— the Damp Squid. Members are as Important as Ever — Yet They Are Leaving Us Again

September 26, 2011 By Andy Howell www.labourdemocraticnetwork.org

The first wave of Refounding Labour reforms were voted through yesterday after deals were done between the leadership and the unions. But does any of this amount to much at all? The watered-down proposals on restored supporters really does not amount to much at all to the point that I wonder what on earth is the point of it all?

By all accounts the NEC itself had precious little time to debate the Refounding Labour proposals so I suppose we can’t be surprised that conference didn’t either. At the NEC meeting three members voted against the proposals, Ann Black, Christine Shawcross and  Johanna Baxter. All three did so because of the weight of heir (e)mailbags — all of which were massively hostile to the proposals. Given where the Party is at the moment it may seem weird to ignore such hostility but in reality this was nothing like Ed’s Clause 4 moment.

Just how practical is any of this stuff? Registered members get 3% of the electoral college come a leadership election. Is this really significant? There are real practical problems in opening up more localised selections — Councillors and MPs — to include registered supporters. A selection meeting in my part of the world can take hours because of the problems in verifying membership. This is also a part of the world in which we have constant problems with the buying of mass memberships, particularly amongst those who qualify of the reduced weight. What’s to stop anyone using community organisations registered with Labour to do precisely the same thing?

Last night I put some of these concerns to a long-standing member of the NEC. I was told that in all probability these changes will never actually happen because they will be so difficult to implement in practice. Indeed, the NEC has spend much of the last few years quietly disposing of the ideas of Gordon Brown for Party reform which were simply impractical.

Which brings us back to members. Remember the great days of last year when membership was booming? Not so now, in fact, the Party has lost over 10,000 members I believe since the early summer, despite Ed’s heroics over Murdoch, etc.

Membership will continue to fall while Members themselves get nothing for their Membership and where their views and opinions have such little value.

Labour must see Members as one the key building blocks in Party renewal. This will mean doing things differently and no doubt reforming our structures and procedures. But it has to be seen that members are seen as important partners and not just cheap Labour for leafleting and voter ID (as important as those are).

With membership falling again this Party faces the same problem that it has faced for a decade or so now, that more and more work falls on less and less people.

I have no sense that Labour supporters — let alone members — really favour a  US style system and presidential politics. Nor is there any sense that the vast number of members are anything but massively opposed to the State Funding of political parties, and suspicion remains that we are holding on for Christopher Kelly to recommend such a system.

Our renewal — our future — will depend on members. Our task is to make their voice count and to the inspiration from their passion and political drive.

More than ever — despite refunding Labour:

Labour =  members.

 http://www.labourfutures.org

  Ed Miliband’s speech today was aimed at different audiences. Those of us in the hall, on left and right, will have liked some parts and disliked others. Here are some left viewpoints:

Seumas Milne: ‘The most radical speech delivered by a Labour leader for a generation’

Pro-government corporate media are already crying foul. And no wonder. Ed Miliband’s speech today was the most radical delivered by a Labour leader for a generation.

Sure, it was low on policy detail and there were predictable issues that plenty of his supporters will disagree with, from welfare to Afghanistan.

But Labour’s leader made an unmistakable political break today with the unrestrained market consensus of recent decades: denouncing the “failure of a system” that had delivered a “crisis of the promises made over the last 30 years”.

There was no doubt who was in the frame: the bankers and vested interests of the corporate world, rigged markets, big energy conglomerates, companies “powerful enough they can get away with anything” and cosy cartels that set top pay (while he promised to put a worker on every company pay committee).

And turning on its head the Tory and New Labour charge that such talk is “anti-business”, Miliband raised the prospect of a “new economy”, ditching the “old set of rules”: backing producers against predators, wealth creators against assets strippers, real engineering instead of financial engineering. Of course, whether he turn all this brave talk into policies that match the rhetoric is another question.

But even the Blairite ultra Hazel Blears sitting next to me – who listened to some of the sharper attacks on corporate power through gritted teeth – admitted Miliband needed something strong to “cut through”. And compared with the usual bland fare of British politics, it was certainly that.

Owen Jones: “A little cheer, and a little disappointment”

There’s always a slight sense of dread for a Labour left-winger when listening to the Conference speech of a modern Labour leader. I half expected to spend the speech in a grump with my arms crossed, but in truth there were things to cheer. He spoke of standing against the “consensus”. A truly radical Labour Government would take on Thatcher’s consensus as she took on Attlee’s. He spoke of the sense that companies that were so big and powerful they could get away with anything. Calling for workers representatives on renumeration boards is a step in the right direction.

He slammed the Tories’ onslaught on the NHS. I admit I whooped when he said: “Conference, I am not Tony Blair.” But sadly Blair’s ghost loomed large. He was rightly met with stony silence when he applauded Thatcherism for slashing taxes on the wealthy and taking on union rights.

