The Labour Party vs The Democratic Party; the courage of our convictions and what we stand for.

“If [the party] can’t articulate what Labour stands for, voters will lose interest.”, says Jenni Russell in a recent article; and the sentiment here seems to be one that is shared by much of the electorate. Why is it such a struggle for Labour, and Ed, to say what we stand for? I spent the past month-and-a-bit working on a Congressional and Senate campaign in the US. Of course my experience was of one campaign in one state, but during that experience something that struck me was that the Democrats knew what they stood for, and the voters I spoke to knew what they stood for. This is a party with far less party unity, where candidates do not all communicate the same “message” and quite openly have differing views on certain issue; but there was a far clearer sense of what made them Democrats, and what they stood for and were fighting for, than, I think, there currently is in the Labour Party.

Of course, it is easier when you’re in government; it is far easier to have a concrete policy agenda when it consists is what you’ve done, from which point it is easier to say what you will do. And it helps that there is a massive divide on social issues; to be socially liberal becomes a far more defining feature than it ever would be in the UK. But these factors don’t go the whole way towards explaining why the Democrats seem so much more successful at communicating, as well as fully understanding themselves, what they stand for, than the Labour Party.

Firstly, they have a coherent economic plan. Now, on one hand, so do we; the fundamental divide between Labour and the Tories; stimulus vs austerity; is clear. But the Democrats have a far clearer vision on what money will be spent where, which taxes will be cut and where that moneys going to come from. Of course, this is easier when you’re in government; and it’s easier when the election is in site, and the economic circumstances in which you will take power are (relatively) clear. Of course Labour can only say, “this is the plan; but that may change as the circumstances change”. But we can still form more of a plan; VAT cut, house building, jobs for young people…what else? What other, concrete things will Labour do? And in forming our economic plan, it may take the courage of our convictions, when it comes to where the money will come from, to say, “some will be raised through taxes, but some will come later; when the economy is growing and we are generating more income. And we can afford to wait for that to really tackle the deficit”.

The courage of their convictions is something the Democrats are displaying in spades, right now. And that is something that has alot of weight, politically. Trying to be all things to all people, or seeming to be apologising for yourselves, makes you look weak. The Democrats were guilty of this in 2010; Obamacare being treated as this shameful issue of which they must not speak. By contrast, the at the Democratic National Convention, Obamacare was celebrated; even if you did not like the policy, you could not doubt that Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama, or Stacey Lihn, the mother of a child she feared would die without Obamacare, or Barack Obama himself, liked the policy. Labour has its moments of conviction and self-belief, but all too often it can seem to be trying to appeal to everyone. We need to courage to say “this is our policy; this is why it’s right”.

And the Democrats, without a doubt, have values. As does the Labour Party. But the power in the values the Democrats communicate, and in the rhetoric they use, is that they relate it back to people. Very specific examples of how this college grant helped his person succeed, or this healthcare expansion saved this person’s life; be they hypothetical or real people. And if I were to summarise the values that the Democrats stand for; it would be enabling people to be able. Empowering people to be as limitless as they can be; not letting circumstances get in the way of their potential. And beyond this, the Democratic Party has been broadly pragmatic; to achieve this goal, they approach individual issues not as ideologues but as problem solvers. This puts them in stark contrast with a Republican Party that is, currently, fiercely and stubbornly ideological.

The Labour Party could so easily paint ourselves in the same way; the Tory’s economic policies are horribly, stubbornly and idiotically ideological. But it is tempting to try and counter this with a grand vision of our own. But no one knows what will happen while you’re in government. And portraying a Labour government that tackles each knew problem, with values, but also with pragmatism; and looking at, fundamentally, how decisions will really affect individuals and communities, is a strong message.

A lot of this is about conviction and coherence. There are times when we have alternative policies, but we attack the Tories rather than express them; times when we could develop more policies but shy away because we do not know what’s coming; times when we could paint a picture of ourselves as the competent problem solvers of British Politics, and instead we attack the Tories. In an ideal world, the Labour Party would get Bill Clinton to explain to the electorate who we are, what we stand for, what we will do in government and the attitudes with which we would do it. But, since that is unlikely to be a realistic option any time soon, we should probably work out how to do it ourselves. 

Political Play-goer.

London right now’s a pretty good place for political theatre; and over the past few months I got to see three of the plays that fit that bill.

