Blogs

As the dissection into UKIP’s electoral success continues, a predictable panic has began to set in amongst Tory activists across the country. I don’t blame them. But despite the temptation to sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude, the Labour party cannot afford to simply hope that those on the right wing of politics tear themselves apart.

UKIP’s rise is unprecedented. They are contesting seats with virtually no money and no resources other than the copious amount of airtime afforded to them by the BBC. Their message knows no class boundaries. They are as strong in the shires are as they are in the inner cities. By April 2015 Nigel Farage may well have a case for why he deserves more of a place in the Leader’s debates than Nick Clegg (so I suppose every cloud has a silver lining and all that!).

For Labour, questions are being raised as to how we beat them. A consensus seems to be emerging that Labour will only win the next General Election if over the course of the next year we present a plethora of policies to the electorate.

Of course fully costed policies are the lifeblood of any party with serious aspirations for Government, but they are not the foundations. Before anyone bothers to begin reading up on the minutia of our education, welfare or immigration policies, they want to know who we are standing up for and what our values are. I don’t think this can be underestimated on the doorstep.

As I see it, we are currently living in deeply political times. Despite disappointing turnout figures and the usual print press rhetoric, more people than ever are actively engaging in the political process. The rise of cyber democracy through direct routes such as epetitions and the growth in on-line political debate has resulted in more people than ever being made aware of the latest news from Westminster as it is downloaded straight to their iPhone App or splashed across twitter.

The key for Labour in the next few months is not necessarily the detailed formulation of all our policies for 2015, but more broadly, what we stand for and the way in which we communicate it to the electorate. The right wing bias inherent within our press means that we will never be given a fair crack of the whip in outlining policy ideas, but declining circulation figures present us with the opportunity to counter this tabloidisation using modern media techniques to present Labour values and ideas in much the same way that the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012 demonstrated.

Take the industry that I know well for instance; construction. White van drivers across this country have become increasingly disillusioned with the Labour Party. We’ve all heard the complaints a thousand times, “The problem is Steve, these immigrant workers are coming over here and nicking all our jobs. They are willing to work longer hours for less money so construction site bosses give them the work and I’m the one losing out. What you going to do about it”?

It’s a fair point. In my constituency of Walton, the construction sector is one of the biggest employers. Hence, due to the economic downturn, we are contending with a dole queue that is 5,124 people deep.

More often than not, I ask the laid off construction worker what he thinks the answer is. “Get rid of the immigrants so I can go back to work” he invariably replies.  Some believe we should pull up the draw bridge, leave the European Union and put every Eastern European migrant on the next flight back to Warsaw and Kiev.

Really? Are the immigrants the ones who are causing all of the problems? Well, Nigel et al would argue that they are. Immigrants, in an anti-immigrant Britain, are not the most powerful individuals. By extension they don’t have much in the way of an effective political voice. “Hard luck” you might say. Short sighted I’d say.

Ed Miliband is right to view this problem as top down rather than bottom up. Immigrants cannot be blamed for their own exploitation. If any construction worker honestly believes that if every Eastern European immigrant left the country tomorrow that they would go back to work, earning a good wage with holiday pay and sick pay, then I have one word for you…blacklisting.

Long before (to paraphrase); “the last Labour Government just opened the doors to the Poles and Lithuanians”, construction site bosses were blacklisting British workers for whistleblowing on health and safety issues. Simply by pointing out that someone could be killed on an unsafe scaffold may well have resulted in a person being blacklisted.

We have to listen to the concerns of British workers in the way that Farage does and then communicate our message in a manner which is accessible and understandable to ordinary people. Bur first we have to win the argument that we are the only party in British politics that can both identify the real problems they face and effectively solve it in the best interest of the disillusioned voters.

Once we do that we might have a chance to change the terms of the debate in a way that party’s ready for Government so often manage to do. We can expose the fact that UKIP will never be able to change the welfare system, because they will never control the department for work and pensions. UKIP will never be able to change our relationship with the European Union because they will never control the foreign office. And UKIP will never address climate change, because they don’t believe in it. Whatever off-the–shelf policies they eventually buy to plug the gaps in other key areas, they will never get the chance to implement them – and that is why they are so dangerous but also so beatable.

My advice to party members and activists is don’t be afraid on the doorstep. Be bullish, be frank and be honest. That doesn’t mean being permanently apologetic either, by the way.

