|
History > 2008 > UK > Politics (I)
The
evidence is clear.
Labour isn't working
Sunday
September 21 2008
The Observer
Editorial
This article appeared in the Observer
on Sunday September 21 2008
on p40 of the
Comment section.
It was last updated
at 00:02 on September 21 2008.
A
disorderly rebellion by backbench Labour MPs and minor ministers last week
failed to provoke a formal challenge to Gordon Brown at the party's conference.
But there will still be urgent discussion of the leadership in Manchester. The
only question is whether the debate will be conducted in hushed whispers in
hotel corridors or encouraged by speakers from the conference platform.
Senior Labour figures think the party must pursue a radically different agenda,
which means a change of leader. So will they hide their views, impart them to
journalists on condition of anonymity or share them openly with the country?
The natural inclination is towards a pretence of unity. Cabinet ministers have
warned that voters will punish a party that obsesses about its internal affairs
in turbulent economic times. They are right, but their warnings are also beside
the point. The introspection cannot be halted by fiat. Besides, voters are
already deeply hostile to Gordon Brown.
That is proven beyond doubt by a poll of unprecedented scale revealed in today's
Observer - the most comprehensive account to date of Labour's woeful position. A
survey of marginal seats, conducted for the Politics-Home website, paints a
harrowing picture for the government. On its current trajectory, Labour will
emerge from the next election with 160 seats, fewer than they won under Michael
Foot in 1983. Meanwhile, any belief that Tory support might wilt is exposed as a
delusion. Those who plan to vote Conservative are firmer in their resolve than
those who might back the government. Things could get still worse for Labour.
The party might hope its position will recover under Gordon Brown, especially if
the economic outlook improves. But the evidence suggests otherwise. The Prime
Minister has already tried several times to regain the public's affection, and
failed. Even if people accept that the financial crisis is not entirely of Mr
Brown's making, they do not want him in charge of the recovery. The poll data
are clear: Labour under its current leader is bust.
The only possible reason to stick with Mr Brown is fear that ousting him would
just accelerate the march towards defeat. A new leader would face enormous
pressure to seek a mandate from the country. Labour will need reassurance that
there is a candidate with a plausible chance of taking on David Cameron before
starting a process likely to end with a premature general election.
Opinion polls give little guidance on that front. None of the mooted
challengers, not even David Miliband, has sufficient public profile for voters
to envisage them taking charge of the country. Candidates will only be evaluated
in earnest when they have signalled unambiguously that they want the job.
If anyone in the cabinet believes they have the requisite charisma and political
vision to lead Labour away from disaster they need to prove it. This week's
conference is the place to start. They might be tempted to hold back, for fear
that impassioned speeches, full of grand ambition, will be read as overt
disloyalty to Mr Brown. But dull rhetoric with half-hearted statements of
support for the current leader will also be seen as disloyal, only cowardly to
boot. If, however, no one in the cabinet wants to be Prime Minister soon, a
simple declaration of that fact is the surest way to unify the party.
The worst scenario for Labour would be a stage-managed charade of loyalty,
followed by a resumption of underground agitation; despair disguised as unity.
There may be no ballot, but there is still a contest this week in Manchester.
The prospective candidates are on display. They face a clear choice: set out
your stall or put away your ambition. Labour is desperate for inspiring
leadership. If after 11 years in power neither the Prime Minister nor anyone in
the cabinet can provide it, defeat will not only be certain, it will be
deserved.
The evidence is clear. Labour isn't working, O, 21.9.2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/21/labourleadership.gordonbrown
Johnson
snatches Tories' biggest prize
New mayor
gains more than 1m first preference votes,
wins 53% of the vote and ends Livingstone's tenure at City Hall
Saturday
May 3 2008
The Guardian
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
This article appeared in the Guardian
on Saturday May 03 2008 on p1 of the Top
stories section.
It was last updated at 02:13 on May 03 2008.
Boris
Johnson last night notched up the Tories' greatest electoral success since John
Major's surprise victory in the 1992 general election when he unseated Ken
Livingstone as mayor of London.
Ecstatic Conservatives cheered at London's City Hall, at the end of a count
lasting more than 15 hours, as the man who had been dismissed as the Bertie
Wooster of British politics took charge of one of the biggest political offices
in Britain.
Johnson won just over 1m first preference votes to secure 42.48%; Ken
Livingstone came second with 893,877 first preference votes (36.38%); Brian
Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate, came third with 236,685 votes to give
him 9.63%.
Paddick was then eliminated along with the seven other candidates. Their second
preference votes were distributed, giving Johnson 1,168,738 votes (53%) and
1,028,966 for Livingstone (47%).
Johnson, who was declared the winner shortly before midnight, reassured London
that he would do his best to maintain his new serious image. "I was elected as
new Boris and I will govern as new Boris, or whatever the phrase is," he joked
this morning in a pun on Tony Blair's famous New Labour declaration. David
Cameron quickly hailed the result, and there was even a congratulatory phone
call from Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York.
