On young people in the Labour Party...

Recently I went to two back to back events; the first put on by the Fabian Society, the second by the Young Fabians. The first, the Fabian Society’s Annual House of Commons Tea, was a discussion about how to better engage people in politics, while the Young Fabian event was a discussion about how to get young people more engaged in politics.

I assumed I wouldn’t be the only person attending both these event back to back; as it turns out I was only one of two. And in the House of Commons Tea there was quite a notable lack of young people (which is a bit of a blurry term, so broadly speaking I’m talking about typically student age, or younger). Of course, it should be noted that the Young Fabian event was free while the Commons Tea cost £15, and the Young Fabian event being held in the evening may also have made it more accessible, but this does reflect a trend I am  increasingly aware of in the events I attend; that with the exceptions of big, national events (National Conference, Progress Conference, Fabian Conference; although even the Fabian’s summer conference had very few young attendees) young people tend to attend “young people” events; Young Labour, Labour Students, Young Fabians etc, but seem less inclined to attend events not specifically aimed at young people.

I often get asked at such events “how do we get young people into politics?” and it always confuses me because I know so many incredibly politically active young people…but then I’ll look around the room and realise that I am one of very few young people there.

This is not to say that there aren’t problems of political apathy in my generation (both in terms of a general disinterest and a dissatisfaction with mainstream politics; two rather different issues that are often clumsily grouped together), but that I can understand why some people would be forgiven for thinking there are hardly any young politicos at all; which is just not true.

As I said, this isn’t the case with big, national events; but it’s also untrue on the campaign trail. When activists are out on the doorstep, there is a clear mix of age groups, and young activists are almost without a doubt out in force.

So why, when it comes to events, might young people be so much less inclined to attend events not specifically aimed at them? Perhaps there is a worry that, as someone younger, you’ll be patronised/ignored/etc. Personally I’ve never experienced this, but I can understand why it might be a worry for some people.

Young Labour, Young Fabian and Labour Student’s event are also, I’ve often found, more discursive than events not aimed at young people; with a far more open format than the “panel that talks after which people ask the panel questions” format; where the audience is really able to engage in discussion and debate. This explanation does become rather circular, though; are young people drawn to more discussion based events, or are they better at putting on more discussion based events?

Do young people just need…some sort of hook; something to tell them “you! This event is for you!”. The other exception I’ve seen to the young-people-not-attending-not-young-people-aimed-events was the recent Fabian Women’s network summer reception, at which there were plenty of people my age; these were all women (as, of course, were most of the attendees; but not all); so not drawn in by the fact that this event was aimed at them as young people, but that it was still specifically aimed at them as women. Perhaps. This is just speculation.

And this whole post is really just speculation and personal reflection; I’d be interested to hear how far it reflects other people’s experiences; young people who feel they only really attend young people events, or that they attend a range of events, older people who feel they do or don’t see young people at the events they go to etc.

Because if this sense I’ve got of this generational divide between activists is accurate; I don’t think that’s that great a thing. I love the younger wings of the party; I think they hold amazing events and are full of amazing people, and I think having these events and groups aimed specifically at young people is without a doubt a good thing. But when these become the only parts of the party young people really interactive they can become somewhat inward looking; and I don’t think that helps young people understand or feel part of the wider movement.

That’s, of course, just the problem; I have a few thoughts on why this might happen and I want to start exploring potential solutions. But it’s only something I’ve recently come to really register; and it’s not something I ever really hear discussed when we talk about young people in the Labour movement; so I thought that it was at least worth pointing out.

One sentence responses to some of Cameron's welfare reform proposals.

Post may contain sarcasm...

Reduce the amount of benefit paid to people over time
…and if over time people still can’t find a job – quite possible, right now – they’re benefits will decrease until they do not have enough to live on?

Expecting people on benefits to be able to read, write and count
And I’m sure provision will be provided to educate any who can’t, rather than letting those who for whatever reason have failed to attain these standards simply being denied benefits?

Out-of-work benefits linked to wages rather than inflation, if wages are lower
Because wages increasing more slowly than inflation is defiantly something that should be encouraged, and thus should be mirrored by the benefit system.

Set all benefits on a regional basis

Taking more money out of poor areas…

No housing benefit for under 25s

Completely ridiculous; so a 24 year old unable to afford shelter with nowhere to go just…sleeps on the street?

A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house

Because with the massive surplus of affordable housing we have right now they’ll defiantly be able to find another house.

Reduce the current £20,000 housing benefit limit
Which will push those on benefits out of some more expensive areas…

Stopping the out of work being better off by having children

Because children don’t cost any more money so those out of work won’t need more money to give their children a half way decent quality of life.

