miliband and his supporters made the veiled suggestion that brother Ed was retreating to the "comfort zone" that Labour always turned to when it lost an election. This was, generally, a "comfort zone" that pandered to the Left and the Unions. Whereas ultimate victor Ed said Labour had to avoid retreating to the New Labour "comfort zone"; something which was perceived as an attack on older brother David due to his big part in the New Labour project and his open pride at the achievements of the past 13 years.

Confused? You're forgiven.

Anyway, all this seems to have changed.

During the leadership campaign, new leader Ed said he would go on marches against the cuts whilst brother David said that whilst he supports marches, he wouldn't guarantee his presence at them. Ed's had a change of heart now. This is a good move. Any potential Prime Minister should not be lending such outward support to this sort of action; like it or not, it just doesn't fit the political climate we live in.

Ed also said New Labour was dead. However today he has told the CBI that he thinks New Labour got it right on wealth creation and business. "...we intend to carry forward all of these New Labour insights".

Keir, for one, is glad that Mr. Miliband has realised the strengths that the party had during the time when we won 3 straight General Elections. We needed to elect a strong leader, and part of good leadership, surely, is being able to change your mind, realise what is best and not be too proud and too stubborn to run with it.

His Shadow Cabinet is a broad church encompassing the New Labour breed as well as the much vaunted "new generation" and it seems as though he is listening and developing the philosophy which our party needs to take forward to win the next election.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ed's Week Defined

2010-10-23T15:01:00.005+01:00

Granted, a week hasn't passed since Keir said this was Ed's Defining Week, but I can't help but worry that we, as a party, have failed.

Dan Hodges at Labour Uncut has started to sum it up.

And then YouGov, in their first poll after the Comprehensive Spending Review, showed that the Tories still had more approval than Labour and that, if you look issue-by-issue, there are very few areas where more people support than oppose Osborne is doing.

I have heard some people say this is just because people aren't feeling it yet (very unprofessionally, I can't reference where I've read this as I simply can't remember where it was), but this is totally besides the point. We can't just complacently wait until bad stuff happens and hope to capitalise on public anger.

I share Dan Hodges' gloom and anger at the lack of Labour response. Alan Johnson's jokes and put-downs were good, but people don't vote for put-downs. The Tories tried put-downs on us for 13 years but ultimately people knew we were the best party for government. The reason we held them in Opposition for 13 years was because we had plans and they didn't.

From Alan Johnson's response, I didn't get the sense we had any idea what our alternative was.

"Expose. Oppose. Propose." Johnson did the first two, but the third is the most important of all if we want to be returned to government. And frankly, I'm not sure the first two were done as well as they could have been anyway. Where was the exposing of the unfair impact that the cuts will have on women? The exposing of the ludicrous 12-month limit on contribution-based benefits for those out of work due to sickness? The exposing of the horrible insecurity that will result from the limit on social housing tenancies?

Every one of the leadership candidates agreed we need to learn from our mistakes of the last 13 years. But more importantly, we should be learning from the mistakes of the party that languished in on the wrong side of the Chamber for 13 years. They are what we don't want to emulate.

I don't think we've quite blown it, but we very nearly have.

We have time and we have talent at the top; there's no doubt about that.

We also have one other powerful tool: us. Tens of thousands of us. Over 40,000 more of us since May.

We can take on the cuts in our own communities even when it seems, on a national level, like the Tories have gained the upper hand. It's being done already. In Norwich, where the Tories were planning cuts to street lighting in an area already affected by poor security, people organised themselves and have delayed the cut for 6 months at least and a public consultation has been opened. Don't expect that cut to ever happen.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ed's Defining Week

2010-10-19T21:16:00.005+01:00

IPSOS released their political summary today. Frankly, it does not make for good reading.

The top-line of voter intention isn't terrible for Labour. Though 36% isn't amazing, we are only 3% behind the Conservatives.

However there is a lot to worry about. As Peter Kellner said recently, YouGov polling has shown that Ed Miliband's election to the leadership has produced little, if any, bounce in popularity for Labour. This is the worst bounce created by a new leader since 1955.

In addition to this, the IPSOS poll shows that Ed himself has 41% approval for the way he is doing his job compared to 45% approval for Nick Clegg. This is quite a stunning statistic. Clegg has been widely discredited for backtracking on LibDem promises on tuition fees as well as a whole host of other policies. Granted, Clegg has a +5% net satisfaction rate compared to Ed's +19%. But it is still worrying. David Cameron, on the other hand, is riding into the sunset with a +15% rate of net satisfaction and 52% approval for how he is doing his job.

More worrying statistics come later in the survey as people were asked about party competence over the economy. From March until October this year, Labour's rating has decreased 1%. Just 25% now see Labour as having the best policies on the economy. What makes this even more alarming is that 38% see the Conservatives as having the best policies on the economy now whereas only 29% said the same thing in March. As an article on ProgressOnline helped to point out earlier this month, economic competency is going to be absolutely critical for Labour over the next few years.

For this reason, tomorrow and the week ahead will make up Ed Miliband's defining week. If Labour does not provide a credible response and alternative to the Comprehensive Spending Review this week, the 25% of people thinking we have the best economic policies will plummet further. As the aforementioned ProgressOnline piece states, people believe the cuts will help us in the long-term. So what will our response be?

Without an alternative, we can forget about Government for a very long time.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Trident: Is It Time?

2010-10-17T20:53:00.003+01:00

In a move that will spark internal warfare here at Keir Hardie Blogs, I think I am becoming open to changing my opinion on Trident. While I have always agreed that we need a nuclear deterrent, and therefore need Trident, I am beginning to change my mind.

This is not some knee-jerk response to being in Opposition, but a reaction in many ways to the axe-wielding government. The more and more I hear of people's lives being affected by things like street lighting cuts, police cuts, Child Benefit cuts and University fee hikes, the more I think we need an alternative to Trident.

Because can we really justify the £34bn that Greenpeace say renewal will cost when people are going to be left homeless by the changes to Housing Benefit that the government is proposing? Some even say it will be more than that. Vince Cable said Trident would cost £70bn from..... Wait a minute; why should we care what he said? Naughty liar.

Anyway, the arguments for are still strong. I do agree that we need a proper defence system that will protect us from the nutjobs that the world throws up from time to time. But then, as a friend pointed out to me recently, where have the threats to the Western world come from over the last decade or more? 9/11, the IRA and it's successors, 7/7, Glasgow, the failed bombings of 21st July 2005, the car bombs found in June 2007; none of these security threats, the real threat to the UK in the modern world, were deterred or defeated by Trident. These are the real dangers we face today much more than any international threats from nations or "rogue states".

I do accept that these threats come along unexpectedly, but surely a cheaper alternative would be much more sensible given the economic, political and military circumstances all over the world? Especially as, with Presidents Obama and Medvedev's leadership, we are trying to move towards a nuclear free world. And the alternatives sound, well, okay. Cruise missiles, with a range of 1,000 miles, are one cheaper alternative. Sure, they wouldn't reach, say, Iran. But is Iran really going to attack Britain? Are we that important? And if we do face the threat of attack, do we really need a stockpile consisting of weapons that are "eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb"?

And then there's the possibility of a land-based defence system. I appreciate these can be more vulnerable to attack than Trident subs, but we can sort out the correct security for them at a cheaper cost than we pay to house the missiles underwater.

So whilst I'm still not totally converted, I am definitely beginning to wonder. Is Trident really a T.I.N.A. issue? Or can we find a cheaper, workable and effective alternative that could soften the burden of cuts in other areas?

Open to any thoughts. I think I know who will be first...

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ohhhh Dad!

2010-10-14T17:45:00.000+01:00

David Cameron spoke up for embarrassing Dads everywhere today; making even Keir cringe when he said that Calif. Gov. Ahhhnuld Schwarzenegger was going to help him "terminate" the budget deficit...


Ironic really when you consider the fiscal situation California currently finds itself in, and Arnold's inability to solve it...

It's Over

2010-10-14T02:04:00.007+01:00

Pitman and President.

Foreman Don Lucho arrives on the surface of the Earth to complete this most incredible of human triumphs; just 22 hours since the first miner surfaced.

"Los 33" are a representation of just how far the working man has come since Cilfynydd and Whitehaven. Let them also be a stimulus for further efforts the world over for greater protection and appreciation of the worker.

This will be a fad for the media. And that is fine. But Keir hopes you will all never forget this epic ordeal and achievement for the human spirit and endeavour.

LetUsFacetheFuture.

A Moment of Joy

2010-10-13T04:00:00.005+01:00

Workers of the world, unite in joy.

Our brothers have died in the pits for many a year, but today we have reason to celebrate.

Since the days of Whitehaven we have fought, but today we see the fruits of that fight.

A truly life-affirming moment as the first of "Los 33" is free.

Mining: Toil Without Tribute

2010-10-12T00:29:00.009+01:00

On 14th May 1910, Marlborough House received the following telegram:

Deeply regret most respectfully to inform his Majesty that the rescuers at Wellington Pit have been driven out by smoke from the fire, and there is no possible chance of saving 136 men who are entombed, and almost certainly dead from suffocation.

And so, into history went the Whitehaven Colliery Disaster.

136 lives ended in employment. The Times of the day reported that one family, named McAlister, had been "practically wiped out" as the father, 3 sons, 3 nephews and a son-in-law were all left to rest in the cavity of one of man's great vices.

The coming weeks and months saw the expeditionary team find the bodies of some of the deceased. In maybe the most moving piece of historical documentation this writer, a writer with a History degree, has ever seen, The Times on 30th September 1910 reported that 25 of the bodies had been found. Forgive me for the extensive extracts, but I feel they should be used verbatim:

The bodies were uninjured, and were in a much better condition than were the two bodies found two days ago...The bodies were lying in attitudes which indicated that the men had died peacefully. Each man had his lamp between his knees, his water bottle full, and his food lying beside him.

The only messages observed were chalked on a door, and were :— "All well, 6,30. — A. McAllister." "All right, 7.30. — William Robinson." The date was not added. Mr. Atkinson, H.M. Inspector of Mines, is of opinion that it may be inferred that the messages were written in the early morning of May 12, the day after the explosion took place. Behind another door was chalked "William OprayJohn Lucas can get no further."

And, perhaps most moving of all:

They had left about 100 tubs filled with coal, representing about three hours' work, a circumstance which gives rise to the assumption that they had worked after the explosion took place at 8 o'clock until about 10 o'clock. They had only two sets of tubs standing empty.

Toil without tribute.

Lest we ever forget these men; men whose tragedy gave birth to our party. It was Keir who represented these men and their communities in the House of Commons at the time. Indeed, Keir ended up in a row with a young Liberal Home Secretary named Winston Churchill over the decision to stop the rescue mission whilst the men were still alive.

This was not to be the last mining accident to which Keir gave publicity and prominence at Westminster.

And these incidents still happen.

On 26th April 1942, there was the immense explosion in the Benxihu Colliery in China. That day, 1,549 men died. It is considered the worst mining accident in human history.

And last year, again in China, just over 100 men died at Heilongjiang in the Xinxing coal mine.

So over the next couple of days, as the men of the San Jose mine ascend to freedom, remember A. McAllister and William Robinson. Remember William Opray John Lucas. Remember what was left of the McAlister family, and the unnamed dead of Benxihu.

The rescue operation in Chile needs to be commended. Far from the days of Whitehaven, the scale of engineering, dedication and solidarity of the rescue team has been a reminder of how far we have come. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that we are still sending men into the depths of the earth, putting their lives and their families' futures at risk, to satisfy our insatiable lust for the minerals that mother earth has to provide. May this truly global story serve as an advert for the need for safer mines and an awakening so we realise that we must think harder, even harder, about how we power our world in the future.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Labour Stupidity

2010-10-10T23:08:00.005+01:00

Keir loves our party, but by Bevan is it stupid sometimes.

Fresh from the ridiculous scenario of a 9% union turnout swinging the leadership election, we have The Labour Party Shadow Cabinet Election.

Bloooody hell.

Keir is fully behind Ed Miliband despite voting for David. And it is for that reason that Keir fully expects Ed to be able to assemble a team of the correct, most able people to sit with him on the front bench. We spent 4 months enduring the slog of the leadership contest to pick the person we thought best equipped to lead our party and then don't even let them pick their Shadow Cabinet!

