PROGRESS: What do you think about the way we ran the election campaign and the policies we fought on?
Kiran Ramchandani – Finchley & Golders Green CLP [KR]: Considering we expected a low turnout, it was vital to make sure that the people that came over to us for the first time in 1997 voted for us again. Retaining the support of ‘middle England’ by promising not to raise income tax was good – we would have come under attack if the Tories had managed to make their tax accusations stick.
Alon Or-Bach – Finchley & Golders Green CLP [AO-B]: We would have lost many of our seats if we’d campaigned on higher taxation. I do think, however, we have restricted ourselves by promising not to raise the top rate of tax. I understand why we did it. I just wish we hadn’t had to.
Katie Ward – Islington South & Finsbury [KW]: Our campaign was a bit too stylised for me. I know we tried to talk about health and education, but too often it got swamped by negative issues regarding the Conservative Party.
Alex Bingham – Tooting CLP [AB]: I think I was disappointed that it was such a negative campaign. The posters were a bit juvenile. The lack of putting forward our policies was a reason people didn’t come out to vote. We focused so much on attacking the Tories that people thought they were dead in the water and didn’t vote.
Peter White – Romford CLP [PW]: It was a very presidential campaign.
Wesley Streeting – Hornchurch CLP [WS]: I agree. It was a presidential campaign and not a policy campaign. In the mornings it was Blair and Brown doing the press conferences and a few token women. It was very stylised and boring.
AB: There didn’t seem to be anything new. I mean all the things in the manifesto were what we had already announced over four years.
WS: The manifesto was very disappointing. It wasn’t particularly inspiring like in 1997.
KR: It was a mistake to use the five pledges again. That same strategy was not very relevant to how things have moved on. WS: I think the pledge card actually highlighted some of the things the government hadn’t achieved. I think we should have made more of a case for our values. We shouldn’t get bogged down in doctrine and dogma, but at the same time we should have clear principles.
PROGRESS: Let’s turn to specific policies. What do you feel about using the private sector more in delivering our public services?
AO-B: In many things it’s right. Of course, it will cause a lot of problems in the next few years, particularly from the unions. I don’t think that our links with the unions are going to last very long if we don’t involve them in these discussions. We shouldn’t say that private money is dirty in any way, but management is a different issue. We have to think about whether we want public services to be profit-making.
WS: I’m concerned that we’re just laying the foundations for full privatisation by some future Tory government. We’ve moved from being ideologically opposed to privatisation to actually being ideologically opposed to nationalisation. For example, I think privatisation of air traffic control was wrong.
AB: I think my first instincts would be to be sceptical of the private sector being involved. I’d first like to see the effects of our increased investment. If core services have still not improved, then I think the public mood may change and it may be the only practical way to improve services.
PW: As an idea it could potentially split the Labour Party – like Europe for the Tories.
WS: I think that the nationalisation of Railtrack wouldn’t actually be a widely criticised policy. I think people would be quite happy with that. I don’t think they would be very happy to see individual train companies wiped out and brought back under public ownership. Certain aspects like safety shouldn’t go into the private sector.
AB: Yes. I think it would be popular, but I think there is a cost issue.
KW: I have a real problem with the proposals for London Underground. I think it’s something that nobody wants. Ken rejected it because he didn’t agree with it in principle. Companies rejected it as they didn’t want Ken Livingstone telling them what to do and the public don’t want it because they’ve seen what the railways are like now.
WS: There has to be a limit on how far PPP goes. I think that the public part of it does have to have the upper hand and in terms of control and ratio it should be a 60:40 limit.
PROGRESS: Did our policies on taxation strike the right balance?
PW: I think it was wrong not to promise to increase.
KR: I don’t think we should have made our pledge to rule out a top tax increase. I think it was a missed opportunity.
AO-B: I think the Lib Dems are going in the right direction by connecting taxes with services, although it isn’t credible the amount of times they used the 1p on tax. If we do connect tax directly with public services you can win the argument on higher taxes.
WS: A lot of increases in taxation of the last parliament were done by stealth, which is a shame, but in some ways it’s not done us as much harm as it might if we’d done it more openly. But I agree it was a missed opportunity on the top rate of income tax.
PROGRESS: Are we promising to do enough to tackle poverty?
AB: Work and education are the key ways to getting people out of poverty but we also need a fairer benefit system. We should focus on lifelong learning as the foundation for tackling poverty.
WS: Housing seems to be an area we’ve ignored. I haven’t heard much from the government about building new council properties. There are people out on the streets and there aren’t enough houses – or at least there aren’t sufficient means to get people into houses. For an economy like ours, and for a country that’s meant to be at the forefront of the developed world, we should never be in the position whereby there are people on the streets.
