"Five Million Conversations (How Labour lost an election & rediscovered its roots)"

The picture is from last Thursday's social at Custom House branch, West Ham Labour where the guest speaker was BBC political reporter, Iain Watson.  He spoke about his new book on the failure of the Labour Party to win the last general election "Five Million conversations - How Labour Lost an election and rediscovered its roots". 

This is of course a very topical (and to me personally painful) subject that must be addressed by anyone interested in politics. The meeting was chaired by local member UNISON activist, Kim Silver. 

Iain began by speaking about the official Labour Party report by Margaret Beckett, which will finally be published later today. There will be no surprises in the report he thinks. Labour lost due to 4 main reasons:-

1.  Labour never took on the "myth" that they caused the financial crash. 2. Ed Miliband was not seen as strong a leader as David Cameron. 3. Fear of SNP and finally - 4. The most challenging, Labours "lack of  connection" problem with some voters over immigration and benefits.

Ironically Labour was not seen as too left wing, since most of the most popular policies in the campaign were those of the "left".

He doesn't think that Labour Party staff were to blame but surely having 106 "attack" seats and no "defensive" seats was wrong. The Tories had 50 "defensive" and 50 "attack" with far, far more resources. They had on the ground information, since they had surveyed every single parliamentary constituency. Labour thought they could take 3 seats that they didn't even win in 1997.

The pre election attempted coup against Ed Miliband by some Labour MPs didn't help.

Despite being Scottish, the scale of the SNP victory in Scotland surprised him. In the past Labour used to argue successfully against the SNP that "divorce is a expensive business". Now it is clear that many Scottish voters simply don't care about this cost. There has been a "mood change".

He thought Ed was a decent candidate but made mistakes. The Labour campaign was brittle and too protective of him.

After the election and during the leadership elections, Iain remember the trade union GMB hustings in  Dublin. Jeremy Corbyn was the only candidate who was clearly against the Tories benefits cap, Liz was for it but the other candidates did not give convincing answers.

In the Q&A I asked whether with hindsight, Labour was never going to win in 2014. There had only been a single one term government in 100 years and that was in 1974 after the 3 day week. The British electorate do not like one term governments and will nearly always give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, since I, like so many others, were so absolutely wrong about the outcome of the Labour leadership campaign, we should be humble about any predictions that Corbyn will not win.

Iain responded by saying that the opinion polls actually had Labour in the lead before the election and that it seemed at the time that maybe they could have won under Ed in a minority government with the SNP. The Labour Party faces an enormous challenge to win in 2020.  Boundary changes, the Tories are reducing Parliamentary Short money, the trade union bill will have an impact on its funding and Scotland will remain a problem.

Another question was why does Jeremy Corbyn have such a bad press? Iain thought he was honest and straight talking but the trouble is that he answers other peoples agendas and not his own. For example, what happened over his comments about "shot to kill" and a recent survey that found only 1:20 of people thought that Jeremy was "Anti-Austerity".  When the Tories were under pressure over the Trade Union Bill, Jeremy was side tracked by questions on Trident.

Next was on the threat from UKIP to Labour who came 2nd in 120 consistencies. Iain agreed this was a threat that has not gone away and that Labour in the past did not have a "core vote strategy".

Ali G thought that many CLP Labour campaigns (unlike Ilford north) last year were poorly run. We need to appeal to the "better off" voters. Iain agreed that he was surprised that the Labour policies such as on free childcare for all was hardly mentioned.

Sue asked how will Labour win back Scotland? Iain said that it would be really difficult. Possibly now that the SNP government will be given the power to raise all income tax rates, if they don't then the claim they are on the left and "anti-austerity " will be undermined and they will be open to attack.

This was an excellent evening. Iain was a great speaker and will try to make himself available to plug his book at all different events. Many thanks for the Custom House councillors and ward members for organising this social. 

Sometimes Two 'Eds aren't better than one!

I’ve had a comment wondering why I haven’t posted on the two Eds' recent pronouncements on cuts to spending and public sector pay. 

I was thinking of writing something but I thought I will calm down a bit before doing so. Ironically I remember listening to a speech by Ed Miliband himself reflecting on the last Labour government. He remarked how sometimes he would be listening to the radio in the morning and hear for the first time a new government announcement and he would say to himself “why on earth did we say that”? I had a very similar feeling listening to reports of Ed Balls speech last Saturday on my headphones while out on a long run. Why on earth did he say that?