What we were left with was the embarrassing scenario of not having elected a Welsh MP to shadow the Welsh Secretary who we lambasted for being from an English constituency.

And then there's another layer of idiocy. Yvette Cooper was the clear winner of the election and wasn't even given one of the top two jobs!

Give me strength!!

We may as well have just used this method...

Sort this shambles out.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Gillan Perks Up

2010-10-09T21:15:00.004+01:00

It is at least slightly promising to hear Cheryl Gillan attempting to defend Wales' interests.

The closure of the passport office in Newport would mean hundreds of people going into unemployment as well as the inconvenience and unfairness caused by Wales not having an office.

Let's hope newly re-appointed Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain also puts his bit in. Keir can't help but think Huw Irranca-Davies would have been a much better candidate to oppose Mrs. Gillan over the dispatch box but such is life.

It was somewhat shocking that not one Welsh MP got voted into the Shadow Cabinet. Frankly, the system is bonkers. We all just spent 4 months deciding who we want to lead our party; I'm sure part of the new leader's job should be to appoint the best team he can. Seems as though the party is just using elections to make us seem more democratic. If it's ineffectual, then what's the point? I feel the same about House of Lords reform.

Anyway, Gillan has a huge amount of responsibility to stop these sorts of closures. 300 more unemployed in an area with 9.7% unemployment will not be great to say the least. This will continue. The Tories don't care about Wales, as we can tell from how they treated Welsh voices at party conference. Gillan needs to ensure that lack of care does not manifest itself to the tune of job cuts throughout the country.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Tough but Fair Child Benefit Cut?

2010-10-04T17:39:00.010+01:00

(Of which Minstrel Dale thinks "idiotic" and "trusts" it will be sorted out)* Can't imagine his response if Brown/Darling in government, or Mili/AN Other in opposition had trotted out a policy of which it was so clear it was unfair (and of which Ministers backtracked and backtracked all evening). Oh, wait, yes I can.

Gideon Osborne made a speech today, from in front of a extremely hard on the eye green white collage that said something about being together in the national interest. Odd that he chose a setting such as that to say what he did today:

Child benefit is to be axed for higher-rate taxpayers from 2013, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.He told the Conservative conference the "tough but fair" move - affecting couples where one parent earns about £44,000 - would save £1bn a year.

Family One: Mr & Mrs Smith.

Mr Smith is an Auditor and earns £40,000
Mrs Smith is a teacher and earns £40,000

Household income of £80,000 pa.

The Smiths get child benefit.

Family Two: Ms Jones

Ms Jones is a Manager in an Office and earns £44,000

Household income of £44,000 pa.

Ms Jones does not get child benefit.

So, Gidders, "Tough but Fair?"

Keir understands that Osborne is trying to save money, Keir understands that Conservative policy is to deride government as useless and the bureaucratic, leviathan mastabatory fantasy of Daily Mail readers, and Keir understands that we live in a difficult economic climate.

What Keir doesn't understand is why Gideon is making a direct attack on the middle, aspiring classes he claims to represent as well as single parent families and single worker households. Means testing? Fine; an arbitrary limit like this that is patently unfair? All because, as he says, this is the most "straightforward" option. Oh Puhlease.

*Keir is glad that Iain Dale is describing his parties flagship welfare policy in such terms, because, it is. Lets see if he sticks to his word, or just like Cameron and Cleggeron, conveniently forgets his desire to protect child benefits. Its funny, too, because the super mega connected Iain Dale, scourge of Norfolk North, said a year ago after a Fabians meeting that

Ed Balls tried to create some more of his artificial dividing lines by asserting that the Tories would abolish universal child benefit. I responded that this was utter tripe.

HT to Sunder Katwala in the comments section of Daley's post on the policy.

**Oh and it was also a surprise to see Dizzy Think's reaction to this.

"Welsh" Conservatives Debate Plight Of Wales...Apparently

2010-10-03T14:34:00.007+01:00

Keir has already highlighted how Wales is going to be hit a lot harder than most parts of the country by the new Conservative government's cuts.

Since Keir's post, other commentators have agreed. Economists have also added their weight to the argument.

Because of this, there is no more important time for Wales to be represented properly at the front line of politics.

So, the Coalition government appointed Cheryl Gillan as Welsh Secretary. Regular readers will know Keir's thoughts on that. Not the best start.

Hell, but even Mrs. Gillan was bright enough to agree with Keir's analysis.

So now we enter Conference season. A great time for the Welsh Conservatives to meet, discuss Wales and try to push for greater emphasis on protecting Wales from the cuts. An ideal moment for Mrs. Gillan to hear from the Welsh Conservatives who care about the direction in which Wales will be sent. A chance for her to let senior Welsh Tories contribute to a sensible debate where Wales could be shielded from the potential disastrous effects of the coalition.

Oh, wait.... instead, they do this. Failed East of England PPC Iain Dale, chairs the meeting with the English-constituency-MP-cum-Welsh-Secretary and the English leader of the Welsh Conservatives.

Labour's next Shadow Welsh Secretary has one hell of a job because these lot don't have a clue. And we need people like Huw Irranca-Davies on the front bench, fighting this motley crew who will do nothing to stop the axe from coming crashing down on Wales.

The spirit of Glyndwr is going to be needed in the House of Commons.

Wonder if Iain Dale even knows who that is?

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Keir Defers To Greater Judgement

2010-10-03T13:33:00.005+01:00

Keir had planned a piece on some policy opportunities where Ed Miliband can get one over on the coalition.

But this piece by Left Foot Forward's Rayhan Haque says it a lot better than Keir would have.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

PROOF: Tory Bear Is An Imbecile...

2010-10-01T18:14:00.005+01:00

...no, not just because of that photo.

Back at the start of the month, Keir commented on this Guido Fawkes article suggesting David Miliband was planning a victory party as his Movement for Change began organising an Assembly at Labour Party Conference. In actual fact, the Movement for Change was organising an Assembly to host whoever the leader of the Labour Party was to get them to commit to carrying on the work of training people in community organising skills.

After making the comment, Keir received an e-mail from Guido-lite blogger Tory Bear. It read:

"Saw your comment on Guido. I was the source of the story.

Had a long chat with the M4C person who called today and I specifically asked about the event. It it a rally and yes that line about whoever the winner may be is a clever bit of spin.

If DM didnt think he was going to win, and he is going to win, then why would he bother organising it?"

Awww...isn't he sweet trying to be all important. Love him. I'm sure Guido gave him a little pat on the head for "sourcing" that "story".

Anyway, it's quite satisfying now that Ed Miliband did attend the event, as the "M4C person" had originally told Tory Bear he would if he won. Not "clever spin" after all then, ay?

And even better that David Miliband, in his resignation letter, committed to developing Movement for Change. So that explains that he allowed the Assembly to be organised simply because he believes in the principles of the campaign.

It's no surprise that Tory Bear has barely commented since. Maybe Guido has told his wannabe that he should stop giving him shit stories and, as a result, he's decided to drop his criticism of M4C.

Unlucky. Maybe next time.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

More Tory crowing over Ireland?

2010-09-30T19:30:00.002+01:00

Following up on Guido Fawkes's claim that the last Irish budget (you know, the one that has helped push Eire to the brink of double dip, put tens of thousands of home owners in to negative equity, almost crippled their economy, cut welfare, cut public sector pay, began charging a nominal figure for prescriptions, while also cutting VAT, alcohol tax and keeping corporation tax and income tax unchanged ) was the one we should have had here; we have yet another Tory who I'm sure will not be mentioning his past views on Ireland any time soon, especially considering today's news on their exposure to toxic bank assets.

Oh yes, its George Osborne.

To an untrained monkey it is obvious what Ireland attempted to do. Cut tax to allow the private sector and business to swoop in; what is it that George Osborne says about a private sector recovery?

Who is Grant Tucker and Conservative Future

2010-09-30T19:14:00.000+01:00

Not Malcolm's younger brother, no. Grant Tucker Esq is Iain Dale's new Executive Assistant. He is also the newly elected Chair of Conservative Future Wales (despite living in London working for The Nations Favourite Political Blogger TM)

Several months ago he was forced to step down after comments made on his Facebook page about George Galloway; in which he stated he would like to see the terrorist supporting, Saddam Hussein helping, race baiting MP dead. Gorgeous George took umbrage to this and threatened to involve the Police. Odd, considering that Tucker was 17, didn't really threaten him, and Galloway had previously stated that assassination of Tony Blair and George W Bush would be just. (That pair taking offence might have been, you know, a little more justified)

So despite his immature statement, his decision (the parties decision) to step down, Tucker is back with vengeance! Re-elected quicker than a Peter Mandelson return to the Cabinet all whilst leaving Gods favourite country for that there London. Hope he has a young persons railcard.

Anyway, this isn't a personal attack on Tucker, Keir is sure that he is a perfectly pleasant fellow, although he does muse whether the Norfolk North botherer was au fait with the "highly knowledgeable and articulate young man..." he chose past. but it does highlight a wider issue. A scandal hit candidate re-elected easily? How so you might ask? Well, out of 18,000 members, 200 cast ballots! 200! Casts Tories comments on the Union turnout in the leadership campaign in a new light and makes an interesting contrast with this:

100 new members at the Cardiff University Labour Students Society. great turn out and great showing. the fight back begins...

Bittersweet Conference

2010-09-30T00:24:00.004+01:00

It has been an exhausting few days at Labour Party Conference. And that exhaustion was fuelled by the disappointment of David Miliband losing out by the narrowest of margins to brother Ed.

I admit it: I cried. Not just after the announcement. But at various other points.

Ed will grow as a politician and will grow into his role as leader. But I thought David was the outstanding candidate. Having seen him in action closely over the last 4 months, I thought this man was made to lead this party and this country. He has dispelled the lazy media myth of him being robotic with his interaction with people and his radical Movement for Change project. His speech on the Monday after the announcement, where you knew you were looking at a man who should be Prime Minister, was beyond brilliant.

David has been on a 4-month journey and, as he himself admitted at the Movement for Change National Assembly, has changed. As a politician and a person.

I was devastated for him when he lost.

But today's letter of resignation from the front bench has just blown me away. The dignity and integrity of the man is outrageous. He is a truly remarkable politician.

The way he has handled the situation is worthy of the highest credit.

However, most striking in the letter was his commitment to the radical experiment that he decided to run when this leadership campaign started. After writing about the things he would do next, Miliband said:

"There is also the new politics of community organising that we started with the Movement for Change in the leadership campaign and which has enormous potential that I want to develop for the good of the party."

Keir knows more about the Movement for Change than most so heed these words reader: this is no small commitment from David.

The possibilities for the Labour Party and for our people and communities up and down the country if this project is incorporated into the party are breathtaking. Over 1,000 people were trained in a mere 4 months. What can be done in 4 years?

If you were a follower of David's very active website, you'll know of a character called Ben Maloney. Maloney wrote a number of blogs about his experience of using the training he received through Movement for Change and a particular campaign that he began on the Ladderswood Estate in Enfield Southgate. He concluded with one blog about his "journey" which culminated in making the change that the community there wanted.

If the Movement for Change is rolled out, backed by Ed as it was at Conference this Tuesday and supported and developed by David as he pledged in his resignation letter, we can change our politics.

With it, we could create two, three, many Ladderswood Estates.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Frank Field, Labour?

2010-09-26T23:41:00.000+01:00

There was an understandable furore when Frank Field accepted a position as a 'Czar' in the Coalition government, especially given his criticisms of the Labour government previously, and oft repeated rumours that he was considering jumping ship.

Keir spotted this on Michael Crick's 'esoteric' blog (his words, not Keirs)

Nick Clegg was in the chair, and was joined by his party colleague, the Children's Minister Sarah Teather. Among the Conservatives in attendance were David Willetts and the Economic Secretary Justine Greening. But also at the Cabinet table were the Labour MP Frank Field and his colleague from Nottingham, Graham Allen.

Keir, digging up something from the darkest recesses of his mind did a bit of Google fu. Ah, this Frank Field. Does he mention which party he is from there at all? Nope. Not once. Compare that with friend of the blog (and a must for Shadow Cabinet), Huw Irranca Davies's effort, which while admittedly slightly rougher leaves you into no doubt of his affiliation.

