The joy of having a conservative outlook is that you can look to the past as a model to regress to and call it progress. And a system that works really well for some, works really well for some – and really badly for others. The game is to make sure you play the odds and ensure that the winners are powerful enough, well connected enough and loud enough to drown out the voices of the disempowered losers.

It seems to me there are four groups of people that education policy can be aimed at: parents, teachers, pupils and the adults they grow up to be.

If you were to listen to the Tories, you’d believe that Labour’s education policy is set entirely at the gift of the teaching unions and the interests they represent. If you talk to many teachers about education policy under Labour, they’d tell you the opposite – that life got harder and education less of a vocation. They would tell you that the regime of league tables and inspections were aimed at the same parents Gove’s policy is aimed at.

Everyone will tell you they have the best interests of the children in mind, but will also give you completely conflicting ideas as to what that best interest is. Policy is aimed at voters and children don’t vote. So instead of working out what it is that children really want and need from their education, we all allow ourselves to be informed through proxies – their parents, their teachers and our prejudices. We have allowed the debate to become polarised between those who want to focus solely on the development of a child’s intellectual development and those who believe that school is simply a training ground for employees of the future.

At the moment, I don’t think we have a clear understanding of what we want our offer to pupils to be. Not our offer to parents, not our offer to teachers, not our offer to support staff but to the pupils and their futures. We know that Gove has the wrong solution, but we need to lay out properly not just why he’s wrong, but what right is and why. How do we balance the importance of teaching pupils to think for themselves and to develop intellectual curiosity  with the knowledge they need to equip them for the modern world that they will go on to work in.

Kids don’t vote, but they are the future. What they need and want must be more important than hustling votes through simplistic ranking systems and nostalgia. We need to work with young people to set the priorities that kids at all levels – not just those at the highest academic levels – need from their schooling experience. When I speak to them their responses are usually pretty sensible. They want to enjoy learning, but be prepared for their futures.

Policy making should be done to make good policy – not just good politics. It isn’t until we let the needs of non-voting children lead our education policy that we will get it right.

This post first appeared on LabourList.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail through the contact page.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.
PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo’s James O’Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about “interesting things” and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

The children of the famous – and famous people themselves – are the oil that makes the tabloid world go around. To be famous is the highest accolade in our rather warped society and it doesn’t seem to take fame or talent to achieve this; just notoriety, proximity to the talented, a willingness to share the stories of your life (real and “structured”). Enough people seem to crave this attention to fill the papers a thousand times over – a worrying syndrome in itself. So why are we so willing to countenance the invasion of privacy of those who don’t want it and for whom that intrusion would be positively harmful.

It is astonishing to think that it is less than 2 years since the News of the World was closed because of their intrusion into the lives of a family unwillingly thrust into the limelight. How quickly we have fallen from outrage over intrusion to intruding on the grief of this young woman.

Sometimes this intrusion is important and necessary. This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the Profumo affair – when a sexual affair exposed the British Government to blackmail. Sometimes public interest and gossip do overlap. But more often than not this isn’t the case. The truism is true: what interests the public is not always the same as what is in the public interest.

There has also been a great deal of relativism involved. Because of who her father was – and the financial rewards that came with his fame – some people seem more relaxed over this intrusion than that that happened to the family of Milly Dowler. There seems to be a callousness about the emotions of the rich and the famous that we would find reprehensible if it were directed to the poor or the vulnerable.

This is wrong. People are people – we shouldn’t lose our humanity for those ostensibly more fortunate than us any more than we should for those less so. A common humanity knows no bounds of class, wealth or fame. Every single one deserves our sympathy and their loved ones our support. Many people – perhaps even some people reading this – will at some point consider doing the same. Please – if you can – get some help. Talk to someone – a friend or a professional. The Samaritans can be reached at any time of the day or night on 08457 90 90 90. The rest of us should be supportive and sympathetic in whatever way we can – whoever it is we find to be in need.