A Walk On Part

Soho Theatre

Now on at the Arts Theatre from 19 June - 14 July 

The tale of Chris Mullin’s, an MP from 1997-2010, experience of the New Labour era, based on his autobiography, is both very much one guy’s perspective on that time, as well as a truly fascinating insight. John Hodgkinson’s portrayal of Mullin acts both as an endearing figure and an effective audience surrogate. The play is fast moving and the dialogue strong; very easy to follow if you have a general awareness of the events that happened during Labour’s time in power, although it would perhaps get a little confusing if someone came to it with next to no knowledge of the events that took place. The portrayals of Blair and Cherie, as well as figures like John Prescott are not exact copies of them, nor are they caricatures, but rather they are effectively invocative of and recognisable as them, and it’s very affective. Howard Ward’s portrayal of Gordon Brown does, perhaps, descend a little into caricature.

It’s a really great watch for anyone wanting to gain an inside view on the New Labour period; one that seems honest and neither dramatically negative or over zealously positive. It’s also a personal story of a man who just really wants to make a difference, and his personal struggle to do this, and to believe he is doing this. The portrayal of his relationship with Blair is interesting, and you get a sense of the charisma and draw of Blair; although this could have perhaps been deeper explored.

The staging was effective and the actors good at juggling multiple characters without letting it get confusing. Probably enjoyable for anyone with a general interest in the politics of the period, but especially for Labourite political geeks (might annoy real Blair-loathers for its balanced view if the man but all those from Blair lovers to “he-wasn’t-great”-ers would probably be able to appreciate the perspective this play provides).

Yes, Prime Minister

Trafalgar Studios, from June 6 2012

I’ve never seen the TV series, so I was going into this with no real expectations. It’s certainly witty; with a lot of humour that felt somewhat specifically aimed at political activist types. Although the humour feels routed in political reality, the play itself does not; it’s very spoof-y in a way that doesn’t, for the most part, feel attached to reality. It’s main “real” political message is its perspective on the civil service; certainly relevant right now with the recent talk of reform. This is well done, and Michael Simkins’ portrayal of Sir Humphrey Appleby, the conniving and all too powerful civil servant is excellent.

Mostly, though, this play is just light entertainment for political geeks; and if that’s what you’re looking for then it’s pretty much the perfect evening.

And Michael Heseltine was in the audience the night I went….although I don’t think he’s a permanent feature!

Democracy

Old Vic Theatre

20 June 2012 - 26 July 2012

The divided period of Germany’s history that forms the context of this play is one that’s permeated public consciousness; it’s hard to imagine anyone walking in without a generalised understanding of the time when Communist east Germany was cut off from Capitalist west Germany. However, I personally had less of an awareness of the specifics of the historical basis for the play; with the story  of West German chancellor Willy Brandy relationship with Communist spy Gunter Guillaume, who worked as his secretary and hears some of the state's most important secrets.

The play does not require any great deal of background knowledge, however; it guides you through the narrative clearly with incredibly good acting and very strong dialogue. It’s a fascinating and gripping insight into the events and the personalities who shaped them.

There’s something incredibly…political about the play; compared to A Walk On Part where one would think it’s immediacy would make it more political than historical, it’s almost the opposite; it acts mostly as a narrative account of the events that took place, whereas Democracy, although clearly historical, has such strong political dialogue it feels routed in ideology and politics; in a way I found incredibly compelling but might block out some who feel less attachment to the political process.

The ending was somewhat abrupt, but the play certainly left me both more knowledgeable about the period and eager to research more; defiantly one to check out.

On military schools.

Written for the Young Fabian's Anticipations magazine.


Stephen Twigg’s recent show of support for military schools has provoked some very strong reactions, both positive and negative. Although this policy has yet to be fully fleshed out, so the full conception of the schools yet to be seen, it is unlikely that this idea will solve all the problems of inequality of opportunity, nor will it create a country of child soldiers. Potentially, military schools could have real, practical advantages in their ability to deal with poor discipline and equipped pupils with skills that academic education alone often does not, but that does not mean there are not potential pitfalls and problems with this policy.

Many schools – across the spectrum in terms of academic achievement – are not very good at teaching team work, leadership, public speaking or other inter-personal skills; with the solitary task of exam passing dominating the syllabus. Incorporating these skills into every day education could be incredibly beneficial in terms of individuals’ confidence and self-esteem, as well as provide them with skills which are vital in so many careers, but often neglected in education.

Physical education, meanwhile, is in many, if not most schools is seen as something additional to the body of your learning; you have your time to run around and do sport, and then you have your time in the classroom; and never the twain shall meet. But our health and our level of physical activity affect the rest of our lives; our concentration and our productivity as well as our mental health. Really good physical education as a cornerstone of the curriculum has so much potential to improve pupils’ awareness of and relationship with their bodies and their health for the rest of their lives.

