No flowing, roundabout introduction to see here. It’s time to be blunt.
It’s time to wake up and start taking action on the Labour Party’s sexism problem.
It’s time we stopped just calling it out and thinking that’s enough anymore. Something desperately needs to be done.
Our women MPs are fearing for their safety and for their children’s safety. Jess Phillips just had a locksmith around for six hours making her home safe, for god’s sake. Just two weeks ago she submitted 96 pages of abuse to a Labour investigation. Women in our party now have to question what they post, pause for a moment before they tweet or post a status, and question whether it’s worth the torrent of abuse they anticipate.
When I wrote this blog post back in May, oh boy, I hadn’t seen the half of our sexism problem.
Anecdote: on my last day of work, I had orchestrated an entire polling day, pretty much single handedly. I offered people cups of tea late in the day, at pretty much the first opportunity I had to “relax” and without thinking looked at the kettle and went “oh I haven’t even used this today, I don’t even know how to switch it on”. To which the man I had kindly offered to make tea for goes “A woman who can’t use a kettle…you don’t get many of those” I looked at him with disdain. ”Oh don’t spit in my tea, love…I’m old Labour me”
YES. We have people in our party who are that backward. We have men in our party who seek to undermine the achievements and intelligence of women on the basis of their tea making abilities apparently.
On an even more sinister note, on several occasions I had to ask a male colleague to come to some of my campaign sessions with me because I was that creeped out by a volunteer. It’s not ok. It’s so very not ok.
This isn’t a time for any sort of token gesture. We can’t afford to be complacent anymore. For now it’s threats, but whose to say those threats are empty, who is to say that one of these women won’t be raped or murdered? Would it really take that to happen for us to start taking action on this? We must take many lessons from the murder of Jo Cox, and one of those is that our MPs are actually a lot less safe than we previously presumed them to be. The party needs to get drastic about this. This isn’t me being hysterical. Serious action needs to be taken and fast.
A brief comment about Jo Cox, because I don’t want to in any way use her death simply to prove my own points, but equally I believe it’s something we need to learn from. I really thought Jo’s death would be a turning point in the Labour Party’s culture. A woman of our party was murdered, a woman who in life, sought to remind us that we have more in common than that which divides us. Yet members of our party continue to unleash sexist, misogynistic, divisive abuse at women. If the death of one of our most dedicated, caring and passionate MPs doesn’t cause some of our membership to stop and think about how we have more in common before they post that tweet or Facebook comment, what on earth will?
Some ideas on where to go from here:
1. We need structures in place in every region of the country that make reporting and dealing with sexism and misogyny easier. We need to make sure that women are aware of what structures are in place, so that as soon as they do experience any sexism or misogyny, they know where to go.
2. We need to start creating a culture of reporting rather than tolerating sexism in the party. We shouldn’t let women tell their tales of sexism and simply go “oh that’s awful”. We need to start changing our response to “That’s awful. Report it to compliance/(some other structure we might create).”
3. We need to encourage a culture where men aren’t allowed to justify their actions with “I’m old Labour me” (or similar, or just by being men) and it’s all brushed off with a laugh. Men who consistently make sexist remarks have no place in our party and as far as I’m concerned, they should face expulsion.
4. We also need to come together and put pressure on social media sites like Twitter to take a serious stand against misogyny and sexism. Jess Phillips should not have to spend hours of her life blocking trolls. Make some algorithms. Tackle trolling. Or it’s only going to get worse.
We need to start ensuring women feel comfortable and valued in their own party. We need to do that because every woman deserves that, as a human being. But we also need to do that because until we resolve our own issues surrounding women, we cannot hope to be a credible opposition and one day, government if we cannot be champions for women. It’s all well and good calling yourself the party of social justice, but if your idea of social justice does not include women in our own party, what’s the point?
Flashback to my first day in a new job, working for an organisation that I couldn’t have more passion for: the Labour Party. The Party of equality and fairness for all; one that seeks to tear down barriers that stand in the way of success, and to make policy so that people can get on in life regardless of gender, class, race, religion, sexuality or disability.
So you probably wouldn’t blame me for being shocked when I turned up and ended up shaking the hands of a team of men; the only young woman in a team of eleven, with only one other woman hired to mobilise the EU campaign on the ground in my region.