I was furious at his call for unemployed people to be effectively discriminated against at a time when hundreds of thousands have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own, and when there’s a massive social housing shortage (in large part the fault of New Labour). He promised a future Labour Government wouldn’t spend beyond its means, hinting the myth that the deficit was caused by spending too much, rather than a collapse of tax revenues and increased welfare spending because unemployment went up.He made it clear many of the cuts won’t be reversed: a challenge to the labour movement to make a future Labour Government do just that. Those looking to a coherent alternative to the age of austerity – like myself – will be disappointed.

Morning Star Editorial – A line needs to be drawn

Ed Miliband should shed no tears over the co-ordinated campaign by the Tory media and the Blairite undead in his own party to undermine him for his alleged lack of charisma.

Charismatic Tory wartime leader Winston Churchill sneered at his Labour counterpart Clem Attlee in the 1945 general election for his personal modesty, taunting him for having “a lot to be modest about.”

This didn’t prevent Attlee from leading Labour to a landslide victory over the old imperialist.

Labour won because it pledged no return to mass unemployment, introduction of the NHS and a welfare state and a campaign to rebuild Britain’s industry, housing and schools.

The electorate ignored Tory pleas to vote for “the man who won the war,” convinced of the need for concrete policies in the interests of the vast majority of the people.

New Labour spin doctors, who painted Tony Blair as uniquely capable of winning general elections, remain wedded to this approach of image over substance even after his pro-business and pro-war policies and obsession with personal self-enrichment created a legacy of popular disenchantment with Labour.

They retain too much influence in the party, prevailing on Miliband to equate predatory asset-stripping companies with “non-contributing” or simply jobless council tenants.

Len McCluskey: A PM in the making

We haven’t heard that from a Labour leader for a very long time. Ed showed that he values those who genuinely create the wealth of our country – the workers who are the backbone of our economy – and for the first time in a long time we heard clear thinking on the importance of manufacturing to grow our economy.

His emphasis on our shared values, on defending our NHS and on scything down the ‘greed culture’ polluting our society will resonate with families across the land.  They will resonate more once we see the details to convince us that they can do social good.

We will have to see a lot more detail, but we have seen a man on a mission. There is definitely a phoenix rising from the ashes, into a people’s party.”

By Susan Nash and Callum Munro

Young Labour is changing. Next week in Liverpool, the Labour Party's annual conference will ratify the outcomes of Refounding Labour, outcomes which will completely change the experience of young members in our party.

After months of consultation, debate and negotiation we are delighted to be able now to say that young members themselves have changed their movement for good. The last few weeks and even days, have been the most intense of the process however we are now able to confidently say that the package of measures for young members will the biggest change to the Labour Party's youth wing in a generation and one of the most positive steps forward ever.

Young members of the Labour Party should feel welcomed and valued. This is why from now on, young members will receive a welcome pack when they join which contains key information about how they can get involved and which explains how the party works and what a lot of Labour jargon actually means. A new section of the training academy will be dedicated to young members which will provide training on issues such as campaigning on the doorstep, developing policy and how to become and fulfil the role of a youth officer in a CLP. The role of youth officer will be properly defined and supported. Youth officers will be provided with the training and resources necessary to help encourage activity amongst young members on a CLP level.

An over-arching theme of the changes proposed is the idea that Young Labour will no longer be bottom of the priority list for the party. The reinstatement of the ‘Vice Chair Youth' position, a role given to an MP in order to represent our interests in the PLP and Parliament, really gives Young Labour a voice in that arena. However, in terms of giving Young Labour a voice in the party, by far the biggest change will be that from now on, Young Labour will have rights as if it were an affiliated organisation. This means that Young Labour will be able to send motions to national and regional conferences and also send delegates to these conferences who will then be able vote alongside the other affiliate section delegates. One of the most significant rights we have won is the ability to nominate candidates in any future leadership contest. This means that rather than being able to ignore the voice of young members, candidates will have to come and compete for the nomination of Young Labour, a very valuable prize for any aspiring leader. This rule regarding nominations will also apply to Scottish and Welsh leadership contests, as well as any future London Mayoral contest.

The most significant thing however that comes from having affiliate rights is the fact that from now on, Young Labour will have the right to debate and set its own autonomous policy, just like Labour Students. This policy will be set at Young Labour conference, which from now on will be an annual event as opposed to simply once every two years. Young Labour will be able to run campaigns based on the policy set by conference and will also be able to feed into the Labour party's wider policy agenda through the NPF youth reps who from now on will be elected solely by young members.

Young Labour conference will be lead by the Young Labour National Committee and will be chaired primarily by the Chair of Young Labour. The complicated delegate system of Young Labour conference is also changing for the better. Rather than holding complicated and often unnecessary elections in the various regions, from now on any young member simply has to register online to attend. The capacity of Young Labour conference will also be expanded and from now on there will far greater explanation of how conference works and how delegates can get involved. CLPs will be encouraged to provide financial assistance to delegates and notice of the conference will be given long in advance so as to keep travel costs to a minimum. The liberation campaigns will be at the heart of Young Labour conference and a proper explanation of what the campaigns are and how they work will be provided for the benefit of those delegates who are perhaps not aware of how these work.

