Showing posts with label Progress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progress. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 09, 2020

The legacy of subjugation corrupts American society – and shows us why we need to put out own house in order too

My Newham Council Cabinet colleagues telling it as it is.


"As night turns to day, another black man is killed by the police in the United States of America – and his death is ‘televised’.
The response from the Minneapolis Democratic Mayor, Jacob Frey, to denounce the killing and sack the four policemen involved in the brutal death of George Floyd, was swift. But this has not been enough to quell anger. We know this is yet another example of police brutality which has led again to the loss of a black man’s life. 
The circumstances leading to the brutal murder of an unarmed man at the hands of the police are not new and perpetuate the dangerous trend in policing of black communities across America. The question before us is whether George Floyd’s death disrupts this trend and becomes, as Keir Starmer said on May 30th, a catalyst for meaningful change in the lives of African Americans – or whether his death merely perpetuates and reinforces ‘the cycle’:   
Step 1. Black individual stopped by the police;  
Step 2. Police brutality and then death;  
Step 3. Outrage/ protest/ twitter storm/ virtue signalling;  
Step 4. Silence and the media circus move on; and,  
Step 5. Go to Step 1’ and repeat.  
If we are ever to break this cycle and change the structural inequalities that continue to define and disfigure life in the USA, we believe that a peaceful, national civic revolution is required. A commitment to social mobilisation and an effort, unparalleled in peacetime, is needed to reboot the USA so that its ethnic minorities can fully access and participate in American society. Life chances should never be defined by skin colour.   
When the Founding Fathers declared the unalienable rights of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, people of colour were not at the forefront of their thoughts – quite the opposite. The USA was founded on the subjugation of Native Americans and enslaved Africans. It is this legacy of subjugation that corrupts contemporary American society. The acceptance that black lives matter has to become central to the American way of life if it is to have any moral purpose going forwards.
There are criticisms made of the Thirteenth Amendment in the American Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as criminal punishment. There is anger in the USA today that this was only a partial abolition and another injustice— one that concretely exists today. People still forced into grinding and unremunerated work, but as prisoners. In a number of states, the prison population is disproportionately made up of people of colour.
Incarceration rates for ethnic minorities are significantly higher than for non-ethnic minorities, African Americans are imprisoned at 5 times the rate of white Americans, and although African Americans and Hispanic Americans (those of Spanish speaking ancestry) make up 32% of the U.S. population, they make up 56% of the American prison population. 
Black men in America are also 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the police than their white counterparts. Black women are also 1.4 times more likely to killed by the police than white women. So common is death at the hands of the police it has been recognised as a leading cause of death for black men. These are systemic problems which must not only be challenged but fundamentally changed.
When it comes to the experiences of black communities, those in the US share similarities with those in UK. Yet there are particular differences in the legacy of slavery and the lived experience.
Modern British society was founded on the back of the wealth accumulated by the creation and expansion of the British Empire.
Have you ever wondered why black colleagues and friends have ‘English/Scottish/Welsh/French surnames? From where do you think some of our ancient UK businesses and cultural institutions acquired their wealth? Have you stopped to ponder the issues influencing the environment, and determining the life chances, of the young black man standing on the street corner?
Have you considered the motives of both government and parliament in removing the rights and citizenship of black British citizens? 
The challenge for the British Labour movement, in the wake of the current wave of protests, is to define and develop the changes we think are necessary if we are to bring any kind of meaning to George Floyd’s death— not to mention all the others who suffered before him.   
We need to harness the pain and the anger of the moment, honing our transformational zeal, and reaffirming that the Labour party is the home for the aspirations and desires of black communities across the UK, especially among the working class.  
Change begins with the individual, not the institution, so the first question is about what we’re doing individually within the confines of the Labour movement: how can members create lasting change rather than simply speaking about the need for it?   
The protests taking place in London and across the UK demonstrate solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the USA and bring attention to our own faults at home. However, solidarity – especially the social media variety – tends to evaporate over time. A society built, instead, on the foundations of equality, fairness, and meritocracy is everlasting.  
We need to hold a mirror up to ourselves and be honest about where we have come from and what we want to see in the future. The UK is not immune from the worst aspects of institutional prejudice. There is a list of inquiries and reviews which proves this point: the Lammy Review, the Angiolini Review into deaths in police custody and, most damning of all, the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. 
Within our movement, there is still debate on how to increase the prevalence of black MPs and Councillors, especially black males, who find themselves in the minority. Where are the numbers of black senior staffers in Parliament and Labour HQ? Do we not have enough quality black graduates with an active interest in politics? We must put our own house in order first.
Our movement must seek, from this point onwards, to develop radical, anti-racist policies to deal with our own structural impediments. If black people aren’t in the room, then no one speaks for us on the policies affecting our community. If we think it is wrong for policies to be predominantly forged by white men, then we need to empower and promote women and black people in numbers that give them influence at senior levels. Perhaps, if black people were in positions of power, we would have a school system that delivers; a prison system that doesn’t warehouse its talent; and a country that protects its BAME population so they aren’t disproportionally represented in Covid-19 mortality statistics.  
As a roadmap for genuine change, we’ve set out some immediate challenges for Labour:
In The Party: Let us be the change we seek to promote. We should review and transform BAME-related political structures and increase Black representation at all levels of the Party. 
On Education: The impact of Covid-19 provides an opportunity to look again at our current educational structure. We should seize the opportunity to transform our primary, secondary and tertiary education systems, especially for black boys in our inner cities. How can we justify a policy for a national education service when sections of our community fail to benefit from the most basic of human rights? 
On Health: BAME communities are experiencing a disproportionate Covid-19 impact, whilst the Government downplays the situation by omitting the recommendations of its own BAME Disparities report. We need a credible Public health and NHS strategy, and implementation plan. Not mere slogans and protests, but genuine action to protect the BAME community.  
On Social mobility:  We don’t talk enough about social mobility and class. We should revamp our current policies, to truly promote social mobility, by appealing to the aspirations of the black community and enabling its talent to flourish. 
On Community Policing: As senior black Councillors in one of the UK most diverse boroughs, we know there is distrust between the police and sections of the black community. We can— and must— develop a plan that drastically improves perceived and actual community relations with the police. 
On Policy development: We must involve BAME communities in the development of policy outside of traditional areas such as health, education, housing and crime. We must be inclusive in our discussions on the most relevant issues of our time, such as climate change, Brexit, infrastructure, AI and the fourth industrial revolution.
Shirley Chisholm— the first black woman elected to the US Congress, and the first black candidate to run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination— said in 1972: “If they don’t give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.”  
Now is the time for both: we must bring the folding chair and push for ample room at the table.
Terry Paul and James Beckles are Councillors and Cabinet Members in the London Borough of Newham and write in a personal capacity. They tweet @terrympaul and @james_beckles, respectively."