In a sign of his determination to reach across party lines, Johnson adopted a
more serious pose in his acceptance speech as he paid a warm tribute to his
defeated rival. Turning to Livingstone, standing behind on a platform at City
Hall, the new mayor said: "I think you have been a very considerable public
servant and a distinguished leader of this city. You shaped the office of mayor.
You gave it national prominence and when London was attacked on July 7 2005 you
spoke for London.
"And I can tell you that your courage and the sheer exuberant nerve with which
you stuck it to your enemies, especially in New Labour, you have thereby earned
the thanks of millions of Londoners even if you think that they have a funny way
of showing it today."
Johnson made clear that he still envisaged a role for Livingstone, who had
suggested he would have offered his Tory rival a job if he had held office.
"When we have that drink together, which we both so richly deserve, I hope we
can discover a way in which the mayoralty can continue to benefit from your
transparent love of London, a city whose energy conquered the world and which
now brings the world together in one city," Johnson said.
Livingstone, who will have to watch as Johnson represents London at the Beijing
Olympics in August as the torch is passed over for the 2012 games, apologised
for losing after eight years in office. With his voice almost breaking with
emotion, Livingstone said: "I'm sorry I couldn't get an extra few points that
would take us to victory and the fault for that is solely my own." He said he
couldn't be mayor for eight years and then blame someone else for not getting a
third term. "I accept that responsibility and I regret that I couldn't take you
[Labour supporters] to victory."
Johnson's victory capped a highly successful 24 hours for the Tories, who won
44% of the vote in the separate council elections in England and Wales,
convincing many Conservatives that they are on their way to Downing Street.
"This is like the March on Rome in 1922," one shadow minister said as Johnson
inched towards victory. Johnson will not march into London's City Hall
surrounded by blackshirts in the manner of Benito Mussolini's supporters when
they staged their coup d'état in 1920s Italy. But the lighthearted reference to
1922 gave a taste of the high Tory spirits.
Johnson's victory was particularly sweet for the Tories because London has been,
until relatively recently, hostile territory for the Conservatives, who lost a
string of parliamentary seats in the capital in the Labour landslide of 1997.
"It is impossible to overestimate the significance of victory," said one senior
Tory.
Cameron, who praised Johnson this morning for a "remarkable victory", will reap
a huge personal dividend. The Tory leader took what shadow cabinet ministers
freely admit was a gamble in throwing his weight behind his fellow Etonian as
the best "out-of-the-box" candidate to take on Livingstone.
"David and George [Osborne] made two significant calculations about this contest
some time ago," one senior Tory figure said. "They clocked its symbolic
importance for us and they realised that a traditional Tory in a pinstriped suit
would be trounced by Ken."
Johnson, who announced that he would resign as MP for Henley after organising an
"orderly timetable" to choose a new Tory candidate, indicated in his acceptance
speech that London had yet to embrace the Tory party fully. "I do not for one
minute believe that this election shows that London has been transformed
overnight into a Conservative city but I do hope it does show that the
Conservatives have changed into a party that can again be trusted after 30 years
with the greatest, most cosmopolitan, multi-racial generous-hearted city on
Earth on which there are huge and growing divisions between rich and poor."
The Lib Dems will be disappointed that they failed to secure 10% of the vote.
Sian Berry, the Green candidate, came fourth with 3.15%. Richard Barnbrook, the
British National Party candidate, came fifth with 2.84%. Barnbrook, who was
elected to the London assembly, sparked a walkout by the main mayoral candidates
when he took to the podium to speak.
Johnson snatches Tories' biggest prize, G, 3.5.2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/03/london08.boris1
Robert
Verkaik:
How civil liberties have suffered
since 2001
Saturday, 8
March 2008
The Independent
Labour's inexorable assault on the civil liberties once freely enjoyed by
British citizens makes uncomfortable reading for a nation that prides itself on
exporting democracy and justice all over the world.
Many of the restrictions were rushed through under the cloak of the "war on
terror" while others have been rolled out to allay the fears of those who
believe the country is under siege from antisocial behaviour.
But the most controversial have been the Government's attempt to restrict
legitimate debate by curbing peaceful demonstration.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was introduced in 2006 to
silence the five-year peace protest of Brian Haw outside the Houses of
Parliament by prohibiting unlicensed demonstrations within 1km of the buildings
of the legislature. It meant protesters who might previously have received a
warning, could be arrested.
Those laws quickly had their impact, leading to the arrest of Maya Evans and
Milan Rai at the Cenotaph for reading out the names of UK soldiers and civilians
killed in the war in Iraq.According to the human rights group Liberty, the Act
also widens the scope of Asbos by allowing unaccountable groups to seek them
against individuals, and creates a new criminal offence of trespass on a
"designated site" on grounds of national security.
Specific provisions were also brought in against animal rights protesters. The
crime of "economic sabotage" not only extended the criminalisation of violent
and unlawful protesters but was so broadly drafted as to make criminals of many
peaceful protesters. Free speech has been one of the most obvious victims, with
offences of "encouragement" and "glorification" of terrorism making careless
talk a crime.