It is this kind of stunt that increases the sense by the public that politics is a game between nasty individuals out for themselves. And of course, that’s just what the right wants, as they benefit from that apathy. It also shows their fear of losing the next election and desperation to cling to power by any means legitimate or illegitimate.

The lobbying scandals happen across parties. I make no claims that Labour are any better than the other parties on this. And there are measures that can and should be taken to stop this abuse of power and access. Some of these will be included in this bill. A bill that should have had cross party support. But instead of acting like grownups, instead of remembering their highfaluting promises about a “new politics” the Tories and Lib Dems have instead opted for the bullying politics of the playground. They want what Labour has, and if they can’t have it no one will.

It is, frankly, a disgrace. Union donations to Labour are made up of the small donations of thousands and thousands of members who understand the importance of working people having their own political voices. We may not always agree with what they have to say – God knows I don’t often enough – but they have a right to this form of political contribution. To write a bill that specifically excludes only unions and not the contributions of millionaires like Lord Ashcroft disenfranchises the many without curing any of the problems this Bill was supposed to deal with.

We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in Europe. The importance of the union contribution to the workplace, the economy and to fairness and safety at work is indisputable. Countries with strong unions are fairer and have stronger economies that reward the many not a few oligarchs. Alternatively, countries without a strong union movement are far more unequal and their economies suffer as a result.

We shouldn’t expect the parties that cut tax rates for millionaires to care about wealth inequality. But they should care about the health of our democracy. I’m no great fan of either David Cameron or Nick Clegg, but even I have been shocked by just how low they will stoop. A Bill that is so flagrantly partisan and so clearly aimed at disenfranchising one party’s supporters and one section of society is an insult to the name of democracy. It shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Mother of all Parliaments. This measure should be dropped from this Bill today. It is a scandal that it was ever even mooted in the first place.

This post first appeared on LabourList.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note – this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe to the old feed a couple of years ago you’ll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail through my contact me page.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.

PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo’s James O’Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about “interesting things” and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

Life can come out and shock you. The events of yesterday are unimaginable. The family of the poor victim are in indescribable pain. Those who knew the men who have done these terrible things will also be suffering. They too are victims of this awful crime.

Over the next few days and weeks we will see the best and the worst of humanity. As John Lydon once sang, anger is an energy. Well directed anger is healthy. We should be angry that such things happen in our society. Sometimes, when you’ve been put so low, it is the anger that keeps you going. We are grieving, and we have to go through that process to heal.

We must ask questions, we must ask why and we must not flinch from uncomfortable answers. We need to be willing to ask how some Muslims have become so disaffected from society and reality to behave in such an evil manner and we can’t be squeamish about how we approach that question or about listening to the answers. But we mustn’t let our anger become a generalised hatred or our fear become xenophobia. This is not Islam any more than it is Woolwich. We must never, ever allow our hatred of two evil individuals to colour us against a whole creed. Because then the criminals win.

And most of all, we must be unswerving in our pride at what our country is at its very best.

That very best was demonstrated not 24 hours before, as the House of Commons passed legislation allowing equal celebrations of love through marriage. This will be a week that is remembered for an incomprehensible act of hatred. But the lasting effects of this week will be of greater love.

When you have a platform such as this, you feel a responsibility to speak out. But the problem is it feels there is nothing real to say. We all want to retreat to a place we know is safe. We want to hold our loved ones close. To protect them and nurture them with our fierce love. And we should do. Take this opportunity to tell those who are there for you how much they mean to you. Celebrate the love you take for granted. Don’t wait for disaster to strike to find out how loved you truly are or to ensure everyone else knows that too.

This week, amid so much fear, hatred and confusion, let us not forget love.

Now obviously my political understanding has developed a certain amount of nuance since then. But I still find it hard to take the Lib Dems seriously. I never really knew what they were for, but at least before 2010, it used to be easier to understand what they were against. Even if that usually constituted “this sort of thing“.

I think it takes a great deal of comfortable self deception to look at the state of the UK and think the chief solutions are not about economic but libertarian issues. But that’s why I’m not a Lib Dem.