Friday, October 06, 2017

"The Tories must take concrete steps to reverse the rising spate of acid attacks", writes Lyn Brown MP

"As I write, the last acid attack to hit the headlines in Newham occurred less than three weeks ago. There has been a steady stream of these horrifying stories this year. In June, the cousins Resham Khan and Jameel Muhktar were attacked on the street. Both suffered life-changing injuries, and Jameel’s wounds were so severe that he had to be placed into a coma.

Newham has been called the acid attack capital of Britain. It is not a title I embrace, but since 2010, there have been 415 corrosive substance attacks in the borough. Acid attacks are clearly a growing problem. Across London, the number of recorded crimes involving acid increased by 16 per cent in the past year alone, with 446 incidents reported to the end of June.

Horrific crimes like these are often associated with revenge violence, a twisted idea of masculine honour – and abusive relationships.

However, most of the evidence suggests that the recent rise has different roots. Some of those who have fallen victim to acid attacks appear to have been specifically targeted as part of an ongoing cycle of gang violence, as it can be carried unnoticed through a knife arch. Many others have been attacked as part of opportunistic street robberies, most notably of mopeds and scooters. Stolen bikes are often used in further crimes.

Both victims and suspects tend to be young men, with some suspects significantly younger than 18. It is clear that the police are linking more and more suspects to known gangs. Use of corrosive weapons is a new tactic for these groups, but may not be radically different to the use of knives, which are all too familiar in our cities.