Now we have a leader and we can say in one unified voice that the worst Labour government is better than the best Tory government, Frank Field needs to put up or shut up. Which side is his bread buttered? If not, Keir for one would certainly support a nomination challenge come the next election.

Daily Mail gets its priorities right

2010-09-26T15:16:00.000+01:00

Does it criticise Ed Miliband because of his reliance on the unions to secure victory? No. Does it criticise him on his comparative inexperience compared with his brother? No. Does it criticise him for his involvement in the 2010 manifesto? No. Does it criticise him because a survey of Labour rank and file saw his brother as the superior candidate in the leadership race and a PM in waiting? Ummmm, No.

So what then?

Ohhhhh.

Irony?

2010-09-25T19:17:00.002+01:00

He will have many challenges ahead in these next few days, but if he wants to be taken seriously, the first thing he's got to do is own up to his role in creating the mess that Britain is in and tell us what he'd do to fix it...Now is the time for Mr Miliband to tell us what he'd do instead. He promised us a Labour spending plan before the spending review, now we'd all like to see it....

The new Labour leader now has a clear choice. He can either serve the national interest by joining with us and the Liberal Democrats and set out how he would cut the deficit...The fact that Ed Miliband owes his position to the votes of the unions does not bode well. At the moment this looks like a great leap backwards for the Labour Party.

This is the instant reaction from Sayeeda Warsi to the Labour leadership result. Obviously Cameron is staying above the petty political fray, and letting Warsi off the lead. Keir finds it rather ironic that Co-Chair of the Conservative Party in her initial reaction quote to Ed Miliband's election said these things, especially when the following are true.

David Cameron refused to spell out where and when cuts would be made to front line services before the election from opposition. So why do they expect Ed to do so four years from an election?
At a risk of rehashing old arguments, a coalition government doesn't exactly have a popular mandate, either.
Warsi is a fine one to talk on the legitimacy of Miliband's election based on his union support. Especially as she has never faced election. Let me paraphrase: The fact that Sayeeda Warsi owes her position to the whim of David Cameron...

It's Ed

2010-09-25T16:54:00.001+01:00

Have I seen you before?

2010-09-24T17:48:00.000+01:00

Far be it for Keir to do-down his progressive allies from the other side of the Atlantic, but there was something familiar about the video that the embattled Democratic Party have released in the run up to what is going to be a very difficult election day this November.

I'm sure the delectable Ellie knows what Keir is talking about.

I wonder if Guido will crow about this...

2010-09-24T16:21:00.000+01:00

The budget Britain needs was delivered in Ireland

Ireland teetering on the brink of a double dip recession?

Thought not.

Can't see the futility of Ireland's slash and burn Budget making much of an impact on Gideon, either.

Good Government Intervention

2010-09-20T23:16:00.001+01:00

It was Ronald Reagan, one of the few Presidents to die before his term ended without anyone noticing, who, in order to pick up some ignorant voters who lived in the square states who didn't like having to have driving licenses or tell the authorities they owned a gun, and some more informed voters who lived in the cities and sat on the boards of big companies and didn't like having to deal with the government (or pay taxes), told people that "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

This summed up his anti-government philosophy perfectly, that government can't do everything (or shouldn't) and therefore it should do as little as possible. Keir was reminded of this (and all the pre-election warning that Cameron was, at heart, a small-government Tory) when he read that Southern Trains had decided that 'refreshed' trains put onto the 90 minute long Portsmouth to Brighton service wouldn't be refitted with toilets. Previously, toilet-less trains have existed (this ludicrous in its own right, disabled? Pensioners? People with bladder and urinary tract problems? (maybe they should take the bus? Oh, wait...)) but only on shorter routes.

Interestingly, in the initial news report (posted on a blog here) there is comment from the Department of Transport that is removed from the link above. Hmmmm.

The Department for Transport said there were no rules on whether or not toilets should be available on trains.

"We expect rail companies to provide a good service," he added.

"However, it is not for the Government to micromanage the industry."

No, Keir thinks it is regulating in cases like this that is exactly what the government should be doing. How far does the government step back? When does managing become micromanaging? This is letting Southern get one over, and more likely than not, save money while doing so. The Department should step in and force minimum standards on trains that will be travelling over a certain distance; just like they should be trying to talk sense into Michael O'Leary about Ryan Air and their ideas over charging for the toilet. Or maybe this is one for the Big Society?

Confusing Polling

2010-09-19T20:25:00.005+01:00

Lots of interesting stuff in the recent IPSOS poll. Many of the big topline results have been well publicised. Voting intention was the big result as Labour levelled with the Conservatives at 37%. It was hardly a surprise, although it does mean that Labour activists need to be commended for taking the fight to the new government immediately. Harriet Harman deserves credit for that too. Along with Ed Balls and Andy Burnham who, when back in their Shadow Cabinet roles, have destroyed the Tories. Balls in particular has dissected the body of economic policies and fed George Osbourne his deep blue heart.

But, as an ardent believer in the Sanders' voting behaviour theory, I found some of the other figures particularly interesting.

For those who don't have the time to explore such literature, the theory, very basically, goes that if people's economic expectations (personal and national) are positive, they will vote for the Government. If not, they seek change. He used the Thatcher post-Falklands victory to prove the theory.

However, my firm belief in this relatively simple theory is being challenged by recent events. Has Sanders expired?

I ask because in this month's poll, 48% of the people asked thought the general economic condition will get worse over the next 12 months whereas only 28% said they think it will improve.

Now, normally that would be a disastrous figure for a government to have to deal with. Sure, we are not (yet) close to an election, but that is still a high percentage of people with negative expectations. But, coupled with some of the other findings it may not be as much of a problem for the government as one may think. Because 57% still think the government's policies will benefit the country in the long-term and 57% say the spending cuts are necessary. Despite the fact that 75% said the cuts should be slower, the fact that people buy into the cuts and have negative economic expectations confuses matters. For me anyway.

There's more confusion to be found in the surveys leading up to the last General Election. In December 2009, 32% of people asked said they thought the economic situation would improve and 36% said it would get worse. Come January 2010, the positive respondents had gone up to 44% whilst the percentage saying they thought things would get worse had gone down to 24%.

February: 37% said it would improve, 31% said it would get worse.

So the declining numbers who were optimistic coupled with increased numbers who were pessimistic would lead to a weaker government party performance at the May election. But then April threw up a stonking 41% saying the economic situation would improve with only 26% saying it would get worse and 30% saying it would stay the same! Huh?! And optimism was as high as 47% in a separate Scottish survey.

I vividly remember the night these polls came in and gloating on Twitter that we had convinced people. We had economic expectations up, pessimism down and thus would win the election. I knew, Sanders knew. Hell, Gordon knew and, after we won, he would be hailed as a genius.

Au contraire.

We lost votes, seats, credibility and one of the greatest thinkers in politics as our leader.

So has the picture been changed because of the Tory ability to credibly push the T.I.N.A. message? Or is it because Labour isn't offering an alternative to challenge T.I.N.A.? Or have the people changed? Is Sanders still relevant? Are economic expectations still the best indicator?

So many questions.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Office of the Ministry of the Department

2010-09-17T13:08:00.000+01:00

The Clegg has been stating (what once might have been accepted as) the obvious recently. (Some of the responses there are cringeworthy. P.S especially that one)

Otherwise, there are some familiar stories knocking about, that set Keir onto Google, wracking his brains for where he had seen it before. The excellent Political Scrapbook outlined at the end of August the issues facing Nick Clegg's office, with reports from the Standard and the Gruniad that Nick Clegg's team was 'frazzled' by being in office, and unclear of its role and purview in government. (Unsurprising really since they've not had much practice at it)

This tittle tattle was confirmed yesterday in slightly more professional and delicate terms by a report from the Institute for Government: "Clegg must be better resourced, or else the sheer overload of information will overwhelm him."

And it seems the reports advice on assisting Clegg and other Lib Dem govenrment ministers while increasing their influence and 'watchdog' role in government is simple. More SpAds. Oh, whats that, another Lib Dem cherished principle being dropped. Put that [slightly less significant] one with tuition fees and Trident.

So, other than being the second tick in a single tick system, (hands up who really thinks the Clegg has a true veto?) what exactly is it that Nick Clegg does that is making his team so frazzled? Spend all his time redrawing constituencies? (Apolitically of course)

Iain Martin at the Wall Street Journal has an interesting idea about his future at least.

The media is out of touch? Never?

2010-09-17T00:55:00.002+01:00

Keir Hardie returns. This is a post just plugging the hole, more substantive, ('streetfighting', if you like) posts will be coming soon.

The PCC upheld a complaint by Clare Balding against AA Gill at the Sunday Times, who referred to her as a 'dyke on a bike' while reviewing a TV program which, fittingly thought Gill, she was riding round Britain.

AA Gill was defended by the Sunday Times as having a "acerbic...tasteless" sense of humour, and by the paper saying that the term 'dyke' has been reclaimed by several groups as an empowering term, including:

...two organisations, which are both called Dykes on Bikes.

The groups represent an American lesbian motorcycling movement and a UK-based cycling movement, whose members had reclaimed the word "dyke".

Seeing as hip hop artists have reclaimed the word 'nigger', I trust AA Gill would, if he so felt, review a documentary about a black person, lets say, who was, for sake of argument walking around Britain, as "...nigger on parade."

No, thought not.

¡Vive la Revolución!

2010-09-12T21:43:00.009+01:00

Keir's found coverage of Fidel Castro's comments funny but infuriating.

Castro was merely commenting that the Cuban model doesn't work anymore. Now, to me, that screams progressive; always looking to the future, not sticking to things that worked in the past. To the Western media, it's saying socialism doesn't work. Not that difficult to read through the bias.

The Western world has always been inhumanely unfair to Cuba and uses opportunities like this to do all it can to make Fidel out to be some sort of mad man. Fact is, despite having been under sanctions and blockades throughout it's 50-year existence, Castro's Cuba has given us in the West plenty more to be embarrassed about other than just our imperialist treatment of her.

Fidel was talking about the economic model, but the reaction in our media has been suggesting that he was admitting that the Revolution has failed. So let's take a look at some wide-ranging areas of data. Cuba's under-5 mortality rate in 2008 was just 6. The UK: 6. USA: 8. Socialism didn't fail the young then. Cuba also has 99% immunisation against measles for 1-year-olds while the UK languishes with only 86% immunised. HIV prevalence is 0.1% in Cuba, 0.2% in UK and 0.6% in USA. Not bad healthcare then. As our NHS begins to be picked apart by a bunch of right-wing economic lunatics, we can only look enviously at the incredible system Cuba has created. Life expectancy in the 3 countries also shows Cuba has much to be proud of. In Cuba it is 79; it is the same in the USA and UK.

My favourite is the literacy rate. Cuba: 100%. The UK: 99%. USA: 99%. Primary school enrolment is 6% higher in Cuba than it is in the US.

So some good evidence that, despite 50 years of inhuman blockades and sanctions, Cuba has kept up if not bettered the UK and US in many areas of social development.

But Fidel was talking about the economic model, so I should address that too. In the past, when I have argued the case for Cuba amongst friends and colleagues, they have always pointed to the economy as proof that socialism doesn't work, that Fidel is a mad man and that Cuba is just an island full of starving poor people. Those who read more than Western newspapers will know that's not the case. But I had a wry smile to myself when our economies began crumbling in the West whilst Cuba managed to sustain growth. It's even more fun when you use the CIA's World Factbook to highlight the point; the same CIA that tried with all it's might to bring down the Revolution in it's early days. Cuba achieved 7.3% growth in 2007 and that then shrunk to 4.1% in 2008 and 1.4% in 2009 as the recession bit. During the same time, our economies in the West went into meltdown. The UK went from 2.7% to -0.1% to -4.9% and the US went from 1.9% to 0% to -2.6%.

So, in the face of global recession and continuing isolation at the hands of the West, Cuba has sustained economic growth. I'd like to think it is the legacy of the first Finance Minister and President of National Bank. I digress.