At best this is similar to the 1997 Labour manifesto to keep to Tory government spending limits during the first (two) years. At worse it seems just a complete back track on any alternative economic policy.

I can get the argument that any opposition party cannot commit to all cuts being reversed. I understand that you cannot predict exactly what state the economy will be in 2015. But to give the impression that there will be no rebalancing of budget cuts and taxation is simply daft.  Equally why would an opposition Party want to agree with the Government on such profound and controversial issues? That is not their job? They are ...The Official Opposition. They are there to hold the government and its policies to account. While I don't expect yah boo politics and pointless oppositionalism. There is an alternative economic case to be made. I agree that we are not winning this argument at the moment but I genuinely think that the Party is in danger of missing the boat.  The economic crisis will deepen and so many people will be so adversely affected by both unemployment and cuts to services and pay that there will be a political mood change for a fairer and more progressive society. 

Finally, I simply don’t believe that a Labour government in power will do this and I also don’t think that the public will believe it either. So it is in my view pointless guff which has done nothing but to genuinely upset many Labour Party supporters and our core vote. I was pleased to hear today (while on another run) Margaret Beckett ring in to "Any Answers" and indicate that the whole matter had in deed been some sort of a presentational cock-up.

Being in Opposition is a pretty awful and frustrating job. Everyone in the Labour movement is absolutely desperate to do every thing possible to get rid of this government. But on this particular issue the Party leadership has got it wrong. These things happen from time to time.  What really matters now is that the Two 'Eds stop digging holes and start building for change. 

Check out UNISON response here.

West Ham Labour Party AV Debate: 28.4.11

On Thursday evening former Labour Party deputy leader, Margaret Beckett and John Denham, former Labour Secretary of State for CLG took part in a Hustings on AV. Margaret was Against AV and John For. This was organised by West Ham Labour Party and our local MP, Lyn Brown. It was held in a new University of East London Lecture theatre in Stratford E15 and was sponsored by UNISON London Labour Link.

The meeting went very well. When you organise such events there is always a worry beforehand about how many people would turn up on the night. It was the eve of a Bank holiday and the media have been going on about how people are not interested in the AV referendum. However, when we went there to help set up at 6.15pm (for a 7.30pm start) some guests had already arrived at 6.30pm. Around 150 turned up and at the close of the debate at 8.50pm there was still a mass of hands still raised to ask the panellists questions or make points.   

Both John and Margaret had 10 minutes each to set their respective cases then there was the Question and Answer.  
This was thankfully an intelligent and even tempered debate unlike the rather puerile one that the national Yes and No campaigns have descended into at times. It was still a little sharp - with John or Margaret shaking their heads at what the other had just said and writing notes on counter arguments furiously. 

I am of course completely bias since I am a convinced YES supporter (who had already cast his vote by post) but I felt that John did have the edge.  

Margaret argued persuasively for retaining the First Past The Post (FPTP) yet was less convincing to me, in her attacks on AV. I accept many of her arguments since I do think that FPTP does have merits. However, many of her arguments against AV were in fact credible arguments against Proportional Representation (PR) which AV is not. I would agree with her that PR is unsuitable and flawed. To me AV is just a updated and modern version of FPTP.

It’s not perfect.  But the world will not end if it is introduced. I think AV is fairer and we do need to shake up our parliamentary political system after the mire over expenses.

I agree with her argument that all electoral systems are unfair to some and flawed to some degree and that this should be about principle not political advantage.  

While I support AV because I think it is right. I think that John made a telling argument about how the Tories had benefited from FPTP. The Tories dominated British politics in the last century in part due to FPTP. That is why Cameron is so opposed.   

I made a contribution about the level of support for AV in the Newham Labour Group and also made reference to The Today interview I heard with John Curtice, Professor of Politics, at the University of Strathclyde. He had number crunched that if we had AV in the last election, there could have been a Labour led Coalition government.  So I offered my update on the old saying that “the worst day of a Labour led Government is better than the best day of a Tory one”.  

We then had the traditional Labour Partry raffle and auction. Next was down to the "Black Lion" for drinks with John and Lyn. A good night was had by all.

Many thanks to UEL and the very helpful campus staff and all those who helped out to arrange such a successful event.