Young Labour National Committee will lead Young Labour. The committee is growing, with an under 19s rep, an international rep and two ordinary reps all being elected at Young Labour conference.  Just like the Chair of the Young Fabians, the Chair of Co-op Party Youth will sit on the committee and in light of the larger committee; an extra trade union place will be created. Also, it will no longer be a requirement to be on the committee in order to stand for election as chair.

Some of Young Labour's best work is done at a local and regional level and in order to reflect this, the role of regional rep and of youth rep on the regional boards should work with local Young Labour groups in order to encourage activity and engage with new members. Both of these positions will be elected at the same time by an OMOV ballot of young members in the region, with one position being reserved for a woman. The reserved position will of course switch each term.

Young Labour groups across the country should now receive greater support from the regional offices with a member of staff in each office being responsible for helping Young Labour operate. Links between Young Labour groups and local trade union youth sections will be encouraged and a full plan for cooperation and cross movement involvement between Young Labour and trade unions will be drawn up.

All of these things are not a shopping list, they are not demands or wishes, they are the concrete successes of the work that young members right across the country have done by helping to make the Refounding Labour process work for them. Now is the time for us all to put these things into action. It is time to look forward with a positive attitude and work to make Young Labour a movement of our own and of which the party can be proud.  Ed Miliband needs Young Labour to be at the forefront of Labour's new generation so that soon he can win in order to protect Britain's next generation.

htttp://www.labourlist.org

  http://www.leftfutures.org

The Labour party has been ordered by an employment tribunal to pay former Birmingham Labour councillor Raghib Ahsan £123,000 after a 13-year legal battle. Although Raghib’s legal costs were funded by the Commission for Racial Equality, Labour’s own legal costs will bring its total bill to well over £500,000.

Raghib Ahsan, although now a solicitor, used to work at the Rover works, was president of the Birmingham Trades Council in the 1980s and a councillor for the Sparkhill Ward between 1991 and 1998. Three years ago, the Law Lords found unanimously in his favour on his claim that he was discriminated against by a selection panel in the run-up to the 1998 local government elections in which he was replaced with a white candidate who had not even been a member long enough to qualify under the party rules. Raghib Ahsan was also prevented by party officials from standing for Labour’s national executive for which he had been backed by the centre-left Grassroots Alliance.

The story is well told by Lord Justice Hoffman in his judgement:

Between 1991 and 1998 Mr Raghib Ahsan was a Labour Party councillor for the Sparkhill Ward of Birmingham. The ward has a large Pakistani population and he is from Pakistan. When the 1998 local government elections were approaching, he hoped to be readopted as the Labour candidate.

Ordinarily, the candidate would have been chosen by the Sparkhill branch of the party. But when the selection process was due to take place, late in 1997, the Sparkhill branch had been suspended for nearly three years. The reason was that, early in 1995, articles had appeared in the Observer and the Daily Mail in which it was alleged that local councillors of Pakistani origin or associated with the Pakistani community were helping Pakistani residents to jump the queue for housing grants. The journalists made free with words like “sleaze” and “scandal”.

One of the councillors named in this connection was Mr Ahsan, who was known to be an aspirant for adoption as prospective parliamentary candidate for the Sparkbrook constitutency, which included the Sparkhill ward. The newspapers linked the housing grant story to another story that large numbers of Pakistanis, real or imaginary, had suddenly joined the Birmingham Labour party. The implication was that Mr Ahsan was recruiting or inventing countrymen to support his parliamentary ambitions.

The reaction of the Labour Party national executive was immediately to suspend four constituency parties and their branches, including Sparkhill. These were mainly the wards with the highest concentration of ethnic minority groups. In the event, after inquiry by the party, no evidence was found of any impropriety in connection with housing grants on the part of Mr Ahsan or the other Pakistani councillors. They appear to have been doing no more than advising or encouraging their constituents to exercise their statutory rights.

The executive’s concerns about new members were addressed by requiring all members to attend in person at the Labour Party office to verify their membership. Again, no evidence of any abuse involving Mr Ahsan was found. Nevertheless eight branches remained suspended throughout the 1997 general election campaign and they remained suspended when it came to the selection of candidates for the council at the end of 1997. The suspended wards included (with one exception) all the wards with a significant Pakistani population.

As the branches were suspended, the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party decided that the candidates would be selected by a panel from the Regional Executive Committee. On 19 December 1997 Mr Ahsan and others were interviewed by the panel, consisting of five members. He was not chosen. The candidate chosen for the Sparkhill ward was a white man from the Fox Hollies branch, a Mr Ian Jamieson.

Twelve Birmingham Labour branches — mainly inner city branches in areas with large BAME populations — remain in “special measures” today. Raghib Ahsan was shortlisted as a candidate for the 2002 elections but suspended after being accused by a rival of “intimidating” other party members. He was suspended pending investigation of “allegations concerning violence, intimidation and serious membership abuse amounting to fraud” but once again cleared of any wrongdoing but he left Labour in 2003.