The reaction to Fidel's comments is therefore pretty ironic. What has failed? Socialism or unregulated capitalism? Which "model" really doesn't work? Cuba's that sustains growth during recession and achieves 100% literacy rate? Or the West's? The model where people watched as their governments let the markets and banks run wild. And where we now allow right-wing millionaires to lead us to double-dip?

"History will absolve me" said the bearded hero in '53.

Independence from imperialism, 100% literacy, extraordinary healthcare and economic growth despite sanctions, blockades and global recession?

Absolved.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Don't Forget...

2010-09-11T00:15:00.006+01:00

37 days on: don't forget our fellow workers.

¡Hasta libertad!

1,000 People Ignored

2010-09-01T21:52:00.005+01:00

Following on from Keir's trip to the Movement for Change National Assembly on August 30th, a quick note to express disgust at the media coverage over the last two days.

How an event that brought together 1,000 people from all over the nation to express determination to strengthen our movement can be overshadowed by one comment from a man who was at the top of the party during a time when it left many members behind is beyond me.

Peter Mandelson did some amazing things for our party, and Keir respects and admires him greatly. And maybe top-down power was needed at the time. But our movement is finding it's meaning again and he should step aside. The future is here and he is well and truly the past.

It's an utter disgrace that 1,000 grassroots members were ignored by apparently "progressive" newspapers and, might I add, blogs. Check the posts on Liberal Conspiracy on the 30th and 31st August. Sunny Hundal tries to make himself out to be a progressive, liberal, bottom-up-power kind of guy. Yet on a day when 1,000 grassroots Labour people turn up to an event to hear each other speak much more than they hear politicians speak, he fails to mention it once. Hypocrisy, Keir says. No; fucking disgraceful hypocrisy.

The Guardian? That bastion of the centre-left. Liberal, progressive, well-fucking-meaning. Did The Guardian mention how the movement had reconvened after decades of dismantlement? Not a chance. No, the day after the largest event of the Labour leadership campaign The Guardian goes with an article about yet another snidey Mandelson remark about one of the candidates. The 1,000 people just get a paragraph at the bottom. Another disgrace.

There is a saving grace however and it of course comes from that source of all that can be powerful in the movement: the people. A blogpost here and there. A letter to the aforementioned holier-than-thou newspaper (scroll down to Clare Palmer's letter). A tweet. Or two. Or three. Or four. Regardless of the pitiful media coverage of such a momentous event in the context of modern politics, the people who were there are speaking. And as Gordon Brown said on May 3rd, "from one person, one candle, can be lit thousands of candles".

Because of this, because of the people, Keir doesn't think we've heard the last from this movement. Guardian or no fucking Guardian.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

A Day At The M4C National Assembly

2010-08-31T14:17:00.007+01:00

Look at that photo. Just a group of people with common purpose.

Keir attended an event that took him way back yesterday.

Virally promoted on Twitter and driven by personal relationships, not press releases, David Miliband's Movement for Change National Assembly was probably a very new experience for many of the 1,000 people who had gathered. Keir's recent experience of political meetings and gatherings has been far from inspiring. Dull branch meetings in smokey rooms aren't what people join for, yet that's often what we get.

But the National Assembly was so far removed from those meetings. It showed that the people have the ability to turn those meetings on their head and turn politics on its head. The Assembly was by the people in it and for the people in it. It was in their experience; there were unscripted outbreaks of Zimbabwean song and dance, leaders of the allegedly conservative Pakistani community on their feet shouting and hollering, beach balls, flags and technical glitches that caused the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland to do a small dance followed by a few lines from a popular song. It was fun and it had some small mistakes; that is in people's experience. Passing resolutions and minutes is not. It was also in their experience in other, more serious ways. Testimonies from our Labour people who are going to be affected by the Conservative cuts made the Assembly what it was: moving, powerful, important and a stimulus for continuous action.

"The coalition's cuts could kill me" began one of our people. It was no exaggeration. The gentleman's story could not fail to resonate with any person in the room. And then the story of the young carer: her life, changed at the age of 9 when she had to begin caring for her mother and siblings, reminded the people why they were there and why they are Labour. The Tory cuts to the organisation that helped her through her life and into University will mean people like her will not be given the chance to succeed; all of them, our people.

Finally, the white, working class man with a white, working class family. Some suggest we lost our way and stopped helping this family. That argument is hard to believe after hearing the story of how the NHS helped him provide for his young disabled son. Shoes to help his son walk, shoes that would have cost £100, free on the NHS. "I don't want the world", he continued, explaining that all he wants is the continued chance for his family to live a dignified life.

And at no point in the personal testimony was there the tone of the victim. Dignity and determination flowed from the testimony-givers, who were not professional speakers, as they told their story to the thousand gathered.

So when David Miliband got up to speak the atmosphere, above all other things, was one of solidarity. Keir's fond of a good speech: Obama in the rain, Gordon against the world on May 3rd , JFK's "we all breathe the same air", Dr. King telling the people not to let dogs or water hoses turn them around and Malcolm X scaring the life out of the Establishment all rank among the favourites. Let's be frank: as good as David Miliband is, this was not going to be an MLK speech. But Mr. Miliband did not lecture, he did not preach and he did not patronise. He spoke to each person in the crowd. Of course he was the main event and of course he seemingly has hero status with many people, but he was part of the Assembly like anyone else. He spoke with them, was angry about the same things they were angry about and determined in the same way they were.

The speech was superb. Sadly, Peter Mandelson, as much as Keir respects him, has hijacked the headlines. It is all getting a bit tiring now. So the people's Assembly was not as high on the news agenda. But ask the 1,000 people there what the biggest event that day was and you'd get a different perspective. Ultimately, that is all that matters: the people.

Kudos to Stella Creasy and Willie Bain too. A nice presentation about the birth of our party with lots of pictures of Keir. Stella is clearly going to be a crucial member of the parliamentary party for many years. She spoke on stage about real things in the community that matter to people's everyday lives and also managed to recruit, on stage, a 15-year-old Walthamstow pupil to the party. Adding to the Walthamstow connection was a stunning song and performance from a 14-year-old girl who had seen the effects of violent crime in her community. You can follow her on twitter @mizzcamara. I'd recommend you do; she will be a big deal.

And Jim Murphy...what a guy. Keir can confidently say that he has never seen a Shadow Cabinet member do a little jig and sing in front of 1,000 people.

What's important now is that Labour members make the right choice. David Miliband is the only man who will win us an election. Elect any other candidate and we face a decade in Opposition whilst the Conservatives destroy the lives of the pensioners, the young carers and the working class families: our people.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Morning Star Affirms Keir's Opinion

2010-08-26T01:21:00.003+01:00

Good to see The Morning Star has caught up with Keir's sentiments from a few days ago in today's paper.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

A Small Note On The Chilean Miners

2010-08-26T01:06:00.007+01:00

While we fret about the actions of our government, Keir wants to remind those that care to read this little piece of internet that we must also not forget the plight of workers around the world. Keir was an internationalist. So for those who breathe the values that Keir founded our party on, it's distressing to hear of the Chilean mining accident.

A pre-teen Keir got trapped down a mine. His family feared him dead when he didn't come out with the other miners after an accident had left them stuck for some time. It turned out he had merely fallen asleep and was brought to safety by a co-worker once people realised he was down there. A slightly comical anecdote, but a despairingly serious incident. From these incidents, Keir was sparked to life. The injustice he saw and experienced moved him to fight, to agitate, to "stir up divine discontent" and to act: our movement was born.

If the stories are true, there is every chance the men stuck in the Copiapo mine could die deep underground. The psychological effects even if they don't die could be terrible. If these men come out alive and well, it will be a testament to the emergency services there as well as the advancement of nourishment technology.

Keir hopes they all see the light of day again like he did all those years ago. But let us not allow our political situation to blind us from the plight of these workers.

More Than A "Call"

2010-08-24T12:07:00.002+01:00

This sounds like it will be epic.

Much more than a "call for change", whatever that is.

Keir knows a big movement event when he sees one. Could this be David Miliband's Stratford Town Hall moment?

Iain Dale: Twat.

2010-08-22T14:37:00.003+01:00

So this is why Iain Dale's blogposts often give false information...

You've got to look at the page Iain. You silly little minstrel.

Evidence of this inability to represent information effectively came in a recent blogpost regarding David Miliband's campaign literature.

The title of the minstrel's post is "David Milibrother Says "Ladies! Tidy Your House".

He then posts a section from David Miliband's guide to holding an effective house meeting. For those of us who know where to look when reading, we can tell that it says,

"Get in from work, give the place a quick vacuum and general tidy."

At no point in the excerpt from the house meeting guide is any reference made to gender. Indeed, at no point throughout the whole document is any reference made to gender.

But of course, the way of the right-wing, working-class-mocking minstrel is not to use actual quotes when trying to make a story out of something. It's just to be a total and utter prick.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

The Continuity Myth

2010-08-19T12:23:00.009+01:00

Something's been bugging Keir recently in this arduous Labour leadership race. It is partly due to the fact that the contest hasn't been front page news what with a World Cup and a country having it's head resting uncomfortably on the spending guillotine. The fact is, this Labour leadership campaign hasn't hit the news as heavily as we may have hoped. And this has lead some of the coverage to be lazy and presumptuous. The result of this has been that David Miliband, Keir's chosen candidate, has been portrayed as a "Blairite", continuity candidate. In much of the coverage, Ed Miliband is being presented as the new man for change and renewal. And some are believing it.

Frankly, that's nonsense.

Ed Miliband is a good guy. Sure he let us down a bit at Copenhagen after so much build-up and blamed it on others, but he tried his best. However, let's be clear, he does not represent renewal and change as much as his brother. For all Ed's talk about strengthening the grassroots of the party and engaging new members and people as a whole, he hasn't actually done anything to show his commitment to that. David has.

The Movement for Change, as Keir has previously pointed out, is not just words. Whilst Ed talks, David acts. People throughout the country are being trained to effectively organise within their communities and strengthen the movement as a whole. This is unprecedented for someone who is still merely a leadership candidate to be investing in. If David Miliband was already Labour leader and he'd invested money in something like the Movement for Change, we'd say "great". That he is doing it whilst only a candidate shows this man's love for the party and his dedication to strengthening the movement.

And then onto policies. One thing that really grates on Keir is Ed Miliband's relationship with the living wage. Can we all be clear about something: the living wage is NOT Ed Miliband's idea and not his campaign. London Citizens began this campaign. Boris Johnson and HSBC, among others, adopted the living wage before Ed started piping up about it. And all of the Labour leaders support the spread of the living wage, not just Ed. Yes, that means David too. The only difference is that David isn't trying to pass it off as his own.

But there's more to show that David is anything but "continuity".

Just a few weeks ago, he and Tessa Jowell led the call to make the BBC a co-operative, making it more democratic and more accountable to the public. That is: "make it accountable to the public". Not "make the public run it", for those of you who were thinking "isn't that the Big Society?"

So that's one progressive policy. Want more? Gay marriage. At the end of July, David came out (excuse the pun) in support of full gay marriage. Continuity? Keir thinks not.

And what about the mansion tax? David has supported a 1% tax on homes worth £2m. Left Foot Forward agreed that this is a progressive tax. And, they add, it has the support of voters.

It doesn't stop there: a High Pay Commission and employee representation on the pay committees at top firms. This would, as David himself said, put a check on corporate excesses. Will Straw seemed to like that one.

David also wants to see the party move forward in democratic and progressive terms. Introducing a leadership academy for BAME community members is another of David's policies. Our party needs to continue it's move towards a much more representative membership; in particular the parliamentary party. Investing in this sort of idea will go a long way to aid that. In addition, David's commitment to an elected party chair is one of the main reason's that Keir was convinced to support him. This is an absolute "must-do" policy.

Don't believe the myth. David Miliband is not continuity, not "Blairite". He and his policies are progressive, electable and bold. That's what we need.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ben's All Lonely

2010-08-17T19:52:00.007+01:00

Ben needs some company down south.