And of course, discipline. The idea of “military style” discipline in schools may make many recoil; but the stereotypical image of the barking army general is unlikely to enter our classrooms. Panorama’s episode on soldiers turned teachers (Classroom Warriors; you can watch it here and it’s defiantly worth checking out when thinking about this issue) highlighted the impact having ex-army officers in the classroom has had on discipline both in this country and in the US; transforming discipline at schools which have had problems with bad behaviour through techniques that ensure a sense of mutual respect between student and teacher.

Linking the schools with the cadets could help the power of schooling and education extend beyond the classroom. A problem that even the best schools in deprived areas often face is that at the end of the day a child goes back to their parents, and if those parents aren’t properly supporting their child, a lot of the work done at school can be instantly undone. Extending the reach a school can have in educating, encouraging and supporting a child beyond the normal school day could greatly enhance the potential for education to break cycles of deprivation.

This strategy has its risks; by mandating certain types of extracurricular activities, the time a child has to explore their own individual interests and passions would be limited. However, if this project was effectively targeted (Twigg highlighted deprived areas as the focus of the scheme), its pupils would be most likely be children who lack any kind of extracurricular education or real encouragement and stimulation outside the classroom; whether or not they end up pursuing a military career, being part of the cadets would be more beneficial than simply having no outside interests at all. None the less, perhaps the mandate for participation in the cadets could be relaxed for pupils showing other ways that they are continuing their development and education outside of school.

And there are other reasons to tread cautiously with this idea. Although skills honed in the military are potentially transferable to the teaching profession, former soldiers are not all going to be, without a doubt, great teachers; encouraging soldiers into the teacher profession must not mean they receive insufficient training.

Additionally, the schools must not be too specialised; children must come out with the same broad education that will equip them to have a variety of opportunities in life (of course this is compatible with some specialisation; many schools now already specialise in one field or another while still providing a comprehensive education).

One of the strongest reactions against this idea has stemmed from the worry that these schools would be de facto recruitment grounds for the army and the reserves. Reading the original ResPublica report on military schools, you can understand this worry; the report advocates increasing recruitment to the reserves as one of the key potential benefits of military schools; and this is something to steer well clear of, simply because no school where entrants are as young as eleven should be pushing those children towards any specific career path. These schools, if they are to work, must be about creating good people, not creating good soldiers.  

But, in the best possible scenario, military schools have the potential to create a more holistic education, where academic learning is linked to physical within an ethos of hard work, self-worth, team work and discipline. It might be argued that improved discipline, mandatory extra curricular activities, an increased emphasis on physical education and inter-personal skills; all these things can be delivered without the need for a link with the military. On the other hand, the military already provides a structure, an overarching concept, and people with the skills necessary to create this educational structure; a structure that might not be for everyone, but placed within the wider pool of educational choice, has the potential to benefit a lot of children. Of course, like any policy; it would have to be done right; there are a lot of potential pitfalls. But let’s explore this and really think about it; not dismiss it out of hand, nor embrace it without question.

Leveson: The Musical

I can't be the only one thinking that the grand finale of the Leveson Inquiry would have been better if it had featured jazz hands?

A little number for the witnesses (well, some of them), to the tune of the list of colours in Joseph's Coat from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. 

It was Brooks and Murdoch and Grant and Hunt 

And Coulson and Blair and Cameron and Piers 

And Riddell and Johnson and Watson and Marr 

And Mohan and Yates and Rowling and Gove 

And Clarke and Campbell and Osborne and Ed 

And Harman and Salmond and Prescott and Clarke 

And Coogan and Black and Hughes and Gordon 

And Snow and Hardgreaves and Crone and Straw

And Barber and Clegg and Boulton and Leigh

And Thomas and Hislop and Harding and Cave

And Major and Bowe and Mandelson and Crown 

And Wright and Blackhurt and Turner and Fox 

And Paxman and Diamond and Morgan and Grade

And Brady and Wright and Quick and James 

And Jay!

And of course a number for Leveson and Jay, to the tune of the Muppet theme song:

It’s time to fine the papers,

It’s time to jail some hacks,

It’s time to tell the journos they’re not getting any slack.

It’s time for us to publish;
It’s time for our report;

It’s time to raise the curtain on the answers we have sought.

Why did we need to do this?

Our press was being bad;

Corruption and phone hacking 

Which made the public mad.

So we ran an inquiry 

Witnesses from far and wide
To testify before us

On the most sensational

Expo-sational

Scandal-ational

Murdoch-ational

This is what we call The Leveson Show!

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.