Although it must be a source of regret that this issue has cost so much money to the party (and indeed to the public purse), Raghib Ahsan was extremely badly and wrongly treated and much maligned by people acting on behalf of the Labour Party. He did, however, receive widespread support in Birmingham and beyond. As was reported in the Muslim News:

Almost 3000 local voters signed a petition demanding that he be allowed to stand. Over two-thirds of the membership of Sparkhill Labour Party also demanded the right to select him as their candidate. Many others who have written letters of protest to the Labour Party, including Lynne Jones MP, Roy Hattersley, six local head teachers, Sparkhill Youth Association, Community Education Association, school governing bodies, local Labour Party and trade union branches.

Raghib Ahsan said:

It is the end of a very long struggle that took over my life for many years but I am very pleased that I have been awarded compensation. All of the allegations against me were unfounded and my deselection was entirely unjustified. Now I feel as though I have been vindicated.”

The action that was taken against Raghib Ahsan, although it involved racial discrimination, was politically rather than racially motivated. He was on the left of the party in an area in which the Right is strong — and in particular the shadowy right-wing Old Labour factional machine Labour First run by local MP and former trade union fixer, John Spellar. Unlike Progress, Labour First has no open membership or pretence of internal democracy. In the run up to parliamentary boundary changes which would significantly affect Birmingham constituencies, Labour First and its supporters in the regional party bureaucracy were determined to consolidate their political dominance. Raghib Ahsan was just one of the victims.

Most of the protagonists are still around: Keith Hanson, the Birmingham regional organiser, has remained in post throughout. John Spellar himself remains — how should we put it — active and well-connected throughout the movement. In today’s Telegraph, he describes the payout as ”absurd“:

Mr Ahsan was a fairly controversial figure in the Labour Party. He was involved in a long-running controversy that some felt damaged the image of the party locally. But there are political factions and battles in every political party. For a court to stick its nose in and get involved is absurd. It demonstrates the sheer arrogance of the legal system.”

Whilst he makes no apology, it is notable that he makes no defence either. Raghib Ahsan is more magnanimous:

I don’t think Labour has learnt the lessons it should have learnt from the way I have been treated. I don’t think the party is inherently racist but I think there are still some racist practises which persist and I hope it reassess its selection procedures. I hope that one day I get an apology from them. But I don’t think that will happen.”

Readers may note some similarities between this case and the case of Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets: Muslim councillors associated with the centre-left of the party, a large Muslim party membership, well-connected local right-wing MPs, allegations of corruption, membership irregularities and intimidation, many years of “special measures” and the suspension of internal party democracy. Party officials, aware of the enormous ultimate cost of their actions in Birmingham, were much better at covering their tracks in Tower Hamlets. That, of course, is why Cllr Helal Abbass (who came third in the mayoral selection and brought the final complaint against Lutfur Rahman) was imposed as the Labour Mayoral candidate, and not John Biggs, the white London Assembly member who came second and was without any involvement in the complaint.

 http://www.leftfutures.org

Come on. It’s the silly season. How many Labour Party members does it take to publish what they think? More than are currently paid up. On present showing, Labour can’t afford openness and transparency, it’s still paying off its debts.

Oh, how Ed must yearn for the days of “Tony wants”, and “Gordon says”. Remember the election that never was in 2007, when reportedly some £1.5 million was spent in preparation for the mockery that was to befall the party? In the 10 months that have elapsed since Ed Miliband was elected leader of the Labour Party, he has faced some formidable internal obstacles to delivering the change he wants.

None is more poignant than the fate of Labour Party members’ submissions to the two reviews he ordered into the Party and how it functions and the policies that help ensure defeat in the 2010 general election. They remain secret. For Labour HO eyes only.

Quite how that squares with those stirring Leader commitments sent soaring on the wings of victory into the vastness of the Manchester Conference Centre last Autumn is the stuff of a Monty Python revival. It’s four years since I personally introduced the concept of open and transparent consultations to the Labour Party machine. Yes, Peter, the serpent tongue hissed: Best kept for the NEC only. True to form not even the NEC was given a look in, neither then nor now, with the exception of one or two individuals.

So here we are in the year of the rabbit. Whoever is staring into the headlights deserves what might befall them. I want to know why when the Leader of my political party, to which I pay my dues, says that submissions to the Refounding Labour consultation should be published, and yet I am still waiting.

One excuse cited by one of the constituency labour party (CLP) representatives on the party’s national executive committee (NEC) Luke Akehurst is that some submissions are marked confidential not for publication. Well frankly, anyone in a democratic socialist party who is not prepared to defend their submissions in public deserves to have their contribution binned. Though on second thoughts maybe there is the ‘whistleblower’ type submission that would be best kept offline and used for performance management purposes, rather than an excuse for holding up publication of the rest.

Then there is the question about everyone else who gritted their teeth, ignored previous experience of submissions disappearing into a black hole and took the trouble to set out a few home truths. Were they asked explicitly for permission to publish, remain anonymous, or off the record and not for publication? Someone in Labour Party HO must know why provision was not built in for such considerations in the first place. Was it an administrative oversight? Was it deliberate? At this juncture, I couldn’t give a monkey’s. I just want to see my personal submissions, my CLP’s and everyone else’s in the public domain. As a democratic socialist, I can’t imagine consultations being any other way.