Whatever the root cause, the most practical and immediate thing we can do to tackle this problem is to restrict and monitor access to corrosives. Put simply, use of acid as a weapon of convenience is likely to drop, if that convenience is removed.

Regulation of corrosive substances occurs under the Poisons Act 1972, a law that was completely rewritten as part of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government’s Deregulation Act in 2015, part of their ‘bonfire of red tape’. Their changes removed the requirement for suppliers of scheduled poisons to have a licence from the local authority, it abolished the expert advisory body known as the Poisons Board and replaced all with a system of Home Office licences (individual licensing) for users of the most dangerous poisons.

The introduction of individual licensing was not a bad idea, but its potential was snuffed out by the Tory zeal for deregulation. Many corrosive chemicals were not included on the list of substances that require a licence.

The result is that very dangerous chemicals have been left easily and cheaply available to potential attackers and abusers. Substances not requiring a licence include solutions of sulphuric acid with concentrations higher than 90 per cent and toxic agents like hydrofluoric acid, which can kill even by accident: exposure on as little as two per cent of a person’s skin can cause a cardiac arrest. Alkaline corrosives like sodium hydroxide and ammonia are also freely available and cause deep and life-changing burns.

We need, at the very least, to require individual licensing for a much wider range of dangerous corrosives, but there are several other straightforward reforms that the government needs to consider.

Access to these chemicals must be restricted to adults and there is good reason to make it a crime to supply children with the most dangerous corrosive chemicals other than in safe, well-regulated environments, such as schools and colleges.

On an operational level, the Metropolitan Police has begun to supply frontline teams with water and pH kits, to improve their response to corrosive injuries. We need to ensure that all first responders have access to specially-formulated rinses, like Diphoterine, to provide immediate assistance to victims.

The Crown Prosecution Service has made encouraging statements about its ability to take those who use these substances as weapons off our streets, but serious concerns remain. Many police officers I speak with are convinced that there need to be new, clearer offences enacted, to close all loopholes in the law and demonstrate that society’s disapprobation of this new trend is totally unambiguous. Carrying acid in public without good reason has to be a serious crime, just like carrying a knife.

Finally, the Sentencing Council needs to ensure that penalties are consistent, and proportionate to the awful damage these crimes inflict. The government should request a review to make this happen. It is reassuring that the CPS will now seek stronger sentences, but unless guidance for judges changes accordingly, outcomes may not improve.

These changes are all within the power of politicians, responsive to the emerging face of this rising problem and proportionate. The government should act now".
–––––––
Lyn Brown is member of parliament for West Ham. She tweets at @lynbrownmp

Sunday, September 22, 2013

#Lab13 One Nation trade unionism: can employees win more by working in partnership with employers?

My first fringe of conference was very topical. I missed the start due to the short but lively conference debate on the Ray Colins report about the link with the trade unions.

It was organised by the IPA, the union Community and Progress (who got a fair bit of stick during the previous debate).

Speakers were Toby Perkins MP, shadow small business minister; Roy Rickhuss national officer, Community; Nita Clarke chief executive, IPA; Maurice Glasman peer and Blue Labour founder Chair: Sarah Veale head of equality and employment rights, TUC

I came in as Nita began to speak. She had worked for unison for many years and later advised Tony Blair on unions. She thought there was no future for unions in the private sector unless they believe in partnership. Some unions seem to prefer to ballot for strike action at the beginning of negotiations not as a "last resort". While 3 years ago a number of employers had said to her that they wished they had unions in their workplaces since they would give employees a voice. They no longer say this. She also thought that "Learning reps" was the most important service that unions can offer. What people want is help to get on in work.  Unions should not retreat into "tigmoo". Its not about structures but about culture and attitude.

Next speaker was Maurice. He believes that it is only labour not capital investment that generates real value. Educating union leaders and building organising in unions is key.  Unions have a problem. In a recent survey 60% of people identified themselves as pro workers but anti trade union. All firms that employ over 100 workers should have employee representation. Unions in Germany have to get their people elected to sit on boards and this keeps unions honest. Regional banks with unions part of the governance are also needed. Personal debt is the biggest issue facing union members.