With that in mind, Keir has been looking into the electoral situation in the South West of England. Other observers have been correct to point out that Labour lost a key demographic in C2 and DE. Liam Byrne MP was the quickest off the mark in a Progress publication shortly after the election. As Byrne pointed out, losing 20% of the C2 vote share is not just a horrible statisticians figure; it's simply wrong. These are the people that our party was formed to serve yet we clearly let them down. Byrne's analysis is excellent and well worth a read. It was watered down recently by Ed Miliband in his essay for the Fabians. He seemed to think he'd stumbled across a revelation but Byrne had already made the case months earlier. Not surprising that Ed's copying and plagiarising though, what with his constant trumpeting of the Living Wage campaign without reference to the fact that it was a campaign started and run by London Citizens. Keir learnt how to reference sources in secondary school.

Anyway, whilst it's correct to point out these issues of our vote share dropping amongst C2s, it's also striking how we got annihilated in the South. This has been talked about by John Denham MP in the weeks proceeding the election. Keir has been particularly interested in this regional divide.

The South-West had 55 seats at this General Election: 5 Labour MPs were returned. The electorate there returned 35 Conservative MPs and 15 LibDem MPs. The biggest vote share that Labour got was 38.6%; and that was in a seat we didn't even win. Keir thinks we can come away with at least 16 at the next election. Optimistic? Maybe not as much as it sounds.

On the 5th May, voting intention polls showed 29% of people were going to vote Liberal Democrat and they ended up with a 23% share of the popular vote on polling day. The latest voting intention polling from YouGov gives them a 13% vote share. Going on their poll swing, that's a 16% drop in support. Take 16% off of their national vote share and you are left with 7%.

Seven per cent.

I know that's not entirely mathematically correct. But all the same, the drop is very big.

And what of Labour? Voting intention polls on May 5th gave us 29% of the vote share and that was indeed accurate on polling day. YouGov at the moment have Labour with 38% of the vote share.

Keir is often suspicious of using national swing and applying it to seats and/or regions but is annoyed when it often translates quite accurately. So let's bite the bullet and use it here.

In Stroud, the Tories won with 40.84% to Labour's 38.6%. The LibDems polled 15.45%. A mere 3% swing from the LibDems to Labour would secure this seat. But the national swing away from the LibDems at the moment is that whopping 16% and the swing towards Labour is at 9%. So that is a must-win seat.

Even further down the scale, we can convert seats. Let's take a trip to Somerset North East. The Tories won with 41.27% here ahead of Labour on 31.67%. The LibDems polled 22.33%. If we can convert 10% of that LibDem share to Labour, we have another seat. And that's before accounting for the inevitable decline in Tory popularity that will be seen from 2011 onwards.

Filton & Bradley Stoke: Tories 40.76%, Labour 26.44%, LibDems 25.25%. Swingy, swingy, swingy.

Swindon South: Tories 41.78%, Labour 34.36%, LibDems 17.63%. LAB GAIN.

And lest we forget the non-voters in these constituencies. A GOTV drive would open up the possibility of even more votes to topple the incumbents. Although turnout was generally good.

Of course, it's not so simple as to be able to just rely on discourse. Labour and our new leader need to make sure we appeal to the people of the region.

Aeronautical industries have grown in Bristol. Labour needs to recognise this. We need policies, similar to the ones in our manifesto, that will encourage growth in these areas. One thing that Keir believes in is re-embracing the vocational ethos of the old polytechnic. This would stimulate these sorts of manufacturing businesses as people won't be coming out of University with solely academic degrees or degrees in things like Business Studies. Instead, they will be able to take targeted, vocational courses that will translate into employment in these sectors that have high potential for growth.

Tourism in places such as Somerset and, more so, Cornwall also need stimulation from the government. Cornwall is way out of our reach when you look at the figures. In St. Ives we got 8.17% and in St. Austell & Newquay we got 7.17%. Dire. These are not places where we have a chance on the face of it. But the Liberal Democrats got just over 42% in both of these seats. Of course, we'd need more than the current national swing to topple them, but the numbers of people that they have betrayed from those constituencies by relinquishing values for power must be huge.

In addition, Labour has a proud tradition of devolution in the last 13 years. It is time to expand on that. An elected Cornish Assembly? Even a South West Assembly? Keir can think of crazier things. Well, you don't need to think of them really; Gideon, IDS and Gove just talk about them all the time.

There is the real possibility to capture the South West. Labour must capitalise.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Keir Makes Reasoned Decision

2010-08-15T11:01:00.002+01:00

Keir has decided to remove the post in response to Iain Dale's nasty, mocking attack on the working class.

It became apparent that, rather than reading the context and understanding why the post was written, people were jumping to the conclusion that Keir actually thought the things that were in the letter from the fictitious MP.

It is a shame that people cared not to read the context. It is also a shame that those who decided to criticise Keir for "homophobia" having not understood the post did not dish out the same criticism to Iain Dale for his blogpost which sparked the response.

Iain Dale's disgusting post that mocked the poor and vulnerable was something that he actually did find funny. Keir did not find the response letter funny; it was used to highlight the despicable nature of Dale's blog. It was deliberately absurd to highlight a point.

What Keir would suggest is that those who jumped to criticise his post examine their own attitude toward the poor. What is more of a disgrace than the criticism leveled at Keir is the lack of similar criticism directed towards Iain Dale; a man who's views on society must be killed off by any means necessary. His elitist ideology, and that of others, is the sort of thing that sparked Keir to enter the blogosphere.

The sooner that ideology leaves this country and this planet, the better.

The History Of All Hitherto Existing Society...

2010-08-10T18:54:00.009+01:00

These 7 words have resonated with Labourites for decades. And the 6 words that follow them send the blood pumping through the left-winger's veins.

It was in 1848 that Marx and Engels opened the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians, with that explicit, direct and assured phrase. A phrase that, when heard, makes total sense. You almost needn't read the rest of that book:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"

It can sound old-fashioned. When we read the history books, it's clear that class struggle did exist, but it's something we look back on. We see photos of the upper classes waltzing the streets and then images of the poor in the workhouses. And then we think of the 1980's; a time where class struggle was rife and Thatcher's political war with the unions divided the nation.

But that was history.

Centrists and centre-right folk will say class no longer matters. And some Labour people may have been inclined to agree as support for the poor has grown. Even though the gap between rich and poor has got bigger in this country, that bottom, basic level of support has undoubtedly got more substantial and humane.

But today, for those who were in any doubt that class mattered in 2010, David Cameron showed that the Conservative Party will always be a party that favours its own class over the working class. The Prime Ministers topic for today's PM Direct showed that class struggle is right back on the agenda.

Cameron has attacked benefit fraud which, alone, is right. People who wrongfully claim welfare should be punished, of course. Cameron said,

"There are some people who are claiming welfare who are not entitled to it and that is just wrong and that should stop."

Again: totally right. So what's the problem?

Firstly, I have a problem with this £5.2 billion figure being used. Because the first disgusting thing about Cameron's slight on the working class today was how he kept banding around the £5.2 billion figure that is lost through "benefit fraud". Read the small print (or just read anything other than the headline) and you'll see that only £1 billion of that is fraud. Indeed, over £3 billion is down to official error, yet that is being grouped into this £5.2 billion figure and referred to as "benefit fraud".

Secondly, and more importantly, why isn't Cameron speaking about something that costs this country a lot more money than benefit fraud? Tax evasion, white-collar fraud, costs the country over £15 billion a year compared to benefit fraud which costs us just over £1 billion. If a PM Direct session was completely dedicated to benefit fraud, surely Cameron should be dedicating another session to an issue that is costing fifteen times more than benefit fraud?

Of course, he won't be. Partly because it won't serve to please The Sun and the Daily Mail who get lustful thoughts when they hear Government officials criticising benefit fraud. And partly because the people who evade tax are those who can afford the accountant to fiddle their accounts. They are the upper middle classes; the business elite. They are the people the Tories rely on for votes, money and champagne receptions. They are the non-dom peers and the ginger Capital Gains Tax-dodgers in the Treasury who think nothing of their crimes but berate the underclass and working class for committing crimes that account for fifteen times less financial loss for this country.

And what else has Cameron's government done? Cut Child Tax credits whilst decreasing Corporation Tax. Increased VAT whilst doing barely anything to reclaim money from the banks that we, the people, saved from collapse. Allowed rich parents with free time to take their children out of schools to set up their own elite schools whilst the run-down, arse-end facilities in the state system are allowed to rot as the Building Schools for the Future programme get's abolished.

These are all attacks on the underclass and attacks on the working class. They are no different to Thatcher's political, ideological attacks on the working class in the 80's. And they are no different to the careless, shameful actions of pre-Welfare State governments that locked the poor up in workhouses. Labour governments have ensured that normality has progressed. But now, as they always do, the Tories are back to try and take society backwards again.

Class struggle, entrenched in the history of all hitherto existing society, is back.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

In Defence Of FibDems (A Bit)

2010-08-09T23:31:00.004+01:00

Keir, like many, disagrees wholeheartedly with the Liberal Democrats decision to ally with the Conservatives to form the new Government. This isn't because they chose the Tories over Labour, but rather that going into coalition with a party so drastically opposed to your own ideology is just plain wrong. On the one hand they were right in a democratic sense to have talks with the biggest party first. However, also in a democratic sense, they were wrong to go into coalition with a party that most of their voters do not identify with in any way.

But in light of today's polls showing LibDem support plummeting, I do think that it's worth pointing out that there is an argument that could stand when trying to justify their decision. It was expressed by Vince Cable recently (in an article that I can't find to link to) and has been quietly uttered by some LibDems from time to time, but not loud enough in my opinion. Part of me can understand that they saw this opportunity to influence policy even to a small degree despite only holding any power because their seats held sway in creating an effective majority. They have wielded a lot more power than they warrant with their seat proportion. Though the much maligned Tory "gerrymandering" will tarnish it, the referendum on AV would never have been a thought to Tories had they won a majority. Nor would some of the economic policies such as the proposed graduate tax. These ideas wouldn't have seen the light of day; even if the Tories may end up throwing them out eventually.

The likes of Simon Hughes and Vince Cable are at least trying. Granted, I don't like Cable and still think he's a perennial turncoat, but he's clearly exerting influence way beyond his party's mandate from the electorate.

My real problem comes with the new Tories: Mr. Anti-Nuclear Chris Huhne, thief David Laws, tax-dodger Danny Alexander and, most of all, Deputy Dawg himself. These men have sold out their principles. Either that, or they were basically Tories all along but just wanted to be different in University and it's just stuck. Huhne has sold out on nuclear, Laws on economics and, well, principles, Alexander on...erm...economics and principles, and Clegg on basically everything.

That said, I'm glad their poll results are diabolical and I do think they have totally sold out. They should have left a Tory minority government to rot. So, basically, this was a pretty pointless post. Just a mini-rant.

Something more productive next time.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock

2010-08-04T20:48:00.003+01:00

Keir always thought this government would last no more than two years. The signs are ominous/promising, however you want to look at it.

Simon Hughes' open discontent regarding David Cameron's housing proposals today is a meaningful moment. Hughes has always been held in high regard by liberals and progressives, and with good reason. A member of the Beveridge Group, Hughes' views have always been compatible with progressives in this country. And today he showed he isn't afraid to speak out against a government he knows is doing wrong. Unlike his peers Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, Hughes doesn't seem too fussed about power and doesn't want to sell out his principles. Sadly for him, his party did that on his behalf. Even the things he has said regarding the coalition have been sensible and far-removed from the brown-nosing "I thought this was a good idea all along" attitude of Deputy Dawg. Hughes is right, of course. He is right when he says that the point of social housing is to provide security. Being in social housing means, as he said:

"You know you can have affordable housing for the rest of your life and for people in many walks of life – out of work, retired, on low incomes – that's fundamentally important."

That is the view of the progressive. And it is diametrically opposed to the view of the Conservative. The Tories are intransigent on issues like this; especially now during a time when they are being smokescreened by the view that all of these cuts are necessary.

In addition to today's disaffection, Hughes also passed comment on Michael Gove's mental free schools plan last month. "A nonsense" is what Hughes said it would be to spend money on free schools that could have been spent improving existing school buildings. And God knows what Hughes thinks of Theresa May's decision to scrap plans to ban domestic abusers from the homes of the victims. I'd forgive him if he was still sitting at home squinting at his screen, wondering whether he is actually reading that story correctly. I'm still confused now as to what is going on inside May's head.