So, Ed. Remember your last #AskEd twitter session? Your pledge made on Thursday 14 July 2011 was recorded for posterity here . Is there a project plan? I’m happy to volunteer to telephone round the few who don’t like to share their email addresses with HO. But that’s another story. I’m sure there are enough like me who are happy to crank out up to 50 calls an hour to ask permission. If cost is a worry, I’ll be rash and volunteer to raise the necessary funds to cover the costs of scanning hardcopy submissions. For the avoidance of doubt, I’ll underwrite the scanning costs now, so that your ambitions can be fulfilled.

Just publish and be praised. All that is at stake is your reputation for keeping your word.

CLPD’s Motion & Draft Response

Wednesday, 08 June 2011

The Party’s consultation document “Refounding Labour” can be downloaded here Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) model Motion & Draft Response below MOTION   This CLP believes that: 1.   The review of the Party's policy-making is very timely; 2.   The number of motions to be considered by our Party's Annual conference should no longer be restricted to 8 but should be increased to at least 12; 3.   CLPs and affiliated organisations that submit a resolution should no longer be debarred from also submitting a rule change 4.   Motions may be on any matters of concern to CLPs and affiliates and should not be ruled out of order on the grounds that they are deemed to be insufficiently 'contemporary' or that they could have been sent elsewhere; 5.   Policy documents presented to Conference should be open to amendment and to being voted on in parts.   This CLP also believes that, in order to give members increased confidence that the policies agreed will be properly taken forward: a)   The decisions of conference should be respected by the party leadership and included, where appropriate, in our manifesto; b)   The short-listing and selection of all candidates from national to local government should be conducted by the relevant Party unit of local members without external intervention. c)   The number of seats on the party's National Executive Committee elected by constituency members should be increased from 6 to 10, including 1 seat each chosen by constituency members in Scotland and Wales.     DRAFT RESPONSE   PARTY CONFERENCE   Conference is meant to be the sovereign body of the Party.  Process and Policy are meant to come under its control but conference has been relegated into a media rally and a rubber stamp.   In 2010, one third of CLPs sent no delegates to conference.    A Living, breathing Party, requires real debates with votes on key issues.   A good indicator is the lack of time given to delegates contributions.    Proposal – The Conference Arrangements Committee should ensure that at least half of conference time is given over to delegates contributions in debates on which votes are taken.   Proposal - Composite motions should be produced well in advance of conference based on members policy submissions.   Proposal - All Party conference documents should be published on Membersnet.  The NEC   Between conferences the NEC is the voice of the Party.   Proposal – Over-seeing policy making should be restored to the NEC.   The composition of the NEC needs to reflect equality between individual and affiliated members.    Representation between Trades Union and CLP reps should be equalized.  There are currently 12 TU reps and 6 CLP reps.   Proposal – The NEC should be expanded allowing for the election of 12 CLP reps. and the current bar on members of the General Council of the TUC should be lifted.   Proposal - All NEC papers should be published on Membersnet.   NATIONAL POLICY FORUM   There is widespread cynicism about the NPF, but in spite of this there could be a key role for a representative body which meets between conferences away from the media gaze.   A rolling policy programme should be maintained, updated and regularly published as soon as possible.   To ensure proper conference debates, any proposals should contain options and not be presented on a take it or leave it basis.   Before decisions are reached on final documents more time must be scheduled to avoid the Warwick style chaos of the past.   The NPF needs to be properly resourced to support members in the regions and to compensate those for loss of earnings and associated expenses such as child care.   Proposal – the NPF’s programme should be planned not by the Joint Policy Committee but by the NEC.   Proposal – Attendance at NPF has been sporadic.  Minutes and records of attendance should be published of all NPF meetings.   Proposal – Short money should be directed to support members’ regional activities and encourage widest possible engagement of all NPF reps.   THE LEADERSHIP   There is no strong argument for fundamental change but the idea that non-members should somehow be included should be rejected.   Non-membership should not be rewarded at the expense of members.   All sections of the Party should be included.   THE PARTY AND MEMBERS RIGHTS   Party management has attracted much criticised in recent years.  Favoured candidates have been given preferential access to databases and parachuted into safe Labour seats.  Postal votes have been abused and some selections left open to allegations of sabotage and fraud.   Party officers have been accused of interfering in process.   The operation of the Party must be beyond reproach.   Proposal – Members’ rights to select candidates should be paramount.  The role of officers should be to protect these rights and a clear line of officials’ accountability to the NEC established.   Proposal – Members should have the right to select all candidates prior to election.  This must include the selection and re-selection of Parliamentary candidates.   Proposal – Produce a charter of member’s rights.  Within this Party officials would observe a code similar to that of the civil service.   Finally more training needs to be provided to encourage working class candidates to come forward.  Parliament is still seen as being the preserve of the elite.  This must change.