I asked a question but firstly pointed out that it was considered okay for me to be a staffside representative helping to run a pension fund worth over £900 million yet in the UK staff reps have no right to be on a company board.

I explained that I was late attending this meeting and might have missed something but while I accept that unions should be always looking at themselves and be ready to change you have to remember that some employers are very anti trade union and don't believe anyone has a right to interfere in the running of their business as they see fit.   Also, you won't get employees identifying with companies in the same way they do in Germany because management in Germany don't tend to pay themselves the obscene amounts of money that they do over here. Without pay restraint by UK  management you won't get partnership.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

The quiet & retiring Pete Willsman speaks to West Ham GC

Each month West Ham Labour Party invites a guest political speaker to our General Committee meeting. All party members are also invited to attend (non voting).

Our speaker last month was the secretary of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) Pete Willsman.

It is the 40th anniversary of the CLPD. He promoted the 3 websites that they run including Left Futures. Which he claimed was not only for "lefties" but admitted that not many contributors were from Progress!  Mind you he praised Peter Mandelson for his loyalty to the Party.

He promoted CLPD rule changes for the 2013 Labour Party conference including making political levy payers full members of the Party (they use to be), an electoral collage to elect local Labour Group leaders, the Party should have an independent ombudsman to investigate complaints and the right of members to select who are their Parliamentary candidates.

Pete predicted that after the next general election there may be a split in political parties and that Cameron Tories, Orange Book Liberals and Progress will break away and join up together. He finished his barnstorming speech by asking the Blarities currently criticising the Party to all "shut their mouths"!

Pete gave a hugely entertaining, tub thumping and colourful speech which demonstrated his lifelong passion and commitment to the Party even though I am not that sure how many in the room he persuaded to actually join up.

(Picture Pete, Chair Charlene and Ali G)

Friday, July 06, 2012

UNISON Labour Link Forum 2012: Day 1

Picture is of Andy Burnham MP, Shadow Health Secretary and key note speaker at today's UNISON Labour Link Forum which this year
takes place in Cardiff.

Labour Link is the UNISON political fund that is affiliated to the Labour Party. Delegates to the Forum are elected regionally and from our self-organised groups. The Forum began with a welcome from National Chair, Steve Warwick, who was the first to make the point about how good it was to be in a Country with a Labour Government. This was followed by motions on "Constitutional Change" and "The Welsh Approach".

Andy gave a short speech followed by a Q&A. He repeated his promise to appeal the Coalition Health and Social Care bill if a Labour government is elected in 2015. He warned Forum that we must not fall into the Tory trap and fight amongst ourselves. The Party must stop being dominated by elites and encourage more ordinary working people to become Councillors and MP's.

The next key note speaker was Carwyn Jones AM, First Minister of Wales - Prif Weinidog Cymru .  He was proud that the Party was implementing the Labour manifesto commitment to introduce a living wage for Wales. Carwyn said while it was desperately important to re-elect Labour in 2015, you had to give voters reasons why to vote Labour.

After this was more motions on "Public Sector Pay", "A New Direction for the Labour Party" (my branch and London region motion) and "defending the NHS". There were a number of attacks on the shadow Labour team over its shambolic response to pay and spending cuts. 

After lunch there was an address by Assistant General Secretary, Cliff Williams. He stressed the importance of  UNISON using its political influence alongside its industrial strategy. He also made clear that while UNISON does not mind debate, it will not tolerate attacks by Progress on our link with the Party.  An unaccountable organisation that has secretive funding, its own membership and is even a listed private company!

This was followed by seminars and a Parliamentary Q&A with Lillian Greenwood MP (former UNISON National officer), Dave Anderson MP (former UNISON President) and Derek Vaughan MEP.  Lillian defended Councils from Coalition attempts to blame them for cuts. I liked Dave's comment that Lib Dem MP's shamefaced excuses  for voting with the Coalition was "bo****ks". While Derek pointed out that £50 billion could be raised from a Robin Hood Tax (a Tobin or Financial transaction tax). Make the Banks pay to clear up their mess.