Labour and the Tories – being parties who primarily define on the left/right axis don’t have fixed positions on the Liberal/Authoritarian axis. Equally, it can be argued that the Liberals – having defined themselves on one extreme of the Lib/Auth axis, don’t have a set position on the economic axis.

This used to be what set them apart. During the Labour government, I lost count pretty quickly of Lib Dems who told me (with no small amount of superiority) that the real fights were about civil liberties. Everything from genuinely vital liberty threatening issues like 90 day detention to weird conspiracy theories about CCTV – this was, according to my (uniformly well off) friends what really mattered. Anyone still stuck caring about inequality, poverty or the distribution of wealth – as opposed to the distribution of votes – was a conformist square.

Let’s be honest – it was annoying. But on the other hand, as Labour went massively over the top in their response to 9/11 it was not pointless. There was a need for someone to speak up for liberal measures and to campaign to ensure they had a place in our politics.

Now the Lib Dems are in government. Now more than ever they have a chance to raise the profile of liberal issues. And let’s face it – having failed dramatically to make the slightest bit of difference to our democracy, it’s what they have left.

But the Lib Dems are going to end their first chance at government for the best part of a century having made no real liberal advances. Sure, they’ve stopped the Tories from doing some stuff – though not everything their members would like – but there is not going to be a single bit of legislation that they can point to and say “we made our kind of difference”.

When I point this out to my Liberal friends I get two kinds of answers. The “coalition” or the “electability” response. Neither are an excuse.

The coalition argument just shows how little faith they ever had in the arguments they made (and lost) about reforming our democracy. Sure they can’t get everything they want, but they aren’t getting anything they want. They are failing the arguments for coalition by failing to show how it might work beyond the shuffling of chairs & a few ministerial limos.

The electability argument is worse. Not only is it everything they accused me and other Labour supporters of being for 13 years, but it is also – unforgivably – bad politics. Refusing to campaign on the one thing that made you unique is now the one thing you won’t do. Because you’re frightened people won’t vote for it. Well you can’t win an argument if you don’t make an argument.

The Lib Dems have made it clear that their theme for this government is centred around their raising of the tax threshold. There are plenty of arguments to be had about this measure. But none of them are about the promotion of liberal values. None of them move the political conversation off the traditional left/right axis.

In the lifetime of half a government, the Lib Dems have failed to implement democratic change and have given up fighting for liberal values. It’s a joke my 8 year old self would appreciate.

This post first appeared on LabourList.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.
You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.
Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

We also occasionally use it to talk about the less tangible qualities of our political leaders. Nick Clegg was seen as having empathy during the Leaders debates hence Cleggmania. David Cameron’s hugging hoodies and Ed Miliband “on a train” are clearly similar attempts to captures that feeling that whatever their policies, the leader is a well rounded and empathetic human being.

But empathy can sometimes in short supply in politics at all levels and on all sides, and this is no clearer than when we look at the ongoing debate about welfare reform. It is only when debates become as entrenched as this one has that we truly see every side’s lack of understanding not just of what their opponents’ arguments are, but what their motivations are too.

(By the way, I am not seeking to aggrandise my own position. I too suffer from this disease of our politics. I get angry at what I deem to be Tory cruelty – or at least wilful blindness to the effects of their ideology. I have called Tory members evil. I was wrong to do so, but I would be equally wrong not to admit that I have done so here.)

I don’t know anyone who thinks the welfare systems we have now works. Whether you think Atos assessments are too harsh or too lenient; whether you think levels of work-related benefits are too stingy or too generous; whether you think that the system is too impersonal or too cosseting we all agree that the system is broken and needs change.

So everyone believes in change, but few agree what change means. We in Labour continue to have that debate and it is far from settled.

But the debate as it currently happening doesn’t make sense, because neither side are being honest about the motives of the others – so convinced are they thay playing to the gallery and playing up the stereotypes will win the day.