Welcome to the Refounding Labour Consultation Website

We are really keen to hear your views. The deadline for submissions is Friday 24 June.

Rt Hon. Peter Hain MP

 By Owen Jones / @owenjones84

 http://www.labourlist.org

 "Men make their own history," wrote Karl Marx back in 1852, "but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

Marx was a wise bloke, and was in this case talking about the admittedly pretty turbulent French political scene in the mid-19th century. But, as a way of understanding how politics works, it equally applies to Ed Miliband's occasionally besieged leadership of the Labour Party.

Ed Miliband is not - as some of his enemies would claim - on the left of the Labour party. He would, traditionally, have been seen as a fairly conventional old Labour right-winger. But for those who wanted a shift away from New Labour, it was crucial he defeated his brother in the leadership election, because David Miliband would have ideologically resisted pressure from below - no matter how strong - for a change in position. His team (who included people even more right-wing than he is) would have relished defining their man against the party and the wider labour movement. There was always the possibility, however, that Ed Miliband's leadership would be more susceptible to pressure from below: that it could be pushed in a more radical direction if the support and will was there.

But the "circumstances existing already" for any shift away from New Labour are poor indeed. The political consensus established by Thatcher is stronger than ever. Neo-liberal ideas that would have had you castigated as a crank in the 1950s are now passed off as virtual commonsense. The trade union movement remains desperately weak. The Labour left is practically non-existent: that is, although there are thousands of members on the left, there is no coherent alternative left agenda, let alone a coherent left movement.

The terror provoked by 1980s Thatcherism and - today - by a vicious right-wing government breeds desperation: "this lot have to be thrown out, whatever the cost". Any move to the left is seen - even by those who would want it - as too much of a risk: an indulgence that would keep the Tories in office and mean that those Labour exists to represent would continue to be pummeled.

All of this means that the New Labour right remains powerful at the top. Many of them are, generally speaking, supportive of what the Coalition is doing: after all, much of it is building on the Blairite project. Some refuse to accept Ed Miliband's leadership as even being legitimate, because he beat his brother (by nearly 30,000 votes) with the support of the most representative members of Labour's electoral college: rank-and-file trade unionists. Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy are biding their time in the Shadow Cabinet, waiting for Ed Miliband to fail.

Above all, there is no adequate countervailing pressure from the left. Even if Ed Miliband wanted to break properly from New Labour, there is little room for political maneuver for him to do so.

That's the context in which I understand his speech on Monday, which came after leaks drudging up memories of the Brownite insurgency against Tony Blair, and the publication of David Miliband's would-be speech if he'd been elected leader. Whether there are Blairite fingerprints over this or not doesn't really matter: it all certainly boosted those on the hard right of the party.

In the speech, Ed Miliband put so-called "benefits cheats" in the same category as the bankers who nearly brought the entire global economy crashing into a 1930s-style Great Depression, and who caused a crisis which we are still stuck in after nearly four years. This was, for me, deeply troubling. The government estimates that £1.5 billion a year is lost through welfare fraud, compared to £70 billion a year lost through tax evasion. The amount of benefits left unclaimed - "welfare evasion", if you will - is about ten times the amount lost through fraud.

But, crucially, there are simply not enough jobs to go around. There are 2.5 million unemployed people in Britain today, and another 1.5 million in part-time jobs who want full-time work. That's excluding those on incapacity benefit who the government wants to push into work. And yet there are only around 500,000 vacancies - and generally not where they are most needed. When Iain Duncan-Smith suggested the people of Merthyr - a Welsh town battered by deindustrialisation - get on the bus to find work in Cardiff, it was subsequently pointed out that there were 9 jobseekers for every 1 vacancy in the Welsh capital. As Ed Miliband himself highlighted in his response to the Budget earlier this year, there are 10 people chasing every 1 vacancy in over 130 constituencies.

Ed began Monday's speech with an anecdote about a man on incapacity benefit who, in his view, could work. I'm not sure about the wisdom of playing amateur doctor, but in any case, the anecdote misses the point. There are not enough jobs to go round, a statement we would all be wise to repeat again and again.

It is true that, as Iain Duncan Smith has admitted, Tory governments in the 1990s manipulated unemployment figures by encouraging those without work to be transferred to incapacity benefit. But, as research by Dr Christina Beatty and Professor Steve Fothergill has revealed, many incapacity benefit claimants are those who are least able to work in areas with the least amount of jobs. When there are large numbers of people competing for a small amount of work, those with ill health are least likely to get work: hence they concluded that "the UK's very high incapacity claimant numbers are an issue of jobs and of health."

You can see how this has played out in Glasgow, which houses more incapacity benefit claimants than any other local authority. Indeed, the number peaked in 1995 when one in five were on IB: about three times the UK level. But as a group of Glasgow University and Glasgow City Council experts pointed out: "The main reason for the huge growth in sickness benefit claims were the city's rapid de-industrialisation." After all, the number of manufacturing jobs in 1991 was just a third of what it was just two decades earlier.