It was women who brought me into the Labour Party and it was women who kept me there. From an encouraging, inspiring club chair to the supportive, amazing women I met at my first conferences, and to the feminist MSPs who lead the way, the women in the Scottish Labour Party are one of the biggest assets of our entire movement (I know I’m biased). From the moment I got involved with party, I was surrounded by women who formed a network where we backed one another up, where we vowed not to be torn down by a world dominated by men.
The Labour Party has plenty of practices, policies and legislation in place to ensure that women are not discriminated against when it comes to employment within the party. However, discrimination in politics starts a lot sooner than applying for a job in it. There’s a lot that goes before, that has to happen, before you even consider applying.
For starters, you have to have an interest in politics, enough so to join a political party. You have to want to get involved. You have to have the confidence in your abilities to believe that you are able to take on a role. But why is it still that so many women don’t feel like politics is for them?
When we talk about getting women involved in politics, we often talk about increasing numbers of women in Parliament. Representation of women in this position of power is indeed important, but conversations about women in politics should be starting a lot earlier than this. These conversations need to include lack of representation of women in local government, in our councils, as party staff, as party members and as party activists.
I only have to look at my experiences working for the Party to understand just some of the reasons why women would be discouraged from entering what is still a highly masculine environment.
Some of the sexism I experienced was overt, others much more subtle. For the men around me who converse in tones of “alright man” and “okay dude”, it might seem like the most natural thing in the world, except they often have to consciously speak to me in a different way. Some men I encounter outright speak over me, whilst others consistently take up way too much of a conversation in a way that implies what I have to say is irrelevant or unimportant; they don’t do this with the other ‘guys’.
I have found myself immersed in a world where everywhere I go, I expect to be one of, or the only woman in a room. CLP meetings, campaign groups, door knocking sessions; all dominated by men, I am almost always the token woman in the photos. The token woman who was once put to the front of a photo because I was “much prettier” than a candidate. I stood by and watched two men exchange comments on my appearance as if I wasn’t even there. Later I learned that he had turned to a colleague and remarked “I’ll probably get a slap in a minute for being sexist”. Of course I said nothing, because that would be ‘unprofessional’, not that it mattered, because I wasn’t being treated like one anyway. One individual outright hit on me whilst I was working. It’s a constant battle to be taken seriously.
I sit through meetings where the tone men take with me often carries an implied under estimation of my abilities; smirks, laugher, out of place questions, speaking over me whilst I have the floor, bearing in mind these are people who have never met or encountered me in their life, so have no grounds to have expectations of my abilities in my job. I’ve been asked “Who’s in charge here then? Is it [this older man] or [this older man]?”. “That would be me” I say to surprised faces. One CLP role holder even tried set me a ‘task’ with no real purpose other than to test if I was capable of using basic Labour Party technology.
Even casual conversation with colleagues can reveal underlying sexist attitudes. Arguments that we “can’t have a woman leader just for the sake of having a woman”; as if of the 99 women Labour MPs, not a single one would be capable of being leader, as if there hasn’t been a systematic underestimation of women’s leadership abilities throughout history. My exasperations about the lack of representation of women across the party undermined and brushed under the carpet with “yeah well the cabinet is the most gender balanced ever”, as if that makes under representation of women at other levels in the party ok.
As the champion of AWS, we call ourselves a women friendly party. We certainly have done a lot to better represent women, however we need to do more. But where do we even start?
It starts with changing the culture of party politics, admittedly easier said than done, because why would any woman want to sit in a room of blokes talking over her, to feel like she is constantly undermined and underestimated?
Perhaps starting with translating some of the education on liberation in the youth movement we have into wider party politics would be a start to challenging some of these outdated attitudes. Making sure that people understand the importance of positive discrimination, necessary only because of centuries of patriarchal oppression. We also need to be encouraging a culture of calling out sexism and misogyny, from both men and women in the party, instead of being bystanders because we are too scared about what will happen if we speak out.
We have put policies from tax credits to SureStart to our name. We should be proud that we have done great things for women; there is no denying that. But it’s not time to be complacent, as the Labour Party still has a way to go for women.
The Scottish Labour Party’s list voting is closing very soon and so I would like to take the opportunity to say that I am backing Cat Headley for the #1 position, and here’s why you should too…
It is no secret that the Scottish Labour Party took a real hit last year in May. It’s something we have to address as a Party and take radical steps to fight and win back Scotland.
Cat is relatively new to the world of politics; a fresh voice that our Party so desperately needs in order to rejuvenate it. Perhaps even more significantly though, she has a vision for the Party in the long term and recognises the challenge we face in gaining back the trust of Scottish voters.