First day finished with more motions on "Universal Credit"; "Trade Union Facility time" and "Justice at Work".

You can follow the Forum on #lablink12

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Progress Labour 2.0 conference – will 2.0 help us win in 2010?

On Thursday evening I was at an important grass roots union and residents meeting in the Isle of Dogs being held in a tenant’s hall.

Yesterday I was back on the Island but this time at the glass and crystal globe of the East Wintergarden in Canary Wharf. Lots of light in the heart of Gotham City (joke). Of course, now that so many of the local businesses are publicly owned I should have felt very much at home.

This conference was organised by Progress and they had 8 sessions with some 26 panel members. That was a lot of information and opinions to take in 11am-5.45pm. I will just highlight some of the things I found interesting.

The opening address was by RH Douglas Alexander MP (who is also the Labour Party campaign coordinator for the General Election). Partly in response to a question that I put to him (which I think he misunderstood - it’s probably me) he suggested that the global Banking crisis last September is an Obama type issue which has changed the world and that it is traditional Labour values of “fairness...solidarity and collectivism” and the “strength of common endeavour” that is the future - this crisis is our “Hope” and “Change” theme (my interpretation).

Joe Rospars, the foundering partner of Blue State Digital was the next speaker and he is of course better known to everyone present simply as God, aka Barack Obama’s New Media Director. He played one of the many inspiring “making the hairs on the edge of your neck stand up” videos. What fantastic stuff. The 13 million supporters, 200,000 local organisers and $500 million dollars raised from 3 million contributors by the New Media Obama machine is an awesome achievement. The decentralisation of the campaign and its “bottom up” nature was key to its success. But as Douglas said with some venom, during question time, the central Obama campaign organisers where not just holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” together each night. They were leading and controlling as well as organising. We should not forget this.

Professor Andrew Chadwick reminded us that yesterday was the 109th anniversary of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and how the Party started off as a broad church and is still one nowadays. “Pragmatism, co-operation and solidarity”.

Ben Brandzel reminded us that “democracy is not a spectator sport”.

Gavin Shuker that the “narrative” is all important. Complying data without any use is itself useless.

Jag Singh (I finally met Jag for the first time in real life) who despite being unwell spoke amusingly but without bitterness about how as a Hilary Clinton election advisor he had lost his White House cubicle (by 0.5 %!).

Stella Creasy – PCC for Walthamstow has an email list of 2000 names gathered during campaign events which her CLP (usually Stella I suspect) sends out a weekly newsletter. . .......Blimey.

I had a sort of “row” during the last session with panel member James Crabtree (senior Editor, Prospect). He had quite gleefully (in my view) during his presentation predicted that the Labour Party would lose the next election and that they should use the opportunity of defeat to build the Party in order to win in future. I challenged him on this view since I could remember when I joined the Party just before the General election in 1979 I came across people who predicted that the Party would lose and tried to argue that this was a good thing. That opposition would enable the Party to regroup and win next time. This resulted in all these people losing their jobs (Shotton steel workers) and the Tories being in charge for 18 years not one or two terms. James said that he had never said that it was a good thing that Labour will lose the next election. I think he did. To be clear I think we still have a very good chance of winning at the next election. It is not helped by selfish and ignorant defeatist statements.

My big issue is as a Labour Party and Labour movement activist who happens to be a “blogger”. I want to help the Party and if possible help it to win. While I enjoy blogging, is it a useful practical political tool or campaigning weapon? Perhaps not and it is just an enjoyable avenue for activists and theorists to sound off and infuriate internal and external opponents. Or can we actually do stuff of political value to our Party?

What about setting up a central and regional distribution list of labour supporting bloggers who can be sent information and post upon (if they choose to) key issues. What about organising those Labour Party members who blog or post and who would rally to support the Party when it is being “beaten up” on national media blogs and web sites?

Or is there anything else we can do?

At the end of the conference I had a brief chat with Derek Draper (Labour List - right of photo) who I can report in my brief experience as being an extremely polite, constructive and courteous comrade.