Expecting parents on income support to prepare for work while children have free nursery care

OK; so perhaps there’s something to this idea; however it worries me, slightly, that it is assumed that parents are not prepared for work and simply waiting till their children begin school; furthermore parents spending time with their newly born children is hardly something to criticise.

Getting the physically able to do full-time community work after a period out of work

Community work…maybe…but full time community work will rob people of all time to get a job.

Sickness benefit claimants should take steps to improve their health

It’s not even that I disagree with this so much as the completely patronising attitude that assumes that those who are ill would not try and be less ill.

Greece: a vote, but with what options?

If I’d been in Greece today, with the elections taking place…I don’t know what I’d have done.

I’d have probably tried to leave.

Harsh austerity measures are crippling the Greek economy. But without a bailout, it is hard to see where Greece will find the money to be able to implement an alternative. So the Greeks are faced with a choice between New Democracy – and austerity measures which everyone and their mother has acknowledged are not working – and Syriza, and with it the risk of an end to bailout money. Pasok, clearly, is no longer seen as an option by most.

Of course; Syriza does not want an end to the bailout; it wants to renogociate terms. But calling Germany’s bluff is dangerous politics which, understandably, many Greeks are scared of.

Furthermore, although I support much of Syriza’s policy program; from raising the minimum wage and decreasing VAT to an agreement with Switzerland to tax Greek citizens who put their savings there (seriously…why don’t we ALL do this?!); the party still lacks a coherent program for increasing the productivity of the Greek economy.

And if their attempt to call the German’s bluff fails, and they lose the bailout, they will have a major problem. Or alternatively; assuming they do not manage to renogociate terms, they will have to cave to Germany. Which will put Greece back where it started; with crippling austerity measures.

So if I were Greek and my whole running away plan failed, I would have voted for Syriza; but with very little real hope or optimism.

Greece needs reforms, not austerity. It needs a bailout. At the moment, as least, it needs to stay in the Euro; the immediate results of leaving are pretty unthinkable. Furthermore, this all would still only be the beginning; we all know the need for wider reform – probably involving greater integration – of the single currency; but there is still no agreed upon plan for this.

This is what Greece needs but not what they had a chance to vote for. Partly because of both the risks of voting for Syriza, alongside their lack of deeper reforms to grow the economy. And partly because the Greeks don’t get to vote for the German government; still advocating austerity, still trying to impose it.

Today a nation that is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis was given a vote; but they weren’t given any really good options to vote for.

A few thoughts on the Queen's Speech...

So council seat losses left, right and centre (including in Cameron’s own constituency), senior Lib Dems thinking of pulling out of the coalition agreement early and a situation where the two parties appeared to be agreeing that each would drop their policies in exchange for...well, the other also dropping their policies (the imagine of this manner of coalition government continuing, with continued policy shedding until all that is left of the coalition is Osborne and Alexander sharing a copy of the Financial Times is highly amusing) ; that whole Tory-Lib Dem coalition thing is going excellently, isn’t it?

But the timing was excellent; the Queen’s Speech; a perfect opportunity for the government to redeem itself by laying out its key proposals for how it would improve the lives of currently dissatisfied British electorate.

And there was a promise to establish a Green Investment Bank, measures to “ensure supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers”, promises of banking regulation and increasing the flexibility of parental leave (and if we’re looking at general positives of the speech, might as well mention the foreign policy promises; although “we don’t like nuclear proliferation and like the spread of democracy” is not really a stance that anyone’s likely to disagree with).

There was also the symbolic but still meaningful promise of modernising the governing succession to the Crown (although, and I may just be being really ignorant about constitutional law here, but the need to “take it forward”, implying a gradual change, rather than, well, just do it, seems slightly odd to me), which is...well, quiet nice. Not all that helpful for most people’s lives, but it should be done, and it’s good that they’re planning to.

A bill to “reduce burdens on charities” is no bad thing; although a funny proposal from a government that has recently decided to tax charitable donations. Promises to ensure energy prices are “fair”, again, are clearly good in theory; but what fair means to the Tories in comparison to most people’s understanding of the word, and how exactly they intend to ensure prices are fair, has yet to be seen.

Beyond that, however, this speech was at worst bad and at best bland.

Of course suggestions we should help children with disabilities and special needs are positive suggestions, but given the government’s current record on disability benefits and funding to education for kids with special needs them implying that they want to help these children...unless it’s followed by a real policy U-turn are nothing short of disgusting.

That “legislation will be introduced to reduce burdens on business by repealing unnecessary legislation and to limit state inspection of businesses” is genuinely worrying in terms of workers’ rights. Of course, the exact legislation will need to be seen; it may prove fine but the implications of this statement are a serious cause for concern.

“Legislation will be introduced to reform public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the independent commission on public service pensions.” ...because, clearly, the coalition, thus far, has been so excellent and fair in their attitude to public sector pensions, I’m sure this legalisation will continue to be so!