In May 2010 the Labour Party didn’t stop being the party that believed in solidarity over selfishness. We didn’t stop being the party that puts the needs of the many ahead of the few. And we didn’t stop being the party of compassion and ambition. No Labour Party member or activist needs a policy document or Shadow Cabinet Minister to tell them that. Social justice is in our DNA.

The truth is, the party needs to be more frank and in doing so, we will galvanise our membership and earn the respect and the trust of the British people.

Let’s start with this; in the last thirty years, Britain has never elected a one term Government. It has become the norm in Britain to elect Governments for generations. That in part has been a result of the total collapse of the ousted Government post-election defeat. But it has also been a result of the British people giving parties the benefit of the doubt and a second chance to get things right.

So in essence, what Ed Miliband’s Labour Party is attempting to do is to condense an average of 15 years worth of work, into the space of just five. That’s tough. But it is a testament to Ed that in the space of just three years, the official Opposition is in the strongest position of any political party who has suffered at the ballot box in its first term out of Government.

So there is plenty of reason for Labour members to be optimistic. Yes we need to flesh out the meat on the bone and members are right to suggest that now is the time to do it. We know the issues that matter most so we need to organise in a way that we can spread Labour’s message about fairness, solidarity, compassion and ambition working as one.

If we stand up for the party then we will change the terms of the debate, convince the British people and be ready to govern again. If members have the stomach for the fight than we will inspire Britain again and just like historical flashes in the political pan like the SDP, UKIP will be gone forever.

Following last week's local elections, I wanted to take the opportunity to post a message to you and urge you to help me fight for Liverpool Walton.

We now have exactly two years to stop David Cameron and Nick Clegg from securing a second term in Government. Just think; can you imagine a whole 10 years of this Government? Given the damage they have undertaken to Liverpool in the space of just three years, I dread to think what they could do with a decade in power.

The ONLY way that we can win in 2015 is by building the strongest base of support, on the ground, street by street, town by town, city by city. And that work has to begin NOW.

So I am asking you to get involved and help make sure we return a Labour Government in 2015. Remember, unlike the Tories, we don’t arrange dodgy Downing Street dinners for millionaires. That means we need all the financial help we can get. From 50p to £50. If you can spare it, the entire country will eventually be grateful. You can donate here: action.labour.org.uk/2-years

Lastly, despite the rhetoric over UKIP in the last few days, the real story is that Labour is well and truly on course to win the 2015 election but we cannot be complacent. Results showed last week that Labour is winning in places like Harlow, Stevenage, Cannock, Crawley, Essex, Hastings and in many, many other places across te North, South, East and West of this country.

On-the-ground organisers in these seats will make the difference between winning and losing. There's no argument about it, we know they do.

What we don't know is whether we can afford to recruit enough organisers in our battleground seats before it's too late - we'll only know when we get the response to this email.

Be part of building Team 2015 right now

Don't leave this for later - we need your help right now. It takes time to train organisers and build campaigns - the more time we have, the bigger impact the organisers you help recruit will have.

Every £1000 we raise now trains another organiser, and every new organiser brings us a step closer to winning in our battleground seats in 2015.

Thank you,

Steve

Earlier this month, President Obama stood at the foot of the Martin Luther King Junior monument in Washington DC and said, "We live in a moment when the dream of equal opportunity is within reach."

His speech was to mark African American month in the US – a commemoration of the darkest days of the journey of progress in the fight for racial equality. America’s commitment to equality is enshrined in their declaration of independence, but no such commitment is made in the British Magna Carta. We rely solely on precedent and statute. In essence, the laws of the land are governed by the the collective conscience of the parliament of the day and what it believes to be right for that moment in history.

Today it is believed that Parliament will pave the way for equal marriage to become law. It is recognition of the country’s changing mood towards homosexuality. Whilst I know that this Bill enjoys the majority and not universal public support, I want to explain why I am voting in favour of it.

I passionately believe in equality. My devotion to the idea that in Britain, we are all equal and that we should be able to fulfil our potential, is not limited. It doesn’t take into account a person’s socio-economic background, the colour of their skin, their culture or their creed. It’s a belief that is subject to a very basic view that one human life is worth no more or less than any other. It is my belief that the laws of the land should reflect this.