Meanwhile, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 has extended the offence of
incitement to racial hatred to cover religion, threatening to seriously
undermine legitimate debate.
But perhaps Labour's most spectacular own goal was the rough ejection of Walter
Wolfgang, 83, from the Labour conference in 2005 for accusing Jack Straw of
talking "nonsense".
Robert Verkaik: How civil liberties have suffered since
2001, I, 8.3.2008,
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/robert-verkaik-how-civil-liberties-have-suffered-since-2001-793121.html
We shall
(not) overcome...
Nuclear protest
survived six Tory governments.
But not New Labour
Fifty years
after historic march,
protest camp at atomic weapons base
is outlawed in a new
blow to civil liberties
Saturday, 8
March 2008
The Independent
By Kim Sengupta
It survived
six Tory governments, the end of the Cold War and the rise and fall of mass
marches against the British nuclear deterrent. But after 50 years in which the
tradition of peaceful demonstration has been maintained outside the Atomic
Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, the New Labour era has finally done for
one of the most famous symbols of protest in British political history.
Today would have seen the latest gathering of the band of women who have
assembled on the second Saturday of each month since the 1980s to object to the
continuing development of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent. Instead,
following a High Court ruling this week, the protest tents are being removed,
demonstrators are being threatened with arrest and "no camping" signs are being
erected.
From being a symbol of the right to protest, Aldermaston has become the latest
testament to the desire of successive New Labour governments to curtail the
right to assemble, demonstrate and object to government policy.
Evidence from the Ministry of Defence to the High Court cited "operational and
security concerns". In their High Court appeal, legal representatives for the
Aldermaston women argued that the by-law which ostensibly took effect last May
banning "camping in tents, caravans, trees or otherwise" amounted to an unlawful
interference with freedom of expression and the right of assembly guaranteed by
articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. David Plevsky,
appearing for the Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp, said the new regulations were
"criminalising the peaceful, traditional and regular activities of the AWPC".
It cut no ice. Before the ruling, Sian Jones a member of the peace camp, said:
"If we don't win this review our very existence will be under threat. But there
are also wider implications for the long-held right to protest, which is such an
important part of British society. Aldermaston has been known as a place of
protest for the last 50 years, and this year is the 50th anniversary of the
first CND march there." That battle has now been lost.
As a result of the heavy-handed prohibition of a long-running series of protests
which have never resulted in violence, a march this Easter to Aldermaston –
intended to commemorate the pioneering protest of 1958 – has now taken on a
wholly contemporary significance. After a series of assaults on the right to
protest around Westminster and beyond, the 2008 trek through Berkshire is set to
become the latest chapter in the fight to wrest back civil liberties that New
Labour appears determined to take away.
The CND is planning a 50th anniversary day of action on Easter Monday, when the
atomic weapons establishment is to be surrounded by a "human chain" to highlight
what it says is the stifling of legitimate protest. The police have warned that
anyone causing an obstruction during that protest is likely to be arrested and
prosecuted.
Kate Hudson, the chairperson of CND said: "We feel this is an extremely serious
matter where the long-established and hard-won right to protest is now under
attack. People are extremely worried about the weapons of mass destruction being
produced at Aldermaston and it is unrealistic of the Government to think that
they will not take part in expressing their views. "We hope that on Easter
Monday people will not only come because it is the 50th anniversary of the first
march but also to show the need to defend their civil liberties."
One campaigner planning to take part, 57-year-old Margaret Jefferson, from west
London, said: "I think it is essential that people make a stand on this issue. I
had stayed at that peace camp as have so many others without posing any threat
to anyone. What is this Government afraid of, what do they think we will do?
"We live in a very dangerous world as it is and with the end of the Cold War
there is even less justification for nuclear weapons. As long as these weapons
are here there is the risk that a version of them will come into the hands of
terrorists."
One of the most famous figures to participate in 1958 is too frail to be there
on Easter Monday. But there is no questioning his ongoing commitment to the
protest and outrage at the modern Labour Party's complicity in its suppression.
Michael Foot, the former Labour leader, who marched with his late wife, the
actress and author Jill Craigie, said last night that he was "deeply saddened"
to hear of the camp being closed down, and especially dismayed that this should
happen under a Labour government.
"We thought the cause was right and just and we were glad to take part in these
marches," Mr Foot said. "I think it is wretched that they are now thinking of
shutting down the camp after it had been goingsuccessfully for more than 20
years and I am sure Jill would have felt the same way as well.
"The governments at the time sometimes behaved very badly towards these
protesters who were simply exercising their rights in a peaceful way. But these
were Tory governments, the Labour Party supported them as I recall, I was the
leader at the time. But times seem to have changed."
We shall (not) overcome... Nuclear protest survived six
Tory governments. But not New Labour, I, 8.3.2008,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-shall-not-overcome-nuclear-protest-survived-six-tory-governments-but-not-new-labour-793123.html
|