Coalitions collapse over things like this. We all saw what happened in Holland over disagreements on Afghanistan troop numbers. And Belgium's coalition government collapsed over what I think can be deemed an even smaller matter than the housing issue; although the cultural factors in that particular case were complex. Then there was Romania's coalition catastrophe. In all of these cases, the splits were arguably between parties much more closely aligned by ideology than our current coalition.

Though I admire Hughes' defiance, I will wait for him to start voting against things until passing full judgement. He has a lot of respect throughout the party, as shown with his election to Deputy Leader, and therefore should have a lot more influence over the left-wing MPs than Messrs. Clegg, Cable, Alexander and Laws. If he feels this strongly, he could lead a revolt. But I get the feeling that he also wants to be sensible and try to make this odd coalition work.

Still, the possibility is there. It shows how fragile this Government is and it can collapse. What's the relevance? Labour must be ready to fight on the ground whenever the moment comes. Keir still feels this will be before the end of 2012. We need to begin mobilising now. And as soon as our leader is in place, we need to unite and begin the fight; whoever that leader is. Let's be clear though: that leader has to be the Member for South Shields in order to give us the greatest chance of winning.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Pretty Dry Analysis, But A Link To a Good Study

2010-08-03T22:41:00.003+01:00

An interesting study conducted by IPSOS released this week studying the aspirations of young people. Keir's had a read of the data and drawn some conclusions. Bear in mind, it's late at night, so the analysis is hardly fine-tooth-comb stuff.

The results make for an intriguing read though. Firstly because it's generally positive. But there's some data to get the mind motoring.

The study was conducted with 14-16 year olds and it is particularly telling that they said they feel they want more advice on further education from people who had actually experienced it; rather than just their teachers and careers advisors. Combine this with the fact that they were generally optimistic about their futures and options and we could deduce that they may feel differently if they are told some of the negatives that could come from further eduction. Negatives such as an ultimately useless degree combined with massive debts and no jobs to come out to. I don't want to sound like a Scrooge, but maybe more realistic advice would change the outcome of this particular study and the young people themselves may be able to make more informed decisions about their futures. Also factor in that careers advisors can be total morons so it's not surprising the pupils want advice from elsewhere. Keir's careers advisor told him to look into work in leisure centres in South Wales. Great advice considering he's now doing a Masters in Politics and working in Westminster. Good job girls were taking up too much of Keir's thoughts at that age to pay attention to some rubbish careers advisor.

Following on from that digression, a whopping 75% said they wanted to do AS and A Levels after Year 11. But 20% said they wanted to get a job and 23% said they wanted to get an apprenticeship. It is definitely a fair point to say that over the course of the last Government, Labour did not to enough to balance the economy; or rather, it let the financial services grow way faster than other sectors. Manufacturing went up, but financial services sky-rocketed. The fact that 43% said they wanted to go straight into work after Year 11 in some form or another may suggest a changing trend. Though the percentage wanting apprenticeships could be higher. I think it is generally a good thing that 75% want to do AS and A Levels though. The bigger problem comes with the next stage when it comes to deciding whether to go to University or not.

It is somewhat upsetting that the main way the pupils viewed "success" in school is via exam results. But also what struck me was how some pupils saw their societal or biological factors as a barrier to success. 16% of the pupils said they thought their ethnicity would make it more difficult for them to succeed in life, 11% thought their family background would do the same and 11% thought their gender would. This is pretty worrying for children of that age. And even more worrying? 35% thought that having a disability would make it more difficult for them to succeed in life. Work to do there. Not that I have any ideas.

I haven't read through the whys and whatfors; only the actual data. But it's well worth a read.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Violins At The Ready

2010-08-01T20:05:00.003+01:00

Interesting comments from Shimon Peres regarding the English attitude towards Jews. By "interesting", I mean deeply disturbing and deluded. The Zionist has suggested that England is "deeply pro-Arab"; something that must explain our country's recent actions in Iraq and during the Suez crisis. He also said that England has, "always worked against [Israel]"; something that must explain our role in helping the state of Israel itself to be created.

So, he's bonkers.

What I'm more concerned with is if and how William Hague now reacts to this. Israel's image has been severely damaged by the flotilla attacks and there seems to have been a burden lifted from the shoulders of European nations who were cautious about criticising Israel in the past. Hague now has a duty to defend the reputation of this country in light of these absurd comments from Peres but, from what I can tell, only some unknown MP who vice-chairs the Conservative Friends of Israel has spoken out. Where is Hague? Why hasn't he reacted like the former Foreign Secretary did to the use of fake British passports by Israeli assassins?

Wonder if Peres knew he was saying "English" and not "British"? Shimon does sound a bit Welsh...

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Keir On London

2010-07-23T14:49:00.007+01:00

Though of Celtic stock, Keir has a close attachment to London. So Boris Johnson's reign as Mayor of the capital has been troubling. Sure, Boris has done a few good things. Not completely following the party line is in some ways admirable, and championing the Living Wage campaign led by London Citizens is also something to be commended. However, he is in more than equal part dangerous.

Plus, Brand Boris is fading. He is a character, but to hold such an important role requires more than character. The way he has often passed "achievements" off as his own is pretty annoying. As is the way he deflects serious questions about important issues with humourous quips and ancient phrases that few below social class B would care about understanding. His threat to the cost of travel in London is also worrying. He is a freak of a politician in many ways; a hark back to the old days when charisma could sometimes be much more important than policies. (People will say that is actually more prevalent these days by citing Blair and Obama as politicians who won on charisma...Keir says these people should take a look at Blobama's often revolutionary policies before talking such nonsense.) Labour's election performance in London (38 seats to the 28 Tory seats) suggests that there can definitely be a Labour recovery of City Hall. However, Ken Livingstone's time has been and gone. As a colleague recently pointed out on Twitter, it's over.

Step forward, Oona King.

Politics is in the process of being freshened up with David Miliband's community organising training re-building the Labour movement, new members joining the party in their 1000's and a fresh-faced bunch of new politicians like Chuka Umunna and Stella Creasy, Rachel Reeves and Gloria de Piero. London needs to follow suit. No more Tory policy speak. No more champagne receptions. No more banker love-ins. Boris has to go. His defence of the bankers in the City was vomit-inducing. "...the City of London produces 9% of UK GDP" was his main defence. Well, I don't know about you, but I'd rather that decrease by, say, 2% and not have to go through the painful effects of its cyclic crash every now and then.

Oona would bring a fresh approach to politics. She's also a proven hard campaigner. She would support the grassroots movement that helped Labour fight off a Tory majority. Her tireless efforts fighting an anti-war ticket candidate in a difficult seat in 2005 should not be forgotten by anyone; especially as the man who beat her turned out to be the mug we all knew he would be.

Her policies make sense and will resonate with Londoners. Her plan to tackle knife crime and the fear of knife crime with a combination of increasing provision, services and activities for young people whilst clamping down hard on the crimes, is well thought-out. Her housing policy to secure more social housing from new developments is something that London desperately needs.

And let's not beat around the proverbial bush: what a great advert for London and for Britain. One of the great capitals of the world led by a young, charismatic, mixed race female.

Ken talks old school, Boris talks Confucius, Oona talks London.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Gillan Cracks

2010-07-22T18:20:00.005+01:00

Keir cares not for the means, so long as the ends are achieved. With that in mind, there is some slight relief to be felt after Cheryl Gillan's recent admission that Wales will be disproportionately hit by the Conservative governments fetish for public sector cuts. Not relief at the fact that Wales will be hardest hit, of course; just relief that she's admitting it.

As you should know, ahem, Keir was banging on about this months ago. Indeed, it was the whole reason for the open letter that Keir sent to Mrs. Gillan and all Welsh officials earlier this year. Maybe Huw Irranca-Davies' persistence and his whole-hearted championing of the issue has helped to make her realise she has a responsibility to serve the people of Wales.

Either way, at least it's got through.

However, it still comes back to the Cabinet Committee problem. In her statement, the Secretary of State says,

"...therefore in budget discussions we are looking at the impact on the Welsh budget".

Well, where better to discuss this than the Economic Affairs Cabinet Committee? But, of course, this is one of the Committees that Mrs. Gillan doesn't have membership on; it's the one that irked Keir the most. This was precisely why it was so important that she sits on that Committee. Precisely the reason Keir took time out of his otherwise busy day to write a polite letter; precisely the reason Huw Irranca-Davies took his question to the House. If she had realised this prior to Huw asking his question, maybe she wouldn't have snapped back like a Buckinghamshire terrier and would have, instead, given a reasoned answer.

At least this gives fellow Welsh MPs more scope to put pressure on Mrs. Gillan to ensure she gives Wales a voice in this new government. The fight can go on.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

More From The Fail

2010-07-21T09:48:00.003+01:00

Getting bored of doing this, but feel it is necessary...

YET another terrible, terrible article from the Daily Fail.

"Ephraim Hardcastle" says David Miliband has had jobs "handed to him on a plate".

Well, I guess it is pretty easy getting a First Class degree from Oxford. And then I can't imagine much easier than studying Political Science at MIT; even easier to get onto the course as a Kennedy Scholar.

Ephraim's right, it is totally lamentable that after achieving so much through hard work in education, David Miliband got jobs relatively easily.

I wonder what sort of struggle, hardship and toil "Ephraim" had to go through to get a job at the most vile newspaper in the country?

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

DC Launches BS

2010-07-19T23:15:00.012+01:00

"And this is how small I want the state to be."

So, it has actually happened. The most mental idea of the whole election campaign is actually being launched.

When David Cameron first introduced us to The Big Society at the Conservative Party manifesto launch, it was the moment that gave me hope that Labour could snatch victory from the deep blue jaws of defeat. And how he tried to pass this off as his great idea. It was like the Obama community organising heritage, he claimed. The Conservative Party website section about The BS even name-drops the father of modern community organising, Saul Alinsky. Some I've listened to even compare The BS to David Miliband's recent Movement for Change initiative; an initiative championed by Keir.

Cameron said that the BS will be, "the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street". BS indeed. The BS is not a redistribution of power; it is a redistribution of workload. What David Miliband wants people to do, what groups like CitizensUK do, what Barack Obama did, was organise people to hold the state to account.

DC says, "Don't like your hospital? Build a sodding new one then."

DM says, "Don't like your hospital? Organise your people and make the authorities give you the hospital you deserve".

Spot the not-so-subtle difference.

As people's public services start to collapse, The BS will be shown up for what it is. It will allow the rich to flourish just like the "free schools" experiment, one of the flagship areas of The BS policy programme, allowed only the rich to prosper in Sweden and only served to widen the gap in attainment between the wealthy and the poor. When funding is cut from people's services in poor parts of the country, and they are told "you sort it out, because we're not forking out for it", the BS will come undone.

The BS is not grassroots power. It is not politics from below. It is politics from the suburbs. Not politics by the unemployed, but politics by those who don't need to be employed. Not politics by the affected, but politics by the affluent.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ed Balls is in trouble...

2010-07-15T13:03:00.002+01:00

With the rumours swirling last week that it was Ed Balls who had been briefing that Andy Burnham might be on the way out of the leadership contest to avoid the ignominy of finishing last, Keir took particular interest in the latest round of supporting nominations, not least because it gave him the first summary of the state of the race he'd had for a while.

Keir's opinion of Ed Balls isn't that great. He has all the drawbacks of Gordon Brown (personal unpopularity not least amongst them) without any of the perceived advantages. While the media have been crowing that maybe it is Balls with the momentum after his opposition to VAT rise and advantage he has derived from the totally self inflicted wounds of Michael Gove, the figures really do show a different story.

More scientific polling done for the Daily Telegraph reinforces this. (With the usual caveats re: accuracy of AV polls)

Balls is for all intents and purposes last.

The Express have got over Diana...just...

2010-07-14T18:09:00.000+01:00

This was actually a real front page. Keir is sure he is not alone in being aghast.

We are all in this together...

2010-07-14T17:40:00.001+01:00

We are all in this together, Gideon Osborne tells us. Unless you are a Conservative councillor that is.