If there was pressure within Labour coming from the left, these are arguments that could be made. But there isn't, and so Blairite-style benefit claimant-bashing has been resurrected. Those who argue in favour of this strategy will argue that it's not about appealing to Daily Mail-style supporters: many natural Labour supporters will be most enthusiastic. And they are right. If you are scraping by in life, working hard in a job that you don't enjoy, and you think that there are those enjoying a higher standard of living at your expense - that will rile you more than anyone else. Right-wing politicians and journalists know this, and exploit it ruthlessly.

But it will backfire. The strategy will fuel prejudices that the Tories will be best placed to satisfy. We will help exaggerate the scale of benefit fraud in people's minds, and the Tories will outflank us with supposed solutions to it. Voters won't believe Ed Miliband really means it in any case. Turning poor people against each other will not return Labour to power. What we should really be talking about is how we create secure, skilled, well-paid jobs for all.

If the left is frustrated with Ed Miliband now, they should prepare for a lot worse. The old New Labour guard will do all they can to drag Labour back to a pure Blairite formula. There is only one way to prevent this from happening, and that is to build strong left pressure within the party that defends Ed Miliband's leadership from Blairite attacks, but attempts to drag it in a more progressive direction. We have to change the circumstances Karl Marx was talking about. Space for policies that challenge neo-liberal orthodoxy has to be created.

If we fail to do that, Labour will not win back the working-class voters whose desertion cost it power. We will lose the next election, and working people will continue to pay for a crisis they did nothing to create. I don't know about you, but I don't want to sit back and let that happen.

GEER is all about putting the third way behind us, by renewing our focus on Gender, Environment, Equality and Race. We aim to develop policy and promote ideas that work towards helping secure a Labour future for Britain. This site will simply contain access to our reports. It is not a forum for discussion but we welcome feedback about our articles and policies, and would be delighted to listen to suggestions via email at labourfuture@gmail.com.

A left wing think tank, Gender, Environment, Equality and Race (GEER), launches at an inaugural meeting in Portcullis House in Westminster at 13:00on 2 June.

GEER chair, Kelvin Hopkins MP, will open the launch with his vision for Labour economic policy.  Founding member, Dr Éoin Clarke will present lessons to be learned from the ballot box and Grahame Morris MP will unveil a new direction on public health.  The launch will also feature a panel Q&A on a new vision for Labour.

Labour lost 5 million voters under New Labour whilst attempting to appeal to the outdated concept of ‘middle England’. GEER is creating new policies which incorporate the values of socialism for a contemporary Labour Party, and put the ‘third way’ politics behind us.  We recognise that it is now time for the party to move on from that era and think of how we can rebuild Labour as a catch all party not of all social classes or the hierarchical way it is often viewed but instead a catch all party of progressive ideologies.

Dr Éoin Clarke said: “For too long, politics have been the preserve of white middle class men.  Feminism, Environmentalism, true Equality and Racial harmony must be the goals of true socialists. Forging a common bond regardless of class, race or gender will be the founding ambition of GEER.  New Labour’s number one failure was that it placed too much emphasis on capturing middle England. The very concept alienated more people that it attracted. The blandness and meaningless nature of the concept simply turned voters away. The ordinary people of Britain do not want ambiguity, they seek grit, action and determination. Words have failed mainstream Britain, and before they can listen again they need to conceptualise demonstrative change.”

“GEER’s primary aim is about overcoming triple jeopardy with ethical economic policies.  This will involve building a new coalition of interests around women’s issues, caring for our environment and promoting greater positivity between the communities that make up the United Kingdom. GEER is about seeking out the true meaning of words such as Equality and Liberty. There will be no prefixes or suffixes or appendages. There is no such thing as Muscular Liberalism, there is simply Liberalism. Equality of Opportunity is a fallacy, there is simply the aspiration of Equality. GEER will seek to connect policy formulation to the true meaning of these great principles.”

Members of GEER include MPs, academics, councillors, trade union representatives and researchers at Westminster.

All are Labour Party members.  We believe that ordinary Labour party members deserve the opportunity to have their voices heard in the Refounding Labour consultation that runs to 24 June. GEER are therefore urging the party’s policy unit to take equal account of everyone’s views.

GEER will issue further content and photographs on 2 June during the launch.  There will be opportunities for interested parties to meet us on the day, and a limited number of seats are available at the meeting by invitation.  Please contact us via the email address below for further details.

You can find out more about GEER and our policies at www.labourleft.co.uk or by following us on Twitter @GEERUK

Kindest regards,

Yours fraternally,

James Leppard (PRO)

Ends

 On Ken and Lutfur and winning London

http://www.leftfutures.org/

“Under Ed Miliband, Labour lost Scotland. Now under his leadership, Labour has lost London”. This could very well be one of the top lining political stories in a year’s time, and while it is easy to look into a crystal ball and easier still to paint a bleak picture, Labour is facing a much tougher battle that it thinks to depose Mayor Boris Johnson next Spring.