I will post photos on Facebook later but check out the professional snaps by Dan McCurry here.

Labour Party AV Debate: Stratford Thursday 28 April 2011

West Ham CLP and London UNISON Labour Link are sponsoring this debate on the AV vote in Stratford on Thursday evening 28 April 2011 (Workers Memorial Day!).

John Debham MP will speak in favour of AV and Margaret Beckett MP will speak against.  The venue is only a short walk from Stratford stations, it is comfortable and there will be plenty of seats. 

I am personally a supporter of AV in Parliamentary elections.  While I think there is a progressive majority in this country and that AV will benefit the Labour Party and our policies.  I recognise that no one really knows how the Great British Public will actually vote if such a system is introduced.  Regardless of this, I do think that the principle of each MP having the support (or rather the preference) of at least 50% of their constituents is just right and proper.  The only thing I cannot bear to think is of course that my vote would be in any way to be an endorsement of Clegg.  But who really gives a monkey anymore what he thinks of anything never mind what he considers "miserable compromises".

SO - VOTE LABOUR AND VOTE YES TO AV IN MAY.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

Don’t do it, Margaret don’t do it.... Inside Housing magazine reports here that Housing Minister, Margaret Beckett, is actually considering proposals by the Chartered Institute of Housing (of all people) to end lifelong social housing tenancies.

I covered this appalling suggestion here last month. The idea is that all tenancies should be flexible and subject to review. So if you are a social housing tenant (an ugly term, I wish we could think of something better?) gets a better paid job or their kids leave home, they face eviction? Leaving aside for now, that this would result in modern day social housing ghetto’s which are only inhabited by the very poor and the desperate.

Now, incentives to those who are on higher earnings and want to buy their own property or for pensioners to exchange for smaller properties when their kids leave home are well worth examining. But the idea that by going on training courses and bettering yourself you then run the risk of losing your home is just daft. Personally I do not want to go to court and evict grannies who have lived in a home for the past 40 years and who just want to spend their last days there amongst their friends and local community.

This is a really silly idea and potentially very damaging to the Labour Party. You can understand the reasons why we need to do something about the chronic shortage of family sized homes, but this policy is just a sign of desperate symptoms not solutions. Can you really imagine how this will go down in Labour heartlands? I can – and it’s all very, very badly.

Mucking about with allocation policies on the margin is no substitute for a serious large scale social housing building programme which also has the added benefit of keeping people in jobs and reflating the economy. Is there any other real solution to this problem Margaret? Come on, you know it makes sense.

Margaret Beckett: New Housing Minister

Good news about Margaret Beckett being appointed as Housing Minister. There has been some understandable moans in the housing press about the “churn” in housing ministers (she is the 8th Labour minister and there has been 3 in the last year alone!).

However, she is a big hitter – former deputy leader of the Labour party (the technical leader for 3 months when John Smith died), and former Foreign Secretary, Environment secretary etc. She has even the rare experience of having served as a minister in the Wilson and Callaghan governments.

Margaret (who I do not personally know) is a “serious person for serious times" (says our Gordon).

Housing is nowadays rightly a key (and serious) issue and her appointment will bring it further up the political agenda.

This is more evidence to me anyway of a subtle change by the PM. He has brought back into the government people who are not his natural supporters but are talented and are much needed to get us into shape for the coming general election. Peter Mandelson is the other far more controversial example.

Margaret is loyal, has good links and associations with traditional Labour and is a safe pair of hands as well as being a first-class media performer.

Given her trade union background I am also looking forward to the housing unions (UNISON and Unite) having good access to her department - “fairness not favours” of course.

I couldn’t resist using the cartoon above by the Guardian cartoonist, Martin Rowson, for this post – but I think that the deeply unpleasant sniggering and snide comments made about Margaret’s love of caravanning is a symptom of what you get when the nation’s self appointed elite are so detached from reality, that they think a fortnight in a Devon caravan park is somehow beneath them.

No wonder so many of them had equally deranged beliefs about the ability of the "market" to self regulate and to deal with the corrupt and dishonest so-called "masters of the financial universe". So who’s sniggering now I suppose?

(Out a sense of blogger loyalty I must say it was a shame that rail minister Tom Harris lost his job – may I say that I'm sure it is only a timetabling problem).