Keir is uncomfortable using cliches but "they just don't get it"

(Loving the BBC new look by the way)

Incidentally this is Barnet Council, the same council that was lauded by some as being the first 'no frills' council. Keir can neither confirm or deny that you are only allowed one bag of rubbish per person per week, that council workers wear vomit inducing t-shirts, or that the council run buses drop you off in Luton.

Diane Abbott

2010-07-13T16:29:00.003+01:00

"He even let us take his picture, unlike Diane Abbott who only uses ‘approved photography’."

From Here

Can't think why...

Political Reform?

2010-07-12T12:32:00.003+01:00

Both Clegg and Cleggerer now support the "right to recall" MPs; something which across the pond happens quite regularly: a recall in 2003 of California Gov. Gray Davis led to the election of the Governator, Ahnuld.

Keir knows why the right to recall was proposed; for similar reasons that a referendum on the voting system was proposed.

1. The Liberal Democrats are shameless local campaigners and the possibility of recalling an MP mid Parliament would not only give them added impetus (because you can guarantee any issue, be it slight or even only perceived would be waved around by the Libs: what constitutes an issue big enough to even attempt a recall is a problem and was the catalyst of writing this...) but also the opportunity to maybe pick up one or two seats. (A recall campaign would be all about GOTV; and the Libs can be pretty good at this.) As with reform of the voting system, the Libs support this because it is to their advantage.

2. The Liberals support 'political reform' because its part of their created personality: it is amongst the things they do: eat muesli, read the Independent, want to put us all at risk by abolishing Trident (and supporting a rise in VAT more recently!). They have cultivated this personality; they are 'different' from the "same old tired two parties" (if Keir had a tenner every time Cleggy had said that during the election campaign he could physically come back to life, not just through the blogosphere) although this might now be at risk because no longer can they sit on the sidelines throwing shit...

3. Because all parties were desperately incapable of coping with the fall out from the expenses furore. While admittedly, the drip drip from the Torygraph didn't help, nor the rabid reaction from the most vocal person any TV crew could find, most MPs, in fact, were probably guilty of some sort of abuse of their expenses, even if completely legal. Take for example Jenny Willott, the reelected Liberal Democrat MP from Cardiff Central. She claimed 1700 pounds for a bed. Why so much? Because it was the only bed she could dissasemble to fit into her flat in Adamsdown (or wherever she lives now!) You, as much as Keir, know that that is utter bollocks!
All parties were completely incapable of dealing with the expenses because they were all as guilty as each other (Yes, I know what the Liberals pretend, but see David Laws and his hubby, and the insufferable Sarah Teather and her Office situation), and other than saying "We won't do it again" and reforming the expenses system, (both particularly unmeasurable by the public) what could they do, anyway? Therefore, "political reform"; AV and 'recall' is an attempt of cooling the anger of the electorate: and I feel that some are falling into this trap: see the support for AV in the most recent polls. AV is hardly more proportional, and doesn't really address the problem of expenses: which is that certain MPs were venal thieves, while several were criminal.

So why did Keir write this blogpost? Well, Mark Reckless MP (Con-Rochester and Stroud) self diagnosed himself as being too drunk to vote on the second reading of the Finance Bill, early Wednesday morning. The expense crisis was a one off (and any MP who is worth their salt will be very careful where expenses are concerned in the future) so 'recall' is not going to be used to punish that. The question is: was Mark Reckless reckless enough to be recalled? Does getting shedded on the public purse while doing the peoples work constitute grounds for recall?

Keir Is Alive And Well In The Valleys

2010-07-09T22:54:00.006+01:00

Today, in the heart of the Valleys where Keir once agitated and organised, David Miliband gave a speech honouring the lessons we can learn from Keir's life and actions as well as speaking of his future hope for our movement, party and country.

The best thing to do is post the link, so the whole speech is here.

From a podium fronted with a yellowed, framed picture of Keir in the Cynon Valley, Miliband spoke to a crowd of ex-pitmen from Penrhiwceiber, unemployed people in their 20's from Aberaron, workers from Mountain Ash and pensioners from Cwmbach. This is a part of the country embedded in so-called "old" Labour values. A part of the country battered and slashed by successive Conservative governments and a part of the country staring directly at the oncoming threat of austere measures that could threaten to destroy them once more. It is also a part of the country that doesn't care much for the collective sympathy of others; a part of the country where people stick together through all of the above and stand sternly in the path of the blue axe.

Furthermore, it is a part of the country where the people have no passive deference to those at the top. There is not much hero worship in this part of the country; maybe except for rugby legends. The only other heroes are the people from their own communities; like the ones who lived and nearly died down the pits. The ones like Keir who dragged life with them, kicking and screaming, when the elite cared not to provide any opportunities to them: the ones who made things for themselves. Politicians certainly are not easily worthy of such hero treatment. Pomp, glitz and spin don't sit with the people in this part of the country and there is no respect for reputation alone. Facebook, Twitter and hashtags don't impress these people. What they want from their politicians is action.

So, when the gathered crowd stood to applaud the speech, as well as the substantial Q & A session, given by David Miliband, you felt it was a big deal. For anyone who thought Miliband could not capture the values and beliefs of the left, centre-left and soft-left of the party, seeing the reaction of this audience proved absolutely otherwise.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

And The Winner....

2010-07-07T09:40:00.002+01:00

...for most ridiculous, meaningless, clearly biased, Tory-shagging, anti-Labour tone, total right-wing bollocks of a piece of journalism goes to.....

........ Of course! Who else! The Daily Fail, for this piece of absolute shit.

On Forgemasters and political reform

2010-07-06T00:12:00.003+01:00

So the Coalition government abandoned the planned £80m loan agreement with Sheffield Forgemasters, with which they would have bought new machines to make nuclear reactor components, even though both coalition partners spoke about the need to rebuild this countries manufacturing base in their manifestos.

Deputy Dawg has announced a referendum on alternative vote: the apex of ultimate deception over expenses: 'a new voting system will fix EVERYTHING'. This referendum will cost...£80m.

Glad that Clegg sees a few more Lib Dem MPs as more important than 100s of jobs in Sheffield.

Governing in the national interest.

Sally Bercow and Blairism

2010-07-05T20:36:00.006+01:00

Keir loves Sally, he really does, as evinced by the excellently photo shopped picture above. He also loves the way she gets the Tory press's knickers in a twist, "...but, shes, shes a binge drinker, shes, shes, shes, been a naughty girl, shes, shes, shes, too tall" ad infinitum. But, he must use her as an example in discussion of a very strange malaise sweeping certain members of the Labour Party. Some of whom (the lovely Sally not amongst them, obviously), Keir feels, who think that getting involved means a few retweets on Twitter and getting irate now we're in opposition. Where were you at 9pm on Polling Day? Keir knows where he was, and where LetUsFace... was too.

This malaise is centred around this man.

Tony-San looks very, very smug there, as well he might. This is the leader that made Labour electable again. This is the leader that made them a viable, alternative government. This is the man who swept Labour into Downing Street and power with two landslides of epic proportions. This is the leader that while fighting a poorly communicated, politically and publicly unpopular war, he still managed to stuff the Tories so much that even against the most unpopular Prime Minister in history, they still rely on the sandal wearing, muesli munching "...in the national interest" Liberals signing their own death warrants to prop them up.

But his success is not only measured electorally. This is the man that dragged Britain out of the doldrums and into the bright, shining uplands of the 21st Century. This is the man that reformed the NHS, investing in it as never before. This is the man that helped bring peace to Northern Ireland. This is the man that helped bring peace to Sierra Leone. This is the man that removed a murderous dictator. This is the man that frankly, realigned British politics so completely that the party of Thatcher are now led by the self described "...heir to Blair."

So what the hell is Sally Bercow, and people with attitudes like this, thinking?

SallyBercow

Night all. Labour tweeps - I ♥ you *all*#evenBlairites. And thx to #fangirls 4 the ♥ lesson#backtohashtagsinthemorningthough

Even Blairites? Oh, OK then, which #leader do you prefer then Sally love? Let us think about the Labour Party's electoral success pre and post Blair. Oh, yes. Harold Wilson? Remember him. Clem Atlee? Ramsey McDonald? Maybe Gordon Brown?

So tell me, do you support the reheated mishmash of policies we fought for last time out? Or maybe the electorally suicidal ones that led to our regular spankings by the Thatch? Keir knows its cool to bash Blair, but come on! Maybe you would prefer to be in opposition forever following wierdy, so called 'left wing' policies and those that advocate them.

Keir's feelings are difficult to sum up really. But ungrateful is one of them. Blairism is popular. Blairism is what got Labour elected, and Blairism is what will get Labour elected again.

While Keir is foaming at the mouth, this is the same sort of people that seem to think "add to the debate" is an essential part of a leadership contest (Yes I am fucking looking at you all you lemmings who endorsed Abbott and McDonnell)

To win, Labour needs to get real. Yes, it's cool to fantasise about your sexy next door neighbour with all her charms: nationalisation of the banks, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the advance of socialism. But fantasy's rarely turn out as good in the flesh. We need the solid, dependable wife. Capitalism with a human face, because that is what the people want, and that is what the country needs. The state blunting the excesses of the market and providing a social safety net.

This wasn't meant to be an endorsement for leader at all. But we don't need Ed Balls, Sally Bercow's chosen candidate. He is the singular most unpopular politician in the UK. We've tried this before, remember. ("But I've met him, he's a really nice guy")It doesn't work. The public don't like him. He's a busted flush.

As stated previously, we don't need to lurch leftwards either, and as much as I like him, we don't need a candidate who so far has only managed to formulate his appeal as being Northern. We need someone with the Everyman ability of Blair, and the only person that comes [very] remotely near to that is David Miliband.

More on David Laws

2010-07-05T19:37:00.002+01:00

He did nothing wrong, he was persecuted because of his sexuality!

Yeah, Right.

OFCOM states that Sky News is biased, aggressive and Tory

2010-07-05T19:33:00.002+01:00

The media regulator Ofcom has dismissed almost 2,800 complaints about Sky News's coverage of the general election.

Viewers had objected to Adam Boulton's treatment of the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, and his on-screen clash with the former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell, aas well as Kay Burley's interview with an electoral reformist.

Boulton, the Sky News political editor, attracted 1,787 complaints. A total of 671 viewers complained about an interview between Boulton and Campbell on Monday 10 May. Most of the complainants objected to what they viewed as unprofessional behaviour by Boulton, who appeared to lose his temper after Campbell accused him of being "upset that David Cameron is not prime minister".

"Two well-known personalities from the worlds of politics and journalism were taking part in a debate about a matter of topical and serious concern," said Ofcom. "We considered that although the tone and content of this exchange was unusual, it would not have been beyond the likely expectations of the audience for this channel."

Here.

Update on Gillan-gate

2010-07-04T20:49:00.003+01:00

Just a quick update on the Cheryl Gillan issue.

After her answer to Huw Irranca-Davies' question, one might have thought that the issue would be dropped. Not so. Keir has never known a Welshman to drop a cause like that so easily. In fact, Keir's sure this one will drag on. "It would not be right to leave this one rest on just one bold attempt," were the encouraging words from the Ogmore MP. He e-mailed Keir to give his thoughts and pointed out how rattled Mrs. Gillan got after being asked the question. "The lady's not for turning", were his apt words. Keir thinks that Mrs. Gillan couldn't care less about the committees she sits on or, for that matter, about Wales.

Irranca-Davies went on to raise the issue again at the seemingly farcical Welsh Grand Committee meeting a few days ago. Reading Betsan's blog is what I'd recommend to get an idea of the somewhat bizarre and shambolic way the new government is running the Welsh Office.

And, finally, the Welsh media have taken up the issue it seems. The Western Mail featured this article last week.

So no developments, but an update nonetheless.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

A Day At The Hustings

2010-07-04T15:37:00.004+01:00

Doesn't Andy Burnham look well shady in that photo?!

Anyway, Keir was in attendance at a Labour Leadership Hustings on a typically grey Sunday morning in lovely South Wales. In what was a fantastic turnout of, apparently, over 300 people, members put a range of questions to the leadership contenders.

My brief summary on each candidate, should you be interested, was as follows.

