Calling time on Cameron
The Home Office has finished its consultation on a minimum alcohol unit price of 45p. This was not one of the numerous government consultations launched by a junior minister with minimal interest from anyone but those directly involved. It was hailed by David Cameron himself as an important step and one which he supported. Now we hear that ministers including Theresa May, Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley are opposing the policy. This is not just a story of cross-government discussion – people are willing to publicly oppose a policy which their prime minister publicly championed. And we are not talking about disenchanted backbenchers, but mainstream and senior cabinet members. Even in our darkest and most difficult days, I find it difficult to think of a policy publicly announced by Tony Blair or Gordon Brown which was then trashed publicly by other cabinet ministers. If this had happened while I was chief whip, I would have sworn a lot and put my forehead to the desk in despair.
Posted by Jacqui Smith on 13 March 2013
Never forget
The recent Halabja commemoration proves that the ‘three Rs’ of remembrance, recognition and retelling are not enough. ‘Never again’ must become ‘always prevent’. ‘From Denial To Recognition. From Destruction To Construction. From Tears To Hope’ – proclaimed the posters at the ceremony marking the 25th anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s barbaric use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja, Iraqi Kurdistan.
The memorial event, on the outskirts of that tragic but unbowed town, was held in a vast marquee filled with more than 5,000 people, mainly Kurds but also delegations from around the world, among them many children, bedecked in beautiful traditional costumes, their mothers holding them close, their fathers proudly wearing their Peshmerga fighter uniforms. It was impossible not to contemplate that on 16 March 1988, a similar number of souls had been obliterated at this place, dying in excruciating agony from the cocktail of mustard and nerve gas that Saddam rained down on them, having first dropped conventional bombs to blow out the windows and leave no refuge. Five thousand lives erased in the blink of an eye, as if they were an infestation of vermin, not human beings. And this only a tiny part of a wider genocide: over 4,000 Kurdish villages bulldozed; men, women and children herded into concentration camps before being shot in the desert; 182,000 murdered in 1987 and 1988 alone.
Posted by John Slinger on 19 March 2013
It was the police, not the hacks
It is easy to forget, but the Leveson inquiry was not set up because of a failure of self-regulation or because progressive-minded people do not like the Sun and the Mail. It was set up because of illegal activity. If you hack someone’s phone, you are breaking the law. If you bribe the police, you are breaking the law. If you obtain someone’s medical records without their consent, guess what? You are breaking the law.
That these excesses went unpunished is not cause for soul-searching in Fleet Street, it is cause for sackings in Scotland Yard, which, it appears, had time to fit up Andrew Mitchell and shoot Mark Duggan, but no time at all to investigate the press. It is the police, not the hacks, that should be the target of reformist zeal. Instead, Labour risks inaugurating an era in which the media is muzzled and quiescent, and, for all it is the progressive side that is cheering a great victory, we will look back on the establishment of a press law as a triumph for the right, not the left.
Posted by Stephen Bush on 19 March 2013
Labour and localism
There are aspects of localism with which Labour is deeply uncomfortable, particularly when decisions are made by Labour councils that the parliamentary Labour party does not agree with. Most recently [Newcastle city council leader] Nick Forbes was heavily criticised by the PLP for proposing a 100 per cent cut to the culture budget and central interventions were made. But what many failed to recognise was that, as the elected Labour council in Newcastle, it was its decision to make, not the PLP’s.
Similarly, Labour seems deeply uncomfortable with the notion of a ‘postcode lottery’. It does not seem fair or equal that treatments for acute illnesses, for instance, are available in one part of the country that are not available in others. Again, however, this is the reality of localism in practice: different decisions will be taken in different areas, which mean some people could lose out. Now is the time, while we are in opposition, to face this tension and think through what localism actually means and whether as a movement we are prepared for the practicalities of it. When one of our Labour councils decides to cut, or fund, something that the PLP does not agree with, will we support or criticise them? Are we prepared to trust local public services to make decisions on behalf of their communities without central intervention? Yet how will we ensure localism enables the delivery of statutory services and central policies?
Posted by Laura Wilkes on 14 March 2013
Open to all
I have just completed my term of office as Young Labour’s disability officer. It has been an experience I have enjoyed tremendously. I have travelled across the country meeting young members and tried to encourage them to see that their disability is not a barrier to their participation in the party; it is part of who they are, and the experience that they bring is vital to have within the party as it seeks to reflect the society we wish to serve.
Making the Labour party more accessible to disabled young people was the aim of my term of office. To that end I produced an advice sheet about how constituency parties can support disabled people to participate in campaign days or social events. I also spoke many times in committee meetings about the need to produce a disability manifesto and the need for disabled delegates to have a better chance of speaking at party conference than they currently do. A manifesto outlining party policies in areas such as housing or transport would help get rid of the perception that all politicians care about is benefits for disabled people.
Posted by Mark Cooper on 11 March 2013