The arguments against equal marriage have been passionate and fierce whilst some have just been bigoted. In fact, wading through my post bag and my inbox and reading some of the bigot’s homophobic bile, I have come to appreciate even more, just how far the last Labour Government took this country towards equality and I can only hope that we do it again.

One of the counter arguments that I have struggled to make sense of is the argument from religious groups that marriage is fundamentally about the procreation of the species.  Of course I understand the basic reasoning behind this, but if you take this argument to its logical conclusion; are we suggesting that marriages between infertile couples and marriages between elderly men and women as well as between gay people should also be outlawed?

Other reasons include:

• Civil Partnerships have not destroyed the institution of marriage and neither will equal marriage. (Incidentally, I think Cameron’s economic plans which are making life harder for struggling families will do more to harm to marriage in this country than equal marriage could ever do).
• Civil Partnerships have not led to polygamy and neither will equal marriage.
• Civil Partnerships have not increased the number of heterosexual divorces and even if some people have divorced their partners in order to become openly gay, as in the case of the Welsh Rugby player Gareth Thomas, then that is a good thing.  
• Civil Partnerships have not led to a requirement for schools to teach same-sex marriage and neither will equal marriage.

Homosexuality was once the love that did not speak its name. Now we have made enough progress as a country to ensure all people are equal in society and equal in law.

I understand that traditionalists will never accept a change to what constitutes a marriage and see this Bill as a state-led attempt to redefine marriage. Those individuals are entitled to their view. It isn’t mine. In fact, it is no longer the countries.

Surveys have shown that 80 per cent of adults under the age of 50 in the UK now support same sex marriage legislation, including 3 in 5 people with faith. 

I am satisfied that this Bill provides strong protection for freedom of religion, including safeguards so that no church, faith group or individual minister can be required to conduct a same sex marriage (the so-called quadruple-lock). However, following pressure from Labour the Bill will also now allow those churches that want to hold same sex marriage (including the Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism) to do so. 

In the journey that Britain has travelled to reach today’s historic moment, we have tried many times to promote the cause of equality. The Bill which decriminalised homosexuality was a landmark moment but one which was met with a great deal of opposition. Labour introduced civil partnerships legislation in 2004, again in the face of considerable opposition. I would have relished the chance for a Labour government to have introduced this Bill, bringing the Civil Partnerships legislation to its natural next step, but the country wasn’t ready for it.

Now it is.

That is why this measured Bill is the right one. It balances the traditions of religion with the contemporary settings that religious institutions find themselves operating within. Above it all, it clearly demonstrates that in 2013 Britain, the road to equality for the many and not just the few is the path that this country is very firmly on. 

This week sees the release of the 12 -time Oscar nominated film Lincoln in which Daniel Day Lewis portrays the 16^th President of the United States of America - Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s name will long be remembered for a host of reasons, not least for saving the union and enacting the 13^th Amendment to end slavery. But in terms of oratorical genius at least, it was his Gettysburg address for which he is most revered.

On November 19, 1863, on a freezing cold day in Pennsylvania, Lincoln coined a phrase that would become a political benchmark for all who followed, when he proclaimed that under a new birth, America would certify a; “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Equality of opportunity dogged Lincoln’s presidency as he fought to end slavery on legal, not humanitarian reasons, despite his belief in the moral high ground. Such a topic remains prevalent in today’s political arena as we fight to enable and enrich people from all backgrounds to fulfil their full potential and contribute to a vibrant democratic society.

Lincoln’s lines are still used in political circles today, including the Westminster bubble. His commitment and devotion to democracy and the rule of law was underpinned by his faith that all men are born equal.  But in terms of life chances, are all men (and women) equal in our society?

In a 2013 Westminster, equality of opportunity remains a distant aspiration with the ladders of social mobility not yet reaching Parliament. The House of Commons is packed with Oxbridge educated former special advisors, London lawyers, middle-class rich kids and, for at least an entire previous Parliamentary term, more men with the forename ‘John’ than women MPs! We need to work harder to make politics both more representative and more accessible to all who wish to engage and progress.

Lincoln’s  reference to: “four score and seven years ago” may well have been about the 87 years that had elapsed between the Declaration of Independence and his Gettysburg address, but for illustrative purposes it is near enough to the historical date of the first ever Labour administration when our Party primarily selected candidates from traditional working class backgrounds.  