Above all, however, it is not what the bill says, but what it does not; where is the plan for jobs and growth? How does this speech show any kind of departure from what the government is doing at the moment? It doesn’t. The economy re-enters the recession and the coalition ploughs on with their economic strategy. Surely by doing the exact same thing, they’ll produce a different result this time! Because that is in accordance with all logic!

House of Lords reform is, apparently, after much dithering, still going ahead. I’m...not going to talk about my opinions of House of Lords reform here, because they’re somewhat against the general left-wing grain and I think might require a full blog post...but my own opinions aside, it’s just so...we have massive unemployment and an economy that’s going no where. And the government has no real plans to fix this. But they have plans to introduce House of Lords reform! Making a real difference to people’s lives in hard times, right there!

Individual voter registration seems like nothing but a cheap political move; when turn out as low as it is why on earth should we make it harder for people to vote? Labour will need to respond with a massive drive to ensure our voters are registered; those who require postal votes especially.

Ed Miliband was probably the best I’ve ever seen him in the Commons today. He was really funny (from yougov to penguins) but also really strongly on message; really clear about the problems with this speech and with this government. Cameron’s attempts at rebuttal were poor (and his attempts at humour even worse...); increasingly he has shown himself to be an over-schooled and under-skilled Etonian in his ability to hold this government together (and his claim that Labour did “nothing” during the financial crisis deserves a brief mention for its sheer historical inaccuracy...).

Aside from settling the will they won’t they question regarding House of Lords reform, this speech, then, this speech was mostly just...rather rubbish....at a time when the coalition needed to deliver something spectacular.

So well done, Cameron.

Well done, Clegg.

Clearly this whole thing’s proved to be a match made in heaven.

Metal Theft: an issue that deserves just a little more attention.

A few weeks ago, pupils at the school I work at were late visiting a Japanese school, where they were going to meet the penpals they’d been writing to that term. They were late because the mini vans weren’t working. The mini vans weren’t working because the catalytic converter had been stolen. They got there eventually, once spare mini vans had been called, but had a much shortened trip, and it was lucky that they were able to go at all.

Metal theft is a serious problem – from causes train delays to disrupting telephone networks - that would require simple legalisation to combat. Selling metal is currently a “no questions asked” affair; introducing a proper licensing scheme for dealers would be a major step to tackling this problem. Experienced criminals could get round such requirements, sure. But so much of metal theft is opportunistic; not people who would know how to circumvent regulations. So just a little tightening of regulation could make such a difference.

There is currently a private members bill dealing with this issue working its way slowly through Parliament:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/metaltheftprevention.html

But this issue deserves a bigger deal of public awareness and support; because it’s a big problem, with obvious steps towards solution. But of course, it’s so much more fun for the government to reorganise the NHS.

You can sign the petition in support of the bill here:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/21165

Ken: some criticisms require a respectful response.

I wrote this before reading Emma Burnell's post saying pretty much exactly the same thing. So for a more eloquent version of this post, read that here: http://scarletstandard.co.uk/?p=1162


As someone who is going to be boarding Ken’s battle bus (too) early tomorrow morning, I currently feel…more hesitant than I would like about talking to people about why they should vote for Ken for Mayor for London. I really, really want Ken to win. Every time I take the tube or get on a bus it annoys me that I know I could be paying less. We currently have a housing crisis that I trust Ken to tackle; that I sure as hell don’t trust Boris to tackle. I want EMA back. Ken was a good mayor, and he will be a good mayor again if he wins.

But recent controversies over tax, and over Ken’s attitude towards the Jewish community, risk jeopardising the campaign.

The attitude of many, often including Ken himself, over the recent Ken controversies has been quite dismissive; “of course Ken pays his taxes!”, “of course Ken’s not anti-Semitic!”. But these concerns are legitimate concerns. It’s not like the telegraph’s claims that Ken is trying to convert Londoners to Islam; of course that’s ridiculous and a collective eye roll is a pretty valid response.

I’m not saying that the accusations levelled at Ken are true; but I’m saying there are reasons for them and there needs to be a respectful response that acknowledges them as valid worries – in many cases coming from groups, such as the Jewish community, who want to support Ken, but feel like, at this point, they can’t. These are not slanders by a right wing press or nasty Boris supporters. These are people with real concerns that they want addressed, not dismissed.

And leaving accusations without a real response can make it look like you don’t have a good response; making it seem like they’re true, in the worst case. But even if this is not the perception of most people, not providing apology and explanation to people with real worries...it's dismissive and it's wrong.

Knowing when to eye roll and knowing when to provide a real response is going to be crucial for the campaign. And it, and Ken, need to get their head round this. Now.