Dianne Abbott was actually really good and got a good response from the Welsh members (and non-Welsh apparently; two of the questions were from English constituents in areas where no hustings are being held). Her passion is clear, even if some of the things she has done and said aren't exactly consistent. What Abbott does have is her voting record, which is a particularly powerful tool in relation to the Iraq war vote. She rightly pointed out that voting against it at the time and constantly speaking out against it is much more noble than changing your mind now. Ed 'n Ed: take note. But other than that, she also does help the debate and makes it a bit wider. Her closing speech was good too.

Ed Balls was much of a muchness. I think his whole campaign has been. Balls is at his best as a street fighter; a guard dog. He will make up an important part of the Opposition front bench, but this man cannot lead the party. At one point he said that Blair and Brown sometimes didn't listen enough, indicating that he would move the party away from the 13 years in which we followed Michels' "iron law of oligarchy." Very doubtful.

The other Ed (you know, David's brother) seemed to start the debate very well, with members responding well to his ideas on how to re-structure the party. But he seemed to fade out. His closing speech was very good until he said, "I'll finish with a pledge...I will not leave the party behind". Didn't quite get that.

Andy Burnham, who has already earned himself the "dark horse" tag, seemed good enough. I admire Burnham's speaking ability and think he will be a hugely important asset for the party for many years. He also had some good things to say, not least when he spoke about the National Care Service which I, like he, believe will be the next major step in health care in this country. It is something I hope he really keeps working on. Burnham's answer to the question about his proudest moment was also quite good. He talked about the Hillsborough disaster and it was clearly something close to his heart. He got a loud cheer when he expressed his disgust about Jeremy Hunt's absurdly ill-advised comments recently. And an even louder one for his comments about selective education, where he said he opposed it with every bone in his body.

You know where this is going, right?

Abbott was good, Burnham was very good, even Balls ticked some of my boxes. But there was one clear difference between the aforementioned candidates and the fifth one. There was only one Prime Minister sitting before the gathered Welsh comrades. As Huw Irranca-Davies MP correctly pointed out afterwards, only one of the 5 candidates genuinely scares the Tories and Cameron. Only one has a proven record of passing innovative, sometimes radical, reforms. Only one of the candidates has started doing the things they say they will do already. Only one cares about the party and it's ideals so much that he is investing money into things that will benefit the party, whoever wins this election. Only one can combine his anger and passion with cutting, constructive argument. If David Miliband wins this leadership election, Labour will be back in power by 2015. Led by a man who knows that the machine is not more important than the movement, the renewal of the party could be such that the Conservatives again have to sit in the wings, trying to change their image and trying to capture the Holy Grail that is the centre-ground voters again. Labour does not have to change it's values or it's image. Our values, unlike those of the Conservatives, will always remain the same. But the restructuring of power in the party that is being carried out already by David Miliband will get Labour back to where it was as the party of the people and by the people. One dodgy joke aside, Miliband was the clear star of the show. At no point was this clearer than when he gave his foreign policy comments that cut through the populist and slightly inexperienced answers that his opponents gave. Having been asked a question about the Israel-Palestine situation, a few of the other candidates said that the answer lay in standing up to the USA when necessary. Miliband disagreed. The situation would only be sorted, he said, when the UK and others engage the whole Arab world in this problem. It was an answer of a man who understands the world.

LetUsFaceTheFuture

Minor News

2010-06-30T22:19:00.002+01:00

Found this on the inside pages somewhere...

Tony Blair wins 2010 Liberty Medal award for work on peace

Still, he's only helped stabilise three nations so we can't expect that to make the headlines really, can we.

Pull yer socks up Tony.

More Gillan

2010-06-29T15:27:00.005+01:00

After completely failing to answer Huw Irranca Davies's question on Cabinet Committees (not, it seemed, even understanding what the question was) Governor General Cheryl Gillan has been in the news a little more recently. A front page on todays Western Mail no less!

But first: whilst SoS, Peter Hain had Leighton Andrews' former bag carrier David Taylor as his SpAd. Since Gillan has taken over the Welsh Office, she is yet to replace Taylor. She was expected to replace him with Welsh Conservative Press Officer Richard Hazlewood, who has lots of experience in Wales and Welsh Politics. However, rumour has it, that instead, she is going to install her researcher, Oxford Graduate Sam Gibbs (who has no experience in Wales, or of Wales). So the person directly assisting the SoS in organising the Referendum, and representing Wales in government, has as much experience as she does. Very little. Fantastic.

And the Western Mail. Put simply:

High Flying Civil Servant (who happens to be Welsh) queries why the GG insists in staying in the swanky St Davids Hotel in Cardiff Bay (very nice, but very expensive, Keir can attest) rather than at the flat the Welsh Office [perhaps] have (Billy Hague used to stay there: Keir is not sure if they still own it) or in a cheaper hotel, when she is in Wales, seeing as "...we are all in it together." It must be remembered that this is the same woman who now, it seems, rather hypocritically earned the praise of the TaxPayers Alliance by forcing civil servants out of first class.

High Flying Civil Servant (who happens to be Welsh) is moved to the Ministry of Justice.

So does she not want a Welsh civil servant working for her? Does she not want a civil servant who is anything but a yes[wo]man working for her? Welcome to the new politics. Of course, this wouldn't happen if we had a SoS who was, you know, Welsh, and from a Welsh constituency.

We Don't Just Want Signatures

2010-06-27T01:02:00.006+01:00

Whilst I totally welcome the influx of Labour Party members since the General Election, something about it still irritates me and also makes me curious about the nature of the political being in the United Kingdom.

This view doesn't represent the view of any party members I have spoken to, it is merely my own view. I have had this nagging feeling about the new members since the day after the election when it became apparent that people were joining at an unusually high rate, but reading a recent article on Liberal Conspiracy urged me to articulate my irritation.

And what proceeds from that urge is something like as follows.

The article, posted by Septicisle, explains what I think is the case for many people. They could not join, and maybe even could not support, Labour whilst it was in government, but now Labour is out and now we are faced with the Tory cuts these people feel the desire or need to join Labour. Let me be clear: new members are always a good thing in my opinion. Always. They provide the party with crucial funds, political legitimacy, a more democratic nature and a base of workers and volunteers. So join, join, join.

However, I can’t help but feel the need to ask the 20,000 or whatever people who have joined since May 6^th,

“Where were you when we needed you?”

Septicisle says,

“While in government, there was never the slightest possibility that I could have justified to myself being a member of the Labour party”.

He also says he is, “...a stereotypically angry leftie”. However, I think Septicisle, like many thousands of others, needs to face up to something. Many of the real “angry lefties” in history, the ones we so love, took a disliking to a certain type of political being. From my extensive studying of Che Guevara, I know he took a particularly dim view of this type of political being. It is also the type of political being that is opposed to the progressive political being. This type of political being is the reactionary.

The reactionary is a useless political being at best; a dangerous one at worst. The reactionary supports every piece of public spending from 2005 to 2008 that a government carries out, but then changes its tone in 2009 when a global recession takes a grip on the world economy. The reactionary campaigns tirelessly against what it calls “regressive” policies put forward by an opposing party on things such as VAT, but then backs that opponent once it sees power can be gained from giving its support.

The reactionary has no ideas or values that it can stand up for. It only has ideas and values that it thinks it opposes.

I will always look upon the reactionary with suspicion. Any progressive should. But, as I said earlier in this post, I always welcome new members. However, I would put a challenge to all new members. Whilst the money you bring to the Labour Party is valued and whilst adding your weight to the membership total is appreciated, what we need now is action. I think the new members who felt the same way as Septicisle need to decide what it is they believe in and what it is they want from politics and from the Labour Party. There is a change building within the party and within the Labour grassroots movement. Far from just signing membership forms, people up and down the country are committing their time and energy to becoming re-engaged. Re-engaged with their communities and re-engaged with the people in their communities who share common values, common beliefs and common ideas about achieving the common good. From each of these people will come more people; friends, family, colleagues and also strangers.

Following on from when Septicisle said he would never have joined Labour whilst it was in government, he says,

“I was never going to be able to have the slightest impact on party policy. In that sense, nothing has changed.”

Wrong.

I put it to the new members, and also Septicisle directly: if you want the chance to act, the chance to not only influence policy but to make changes, then do it. If you want to be a part of a progressive, people-led movement and not merely a reactionary that just opposes without ever being proactive, then the chance is there for you now to learn exactly how. It’s free, it’s widespread and it’s started already.

It was Keir’s way and now it’s going to be our way.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

The girls are back...

2010-06-23T05:20:00.002+01:00

One thing that troubled Keir more than most about yesterdays Hiroshima of a budget, was the return of the women, and one in particular.

He was glad to see Prudence back, even if she is indelibly associated with the former incumbent of 11 Downing Street amongst the political classes (and is being used as little more than a cudgel to beat Labour with)

Tina was back too, and the ramifications of that is the most worrying development.

There Is No Alternative.

So what do the Lib Dems add to the coalition?

2010-06-22T22:24:00.004+01:00

Over to the ex-President of Oxford University Conservative Association...

Before the election, the Tories promised that 80% of the work of cutting the deficit would come from cutting spending and 20% from raising taxes.

In fact, the chancellor has announced that the figures are 77% to 23%.

That 3% is the impact of the coalition.

Wellllllllllllllll, at least they got comfy Ministerial cars...

You look familiar...

2010-06-22T21:24:00.005+01:00

...yes, you, the one in the yellow tie...

I thought I'd seen you before...

(Oh, and for the record Nicky, it's nearer £400pa for every family, those who can pay, and those who can't. Remind me, you're the progressive party?)

A few quick questions, winner gets a big kiss from beardy Keir: Who brought in VAT, who hiked it to 17.5%? and who hiked it to 20%? See a pattern emerging here?

Redressing The Gap, By George Osbourne

2010-06-22T21:17:00.005+01:00

There are obviously many issues that will come from the Emergency Budget announcement. Many have been debated in the press and are becoming inevitably boring so I won't go on about VAT rises simply for what they are.

Rather, let's have a quick look at an issue that the Conservatives themselves raised in their manifesto. It was a page on their manifesto that has been referred to previously on this blog. Page 22 of the Invitation to Join the Government of Britain shows a map of the United Kingdom. It is divided into regions with each region's share of the UK economy written on it and each region's size being relative to it's share of the economy. Wales had a 4% share of the UK economy and the North East had a 3% share. Whereas London had 21% and the South East had 14%

So what will the Conservative government do to balance out this inequality? How can you stimulate growth enough in the North East and Wales in order for it to out-pace growth in London and the South East?

Maybe a 2-year public sector pay freeze? No, maybe not.

Wales and the North East have disproportionately high levels of public sector employment. Wales, for example, has around 30% of people working in the public sector. A freeze on public sector pay means less money is coming into these local economies than is going into the economies of London and the South East given that the latter two regions have private sectors to stimulate some growth. So, given that in order to redress the balance we would need to have growth in Wales and North East to be at a higher rate than growth in London and the South East, this policy will just make the gap bigger.

At least these low-income families who are living on the now-frozen public sector pay rates will receive some support though, right? Wrong. The freezing of Child Tax Credits means that a low-income public sector working family will stagnate because of this Budget. More likely, and much worse, they will begin to suffer as prices go up from 2011 with the VAT rise.

Comments such as "it could have been worse" in the media totally ignore the mass of low-paid workers in this country. The Budget may not hit the middle and upper-middle class, represented by the mainstream media, very hard. But what it will do is create a new level of the long-term unemployed class that sadly already exists. This new stream of long-term unemployed will be made up of educated people who have worked for years but are now stuck because of the state of the jobs market; a situation created by the banking collapse. That is, the collapse of banks that will barely be touched by this Budget. Ok, so Gideon introduced a levy on UK banks and UK operations of foreign banks. But that will only raise £2bn. And that's before we consider that the cut in Corporation Tax will allow the banks to scoop up a bit of the money they lose from said levy. Former Chancellor Darling raised more than that with his bonus tax. Much more could and should have been done to bring in money from the banks.

An economic Hiroshima is about to land on the households of poor people up and down this country. Labour and it's people must organise and revolt. This wasn't intended to be a pitch for David Miliband's leadership, but the organisational structure he wants to bring into the party will give people more than just a voice, it will give them a collective fist with which they can begin to pound down this disgusting, ideologically-driven attack on their lives.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.