Check out these posts on this meeting by panel members Nick Anstead, Andrew Chadwick, Tim Montgomerie (ConservativeHome)

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Labour 2.0: Campaigning for the Net Generation

This should be interesting - Progress event for Saturday 28 February in central London. Book here

AGENDA

11:00
Opening address
Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP
Secretary of State for International Development

11:20
Keynote speech
Joe Rospars
New Media Director, Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign

12:00
What will the future of internet campaigning look like?
Professor Andrew Chadwick, Director, New Political Communication Unit, Royal Holloway, University of London
Greg Jackson, Tangent
Tom Steinberg, MySociety

12:45
Lunch

13:30
Mobilising the centre-left blogging community
Adam Bienkow, Tory Troll
Tom Barry, Boris Watch
Theo Blackwell, blogger and councillor
Alex Smith, writer and political activist (chair)

14:15
Fundraising and voter ID online
Gavin Shuker, Political Insight
Jag Singh, MessageSpace

15:00
Learning from the private sector
Simon Redfern
Oliver Rickman, Google

15:45
Afternoon break

16:00
Transforming Labour’s campaigns and communications through new media
Nick Anstead, University of East Anglia
Matthew McGregor, UK MD, Blue State Digital
Sue Macmillan, New Media Campaigns Taskforce Leader, The Labour Party
Paul Simpson, Tangent

16:45
Close of conference debate:

Can the centre-left dominate the internet despite being in office?
James Crabtree, Senior Editor, Prospect
Derek Draper, LabourList
Rt Hon David Lammy MP
Tim Montgomerie, ConservativeHome

17:30
Close

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Gordon at Progress Conference

Registration for the annual Progress Conference started at 9:00 yesterday morning at Congress Hall, TUC. The first keynote address was due to start at 10:00. As usual, despite my very best intentions, I was running late and I arrived at about 9:45 and went straight down to get a coffee in the TUC lower hall.

To my surprise the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, came down the stairs and started to shake everybody’s hand he came across including my own. I could only think at the time of saying “Hello Prime Minister”. Now of course I can think of all sorts of profound and convincing statements to say to him. But at the time it was only “Hello”. I couldn’t find my camera either to take a photo - but there you go.

It is only when you are up close to him that you realise that he is literally such a “big bloke” with a barrel like chest and rugby playing shoulders. His famous “big clunking fist” would indeed deliver quite a knock out punch. Light weight Tory leaders and egg throwers beware.

Gordon was the surprise keynote speaker and had not been on the original agenda. As soon as he entered the main hall there was a spontaneous standing ovation for him. Most of the audience didn’t have a clue that he was going to be there. He took over the platform for a confident and far reaching 20 minute speech, delivered without any obvious notes or screens (how do these people do it?).

I felt he was very buoyant but wanting to appear very calm. I think that the current financial crisis “extraordinary times need extraordinary solutions” is bringing out the best in him. It is “the biggest New Labour Project...it falls on us to deliver...We live in a global financial system where there is no global supervision" It’s personal as well, he talked about a women who wrote to him who had invested her savings in an Icelandic bank and could not any reassurance about her money. She had not slept for the previous 4 days. "We need to apply lasting values to new circumstances... Labour is the greatest force for fairness in our society. ..The lesson is that only progressive forces work”.

He also importantly, I think, gave an impression of optimism, not all is doom and gloom and in the long term we will come out of this. I managed to ask a question about the role that Governance failure in Banks, fund managers, accountants, actuaries etc, played in the current financial crisis and whether the concept of citizen investor will help prevent future failures. Gordon was I thought a bit wary in his answer but he assured us that once the crisis was under control there will be significant and wide reaching regulatory change in the future to prevent such things happening again. Fair enough.

In the last Progress conference I attended in 2006, Tony Blair was the keynote speaker. This was also in the same hall in Congress House. Tony had recently “agreed” to resign and delivered a blinding farewell speech. Later on I saw Gordon speak in this same location during the London trade union hustings for the deputy leadership election. He was very well received by that audience. Gordon left the Progress stage yesterday to another standing ovation.

I’ll post later on the rest of conference.