But before there is any accusation of inverted snobbery, I don’ have an issue with political careerists per se. There are a number of MPs who, through their own hard work in state schools, have acquired places at universities, worked for MPs in Parliament and are now on the benches themselves. They bring an experience that is invaluable. Indeed, the very first Labour Government included an eclectic mix of people, some of whom were manual workers, but others who were academics.

I do not have an issue with an individual members’ background. I do, however, have an issue with the imbalance in the composition of MPs over the last three decades in which the careerists have far outweighed the ordinary man or women in parliament.

One of the ‘traditional’ pathways to Westminster was where a Union identified candidates who were talented and vocal in their locality, and assisted them to secure nominations for seats, perhaps gathering the support of a local incumbent MP, ensuring a smooth transition in the best interest of constituents.

Margaret Thatcher’s demonisation of the Trade Union movement was an attempt to weaken workers’ political voices and diminish the power that the movement had, though she failed to eradicate it completely as she set out to do.  But as the number of MPs who come from working class origins has declined, at the other end of the spectrum there has been an exponential growth in careerists. Ambition in itself is not a bad thing, but it is wrong for some people whose only ambition in life is to climb the political greasy pole

The reality is that the House of Commons is all the worse for its narrowing demographic. Parliamentarians and political parties can preach about the need to reform and the need to increase representation, but until there is the collective will to do something about it, MPs will continue to be selected from a very shallow socio-economic pool.

Parliament can never hope to accurately articulate the concerns of working class people unless there is a significant increase of working class representation on the Green benches.  For instance, if the Government benches right now had more people who came from ordinary backgrounds, then I doubt very much that they would so easily rise to brandish people on low pay or jobseekers allowance as “shirkers”.

Labour lost in 2010 partly because we lost the trust of large swathes of ordinary working people who didn’t feel that the party spoke for them anymore, and Cameron’s Tories cashed in with their usual game of divide and rule.

Ed Miliband was right to say we need to diversify our selection process and that we need greater diversity including more working class and women MPs. With over 4 million Trade Union members, Labour has the distinct advantage of drawing on the talent of an already politically active group of people within the Labour movement.

But perhaps the biggest advantage is that the vast majority of Trade Union members share our values. They believe in workers’ rights, equality of opportunity and a future fair for all. But it is up to us to seize the advantage given to us by a group of people who believe in traditional Labour values. Developing schemes such as the future candidates programme is vital but in itself, is not enough.

What the Labour Party doesn’t do well enough yet is support local candidates and provide them with training and guidance. As MPs and Party staff, we must be actively going to local branch meetings, CLP meetings, full council meetings and town hall meetings (wherever possible) – not just in our constituencies, but across the country – and we should be identifying talented councillors and TU Brothers and Sisters who need guidance and support to be developed as the next generation of Labour MPs.

For many people within our movement, a life in frontline politics is appealing but simply not practical for financial, family of employment reasons. When we ask our candidates to give up two, three, four years of their lives, without any guarantees of winning a seat, they incur considerable cost with campaigns, travel and accommodation expenses. Whilst such factors are superficial for Tory millionaire candidates, or candidates from the well-healed middle classes, it is a significant hurdle for many prospective candidates to overcome.

So finance is a huge challenge and we need our Trade Unions to be assisting their candidates fully in conjunction with the national party, to ensure that no one who has a contribution to make to Labour is priced out of politics.

When you consider that the House of Commons library says the number of working class MPs has dropped 75 per cent to just 25 current MPs, (22 of them Labour), since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, you recognise the scale of the challenge we face and the depth of disconnect.

It is not enough for the Labour Party to make the right noises about working class candidates and then expect them to just turn up at selection meetings. We need to put the party at the service of our people.

And it is a two way process. Right now, many working class people from across the country, will be disillusioned with politics and more depressingly, unaware of how they can make a difference. As councils begin the selection process for the Local Elections in May, people from all backgrounds should be encouraged to submit applications to their local party.

Labour was founded by people who chose solidarity over selfishness. We commit as members to a political ideology that believes the state and organisation can be a vehicle for good by putting in place the ladders of social mobility which allow all who choose, the chance to climb. We are still for the many, not the few and we will be all the better when our Party better reflects the movement from which we are drawn.