For a start there are the irreconcilables. The assorted  figures from the ancient New Labour regime who have never accepted that their candidate Oona King lost to Ken Livingstone. They aren’t reconciled to the fact that Ed, not David, is leader of the Labour Party. For them simply proving a point by sitting on their hands will be enough to say in a year’s time “We told you so!” Their eye is on the next Mayoral elections when if they have their way Labour will field a candidate to their liking. And that candidate, at the moment at least, is Sir Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham. In the months ahead they will be doing as little as possible to help Ken and Labour. Their political bedfellows north of the border in Scotland have shown them how to lose, and how to lose so badly that it may take a generation for Labour to regain its place as the voice of Scotland.

Then there is Boris Johnson. Labour people may scoff and pour scorn on the tousled haired toff, but a good part of London – especially young London – appears to have come round to him. Labour people may ask what he has done for London, and others may have difficulty in finding an answer. But somehow, even as Boris Johnson has his eye on a bigger prize in Downing Street, the mood music runs in his favour.

And then there is Ken Livingstone, still popular, still the vote winner that Labour for so long didn’t seem to want when Tony Blair was in his pomp. Older now, and wiser, his appeal remains powerful. But this time around, Ken needs Labour rather than Labour needs Ken. Officially the party is standing four square behind Ken, but so far the campaign seems strangely muted. The question is; does Ed Miliband realise just how much the future of his leadership hangs on Ken beating Boris?

There are lots of groups Labour needs to mobilise if it is to take power in London again. One of those pivotal groups is the BAME communities of inner and east London and the satellite boroughs. Ken Livingstone remains popular especially in the sizeable British Bangladeshi community and amongst Muslims in general. Traditionally their support is both solid and sizeable. Many community leaders want to work for Livingstone and raise funds, and yet there is an elephant in the room that is thus far preventing them in the shape of the party bosses who have yet to declare the open season on Britain’s first elected BAME Mayor, Lutfur Rahman, over.

Rahman is a talismanic figure in his community. Many are proud that he defied the odds – and Labour’s creaking old machine – to become Britain’s first Muslim Mayor of inner city Tower Hamlets. But he and his supporters are still banned from the Labour Party whose attempts to police and control the borough have now so signally failed, and after well over a decade of trying. Rahman has become a useful whipping boy for the far Right. As far as they are concerned he could carry on wearing a thousand armistice poppies and attend Royal Wedding parties till the end of time, but for them this essentially politically moderate figure is an Islamic extremist. Playing second fiddle to them are local politicians who should know better and figures such as Harriet Harman, who apart from anything else haven’t computed the Mayoral election number game.

Rahman and his supporters matter, as they can bring with them tens of thousands of votes from across East London and beyond. Despite still being expelled from Labour, recently Lutfur and colleagues flooded Leicester and helped ensure a Labour win at the by election and for the new city Mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby. They would like to do the same for Ken, but until they are allowed to return that is not going to happen.

Politics, as always is local. In a tightly fought contest, the votes of London’s BAME minority could prove crucial. Other groups of voters are just as crucial; it is just that Ken, Labour – and Ed Miliband need them all.

Ed Miliband wants Labour to win London back, but in order to do so he is going to have to start showing some real leadership. He needs to galvanise Labour’s supporters in the capital and he needs to make it clear to the irreconcilables that he expects them to work hard for Ken and Labour. He needs to be seen out on the streets more with Ken. He also needs to make it clear that the days of the party overplaying its heavy, clumsy hand in places like Tower Hamlets are over.  He could begin by showing Mayor Rahman the hand of friendship and let him and his supporters return to Labour.

Another New Labour Disaster

Following the bureaucratic intervention by New Labour's HQ into ths selection of Labour's Mayoral candidate, the imposed Labour candidate lost to the man who was selected by local Labour members. See Christine Shawcroft's report of the NEC meeting which agreed to suspend Lutfur Rahman and adopt Helal Abbas, below.

For earlier article: https://sites.google.com/a/socialistbulletin.com/socialist-bulletin/labour-party/towerhamletsmayoralselectionscandal

Lutfur Rahman wins Tower Hamlets mayoral election

Lutfur Rahman secured more than half of the vote to become the borough's first directly elected mayor

A former leader of Tower Hamlets Council who was dumped by Labour then stood as an independent has been voted in as the borough's new mayor.

Lutfur Rahman secured 51.76% of the vote to become the east London borough's first directly-elected mayor.

Former council leader Mr Rahman was Labour's initial candidate.

But when he was rebuffed by the party he announced he would stand as an independent with several Labour councillors' backing.

"Whatever party you may belong to, whatever community you may belong to, please give me the chance to serve and deliver for the people of Tower Hamlets," said Mr Rahman, following his win in the poll, which had a 25.6% turnout.

The total number of votes polled for each candidate was:

• Helal Uddin Abbas, Labour Party - 11,254
• Alan Duffell, Green Party - 2,300
• John David Macleod Griffiths, Liberal Democrats - 2,800
• Neil Anthony King, Conservative Party - 5,348
• Lutfur Rahman, Independent - 23,283