For example, the reasons Labour is concerned with the welfare of the poorest and most vulnerable in society are extremely far removed from the motives so frequently ascribed to us by Tory activists. As far as many Conservative commentators are concerned, Labour’s motivation in supporting and investing in the welfare state is purely electoral. They hold and espouse a fervent belief ithat Labour is determined to create a “client state” through use of welfare and benefits that will then vote Labour en masse.

Now in all the years I have been a Labour Party member – and in all the conversations I’ve had with members and leaders – I’ve never, not once, heard even an inkling that Labour’s concern for those in receipt of support from the state had anything to do with electoral calculation and everything to do with our belief in our moral mission to support and raise up the many and not the few and to be a voice and a party for all the people – including the most vulnerable.

However, we are just as guilty of misrepresentation. For example, the Tories are wrong – not evil. They too believe in a moral mission to rescue people from what they see as the ignominy of dependence. That their wrongness has evil consequences is something we are free to shout to the rooftops. But as we fail to understand their motives, we will fail to defeat their arguments.

But the lack of empathy doesn’t just occur between politicians. In our support of the most vulnerable, labour members have sometimes found it easier to ignore, misrepresent or lose empathy for the working poor. Those who live in communities where the very small number who do abuse their benefits also live are those who most believe that benefits are too generous and too freely taken. But some members see any discussion of these issues as a betrayal of our values – not as a part of the obligation our values place upon us to manage a system that those whose tax burden makes up a greater portion of their income than most can feel comfortable supporting. It is in representing those communities that we recognise that compulsion and compassion must both be part of our lexicon when we discuss our approach to welfare reform.

Just as they fail to understand what motivates Labour to fight for a fair and fully supportive welfare state, the Tories also fail to understand the role of empathy in dealing with those who will lose from the results of their moral quest. For example, the tin-eared semantic complaints about the branding of the “bedroom tax” has been an attempt to both sideline and ignore its victims. Their belief in the importance of creating winners denies the role that goes to those who lose out under free market fundamentalism.

The public want a party to be tough on welfare and welfare abuse. They think Labour are far too weak on this issue. But equally they don’t trust the Tories to get tough fairly. Their lack of empathy has cost them on an issue over which they should win. Our lack of empathy could deny us an all important hearing.

Empathy is not the same as patronage or agreement. One can understand the Tories position without agreeing with it. In fact to fight it effectively we must understand it better than we do. I often speak of the value of tribalism in politics. Politics is an oppositional occupation. But we can be proud of our tribe without misrepresenting our opponents. We can be successful in opposing our enemies without making them “other” though the language of evil. And it is only by doing so that we will earn our chance to make our arguments.

This piece first appeared on LabourList

Tony Blair is wrong in a number of his assumptions though. His binary view of politics – ironic for the man who campaigned on the dreadful slogan “forward – not back” sees only two alternatives – Labour of the 70s and 80s and Labour of the 90s and 00s. He (and many other critic of the Ed Miliband project) are fighting what they see as a rear guard action against old Labour incursion that doesn’t really exist.

But in doing so they are negating the chance to debate, mould and interact with the very real place that Labour is going: not back to either our old or new comfort zones but onto to more difficult and more contested terrain. Now is not the time for glib certainties – from left or right – but for the heavy lifting to be done to see how we really can move on from a consensus that has broken and how bold we can be when doing so.

Labour is moving towards a place where we are comfortable with state activism – while remaining sceptical of the state’s ability to deliver that activism centrally. That asks real questions of how we deliver the kind of changes we want to see. Below are a few answers to how Labour can make this work in areas which should form the key basis of our next manifesto.

1. Work at the heart of all we do

The clue’s in the name – we’re the Labour Party. A Party set up to represent those who work and those who want to work. This doesn’t mean buying into the Tories divisive rhetoric, but as unemployment his 2.56 million, any strategy for dealing with the economy must include strategies to get more people working. This means job guarantees (and yes, that means an element of compulsion). It also means a massive change in the way we provide and promote apprenticeships. Government loans, use of procurement rules (all along the supply chain) and investment in industries that will bring with them long term employment (see points 2 and 3) will all be essential parts of any Labour full employment strategy.