AB: Housing is a big issue for young people as well. In London and the South East people just can’t afford it. WS: Public sector workers as well, particularly people in the health service.
PROGRESS: How do you feel we’ve handled the issue of asylum and immigration?
PW: Public opinion is against us, particularly when you’ve got the Sun and the Mail between them saying that we’ve got tens of thousands of immigrants coming into this country and that it is so out of control.
AB: But it’s not a decisive issue really when people vote.
AO-B: We should be much more bold in defending asylum seekers. I think we have reacted quite nastily to outdo the Tories. I don’t think we should keep calling them ‘bogus’ asylum seekers.
KR: I do think we need to make sure we have a humane policy and we have to be proactive about taking on the arguments and explaining that these people are trying to escape from persecution and we’re not going to send them back.
AO-B: At the moment you can’t actually apply for asylum legally outside Britain. You have to get yourself in and then apply for asylum and yet we’re making it impossible to get here. I know it reduces asylum seekers but is that what we really want to do?
WS: What I have to say to the government is: ‘where was our moral lead?’ It appears to be the case that the Tories are attacking us for being a ‘soft touch’, so the government says ‘oh, we better tighten up then’. There’s a whole chunk of the country that hasn’t appreciated multicultural Britain and I think it’s because we haven’t had a moral lead from the government.
AB: Schools, hospitals and crime are the issues that people care about and will vote on.
PROGRESS: Do you have any other comments on our foreign policy, specifically on our stance towards the US’ National Missile Defence scheme?
KR: I think when we came into government four years ago we made a big thing about our ethical foreign policy but we seem to have dropped that. I think a lot of people in the country, both party members and those who aren’t, hoped that we would have an ethical foreign policy.
AO-B: Unfortunately, our arms industry is one of our biggest exports, although we do need to strictly control it.
WS: I’m concerned about the way Bush has come over and is gradually wriggling his way in. I’m worried Tony Blair is going down the road of accepting NMD because of the ‘special relationship’. I don’t think our ‘special relationship’ with America is a big thing amongst most people. Sanctions in Iraq is something else that needs to be re-evaluated. I’ve yet to hear a plausible and straightforward argument as to why we are still bombing the Iraqi people.
PW: On foreign policy we should be pressuring the United States to lift sanctions on Cuba. That’s where our relationship with the US comes in, we should use it more.
AO-B: I think that the UN needs to take a greater role in these things and they should be the ones there, rather than individual countries, having to take responsibility for intervening. Unfortunately, the UN is not in a state to do that in every case and we do need to do our best to strengthen it.
PROGRESS: How do you feel we handled the Europe issue in the campaign?
KR: I think that we came out of the campaign quite well on the whole Euro issue. The Conservatives tried to make Europe the dominant issue in the campaign and in a sense it was. But considering that the entire media are against us, I think we gained a lot of support over it from the public.
PROGRESS: What do you think about our policies on further constitutional reform, specifically the House of Lords?
KW: I think PR is a great idea. I think it’s wrong that the Green Party has no MPs when so many people vote for them across all constituencies. They deserve to be represented.
WS: What about the BNP?
KW: I agree that is an issue. But if you want the country to reflect a more democratic ideal, then it’s just a fact that PR is a more perfect democratic model.
WS: I don’t think it is. I think there’s this misconception that PR will bring about idealised government. I think it would ultimately lead to weak government. I was quite relieved that the manifesto didn’t actually promise a referendum, it just said there would be one if we were going to change it. The large amount of BNP votes in Oldham, which may have helped to deliver them a Member of Parliament under PR, would be very bad for democracy and very bad for the country.
AO-B: I have to say that I disagree with the BNP argument. We should have a margin, like they do in Germany, of 5 percent of the vote. I think there needs to be a strong commitment to more constitutional reform, particularly a written constitution and a more representative House of Lords.
WS: There’s a lot of stuff that remains unfinished. There are still hereditary peers that remain in the House of Lords. I’m in favour of elected regional government if local people want it. I don’t think we need an English parliament. I was disappointed that our freedom of information legislation wasn’t stronger.
KW: I agree in principle with PR. However, when you compare the system we have with other countries, what we have now is pretty good so perhaps we should take the line ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’.
AO-B: Parliament needs to be stronger and play more of a role in many things and I think we need a written constitution to put everything in place.
AB: I don’t think the electoral system is working. If you look at the numbers of people not voting, particularly in safe seats where people aren’t voting because their vote is wasted.
AO-B: It’s hard to claim a mandate with just 25 percent of the population voting for you, so I definitely think we need a change of system.