What’s being said on the Progress website
archive.progressonline.org.uk
Progress annual conference
Labour’s impressive local election results provided the ideal platform for activists to gather at the Progress annual conference to debate the new centre-ground and how to form a majority Labour government in 2015. For as Andrew Adonis, Progress chair, emphasised in opening the conference, there is no law of politics that parties that have recently lost a general election are destined to be out of power for a generation.
Posted by Sally Prentice on 15 May 2012
Peter Kellner provided perhaps the most interesting food for thought. When voters talk about the centre, they express that the centre reassures them while the extremes frighten them. They reject risky politicians and parties. However, 1945 and 1979 show that radical reform can be perceived as the reassuring centre, when continuing with the status quo is considered dangerous. The take-away lesson? That radicalism that is perceived to be risky will not win Labour votes in 2015, but a reassuring reform programme that will deliver a better Britain without turbulence will.
Posted by Anna-Joy Rickard on 15 May 2012
In Usdaw we are working hard to build our organisational links with the Labour party so we can work to build the next Labour government. We have just launched our Labour Supporters’ Network which gives our members the chance to get involved in campaigning and political activity one small step at a time. Whether signing a petition, sending an email to their MP or putting up a poster, members can get involved in working on campaigns that affect them, their family and their workplace. A modernised trade union link must reflect the changes we have seen in society and changing attitudes to politics. A successful Labour party must show that it is different to other parties and will campaign on behalf of working people and their families.
Posted by John Hannett on 12 May 2012
As I read it, ‘fiscal responsibility’ means a commitment to reforms that are more radical than redistributive benefits and services. Tackling the economy so that the initial distribution of wealth, power and income is much less unequal would, it is true, mean that we would not have to spend so much on benefits and services. But that would not make life easy for a radical egalitarian government. Think of the things that we know have reduced inequality in the past, such as the extension of collective bargaining, labour market regulation, stronger anti-discrimination legislation and greater social control of private businesses. We do not have to reintroduce all these measures, but they give an idea of how controversial, politically charged and administratively difficult such a programme would be. The difficult choices are not just about not being able to spend as much money as we would like.
Posted by Richard Exell on 12 May 2012
We discussed the need to demonstrate how our values could be better articulated and applied in the south. Labour, it was suggested, should talk more about the importance of responsibility and rather less about fairness. Voters rail against irresponsibility just as much as they do against unfairness: whether it is the irresponsibility of bankers; the irresponsibility of those capable of work but who choose not to; or the irresponsibility of politicians who engage in the wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money. Labour’s responsibility is to demonstrate that we understand this.
Posted by Stuart King on 15 May 2012
My answer to the question ‘how should we reform public services?’ is … please don’t try. At least, not yet. Do it a bit later. If the left has a fault, it is that we are not very good at waiting for the right moment. We will have one huge problem when we win the election: there will still be a significant deficit. Growth will likely be sluggish, unemployment high. The prime minister and Treasury will wrestle with the challenge of driving growth through the economy. Any spare resources will be devoted to supporting struggling families. So until 2017 the first priority for public services should be cost-effective delivery. There will be reforms needed to deliver this, but most progressive policy solutions require either spare capacity or extra funding. Stuffing mouths with gold is key to structural reform. So why not wait until we can offer both carrot and stick?
Posted by Hopi Sen on 14 May 2012
It is always a risk putting a plenary at the end of a jam-packed one-day conference. Despite the lure of high-profile panellists, Caroline Flint, Chuka Umunna, David Aaronovitch and Jacqui Smith, and witty chair Simon Fanshawe, there is always the temptation to call it a day and run for an earlier train. However, the Progress Question Time session is ‘an event within an event’ – definitely no mass exodus. Within an hour, questions ranged from François Hollande’s victory in France through to nuclear power and coalition councils. There was even a small conversation about the polar bear and the penguin local election candidates.
Posted by Victoria Groulef on 14 May 2012
The Queen’s speech
Amid the pomp and the catcalls from Dennis Skinner, the Queen’s speech offered a defensive government a rare chance to gain political momentum. It is a statement on the coalition’s serial dysfunctionality that it proved unable to seize this opportunity. The sovereign’s offering was a decidedly unimpressive list of bills – on, for example, supermarkets, charity donations and water. All may prove useful, but it is thin gruel and hardly a grand vision for the future of our country.
Posted by David Talbot on 14 May 2012
Labour victory?
While victory may no longer be within David Cameron’s grasp, defeat is still within Labour’s reach. We are beginning to see the contours of what we might one day dub ‘Milibandism’, but the new centre-ground cannot be imagined by Labour activists alone. It has to reflect the concerns of the people as a whole, because ‘we are who we are’ is no more convincing as a progressive creed than a Conservative one. Instead, ‘we are who you are’ must continue to be Labour’s guide in the years to come. Conservative collapse will not, in and of itself, be enough to deliver a victory.
Posted by Stephen Bush on 15 May 2012