But we cannot stop at getting people into work. We must be better at looking after them when they get there. A living wage economy – again encouraged through agile use of procurement and the supply chain – and a retention of workers’ rights will be essential to building a workforce of the future that has the kind of positive bonds to their Labour that enable a good economy to work for everyone.

2. Investment in housing will repay itself

Thanks to Osborne’s continuing mismanagement of the economy, there is not going to be a bounteous economy in which everything can be fixed by further government investment. Labour must choose wisely how to arrest the cold fingers of austerity from its continual choking of our economy. But – while interest rates are at historic lows – it is insane not to invest in our economy now while we are on the downswing and do so in ways that maximise the return on that investment.

Housing is key to this. Labour should do everything they can to create a housing boom the likes of which we haven’t seen since after the war. For every pound invested in housing a further £2.4 are generated in the local economy. Well managed and well planned housing and communities bring money and jobs to an area like little else – and keep them there. Labour must pull every lever to ensure this happens – from restoring grants to social housing builders, bringing in measures like a Land Value Tax to counter land banking and taking housing out of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement to make it easier for councils to build.

3. Support for technologies that work

In office – up until the post-crash period – Labour was far too timid about “picking winners”. We cannot be so shy again. The next Labour Government should invest heavily in making the UK the world leader in the manufacture and design of renewable energy technologies. That means Government investment – in grants and low interest loans – at every level. It means changing the focus in schools to cover much more science and engineering. It means investing in our centres of research such as our universities. It means working with the new businesses who will be the world leaders of the future to ensure that Britain is the basis of that industry.

But those world leaders do not have to be like the corporations that we have now nor the Government owned industries that came before them. Encouraging cooperatives and worker owned companies to be essential to the industries of the future help us build a future that is not only self-reliant when it comes to energy – helping us help consumers (see point 5) – but also one that creates the kind of industry with a satisfied workforce to essential to the rebuilding of our economy.

4. Abandon technologies that don’t

I don’t have any ideological problem with carrying an ID card or a DNA database. I have a massive problem with the Government paying an enormous amount of money for any scheme that will not work. If Labour are to learn our lessons from our time in Government, one key one should be – stop trying to centralise everything and never, ever build another central Government database. Not because we’re all basically Big Brother coming to get you. I’m neither paranoid nor immature. But because they don’t work. They inevitably cause more problems than they were ever mooted to solve and they cost a fortune.

Instead go back to the kind of bottom up, people based approach which is so often missed from our addiction to technocratic solutions and encourage the correct sharing of information through relational workplaces. It may sound unrealistic – but have you heard what this Government thinks is going to work for Universal Credit? It could never, ever be worse than that.

5. Put citizens at the heart of their consumption choices

We need to make people feel valued again. This is essential in their work but also in the way they are able to interact with the world around them. At present, most of the key areas of our lives – how we heat and light our homes, how we manage our money, how we communicate with each other, how we travel even how we get basic necessities like food and water – are controlled largely be a few extremely large companies. These companies purport to compete on price (and do so to the limits of their regulation) but offer no sense of customer control or service. They don’t have to. They run these cartels of disrespect, knowing as long as they’re all as bad as each other it isn’t something they have to invest in or compete on.

Labour must continue to break up these cartels and crack open the markets wherever possible and have started developing innovative ways of doing so in terms of the energy companies and encouraging local saving through credit unions. We need to see a great deal more of this as we progress.

In the past, we have confused “consumer choice” with choosing consumption. This is not the same thing. Consumers must be given real power over what they can choose in each area of their lives, but along with that power must come the responsibility of choosing wisely. A consumer should not be able to choose to harm others in order to save themselves money. So retention of the smoking ban and further moves to shift the tax burden from positives like work to negative behaviours must continue.

This isn’t a manifesto. It’s not even answers to all of Blair’s questions. Not all of Blair’s questions were – frankly – relevant in today’s society. I haven’t even touched on the NHS and Social Care (a doubly long essay all of its own). But it is a spine from which to build a vision of a Labour future. Not old, not new, but ours.

This post first appeared on LabourList