Cat got involved in Better Together and quickly became heavily involved in the campaign before joining Scottish Labour and going on to be selected as a Parliamentary candidate. It is so refreshing to have a candidate who was drawn to politics by principle not by power.
She is passionate about the values of justice, compassion and fairness. The dedication she has to her campaign in Edinburgh Western and for the Lothians list alongside her work as a solicitor protecting vulnerable people illustrates this passion as she works tirelessly to try and implement her vision of a better Scotland.
As a young woman interested in politics myself, to see other women in the Party is inspiring. Scottish Labour’s commitment to gender equality on their lists is something I am really proud of, but it is no secret that the world of politics can still be seen as a “man’s world”. Young female role models with the energy and drive that Cat has are so important for other young women like me who can so easily become alienated by the old boy’s club.
Her focus on better mental health awareness and services is an issue I care deeply about, and as 1 in 4 of us will suffer from a mental health issue in our lifetime, it is one which in one way or another affects all of us. It is still an issue which carries a lot of stigma with it and Cat’s commitment to bring it to the fore of Party politics is the kind of brave attitude and important move I want to see in an MSP.
On meeting Cat, it is evident that she is an intelligent, bold and compassionate woman with real drive and commitment to Scottish Labour and our core principles. These are exactly the traits and values I believe we need in an MSP in Holyrood in 2016. It’s why I’m backing Cat Headley #1 for Lothians List, and I hope you do too.
So we’re dropping bombs in Syria now, which you’ve probably heard about unless you don’t read the news or use social media, in which case you wouldn’t be reading this anyway. Now I’m no IR expert, I changed my degree because I’m really not, but I do want to make some reflections on the responses to the ‘politics’ of this as such.
Now, I sat on and off for the vast majority of Thursday watching the House of Commons debate. And it depressed me, for several reasons.
On a personal level, I will not shy away from the fact that, yes, it does depress me that we are bombing Syria. I don’t believe that bombing Syria is the answer, but not because I’m necessarily ‘anti interventionist’, but because I don’t believe we should be nonchalantly doing things by halves. We should have considered all of our options, including a full scale ground war, which will not happen in my opinion, because of lack of political motivation to do so. I don’t want people to lose their lives when they could have been saved by a better solution. However, and this is the crucial point, neither do politicians who voted for air strikes yesterday.
Yvette Cooper, Stella Creasy, Tom Watson, Hilary Benn and the 393 others who voted “aye” yesterday are not monsters. They are not blood thirsty murderers and they are not war mongerers. They are people, who made a decision that they believed was right for the people of Britain and the people of Syria. I don’t believe anybody in that chamber wanted to bomb anyone, but they made a difficult decision, and they made it in the belief that that was what was best. If I had not watched that debate, or attended talks, or researched it, I would be staunchly anti intervention. But when presented with the arguments from both sides, it becomes a difficult decision and no one can deny that. It’s complex. It’s nuanced. Inaction does not mean no one dies here; that dichotomy must be destroyed on the radical left.
Just because maybe you, or I, disagree with those decisions does not give people the right to attack MPs over twitter, or protestors the right to go outside Stella Creasy’s home. There is a distinct difference between disagreeing with the decision to drop bombs on Syria and abusing MPs. Anger, sadness, frustration, infuriation; all of these are natural feelings for someone who was against the decision yesterday, believe me, I felt all of them. But there is no excuse to abuse MPs who were democratically elected and believed they were doing their best. At the end of the day, yes they are elected to represent the people, but they are often the experts.
People were dying before we were dropping bombs and they will continue to die after. My heart was breaking for Syrians before the vote, and it continues to break now. I believe that to be the case for many MPs too. And just because some MPs voted for intervention doesn’t mean they necessarily care about Syrians any less. In a perfect world, we would stop the arms trade and there would be no weapons or wars. We would all sit round a table and resolve our differences. But this isn’t WWII. We aren’t going to create the UN 2.0 out of this. This is a threat like no other and unfortunately, something has to be done. People are beheaded, raped, tortured and murdered by ISIS on a daily basis whilst the world sits back and uncomfortably turns it’s head. Yes, we can do our bit and help refugees, but there are many who don’t even have the means to leave. What do we do about them? Let them die?
To believe that this decision was easy, is naive. To believe that those MPs don’t think twice about dropping bombs, is unfair. To live in a world where terrorism exists and people die on a daily basis, is truly abhorrent. No, I don’t agree with dropping bombs on Syria, but it’s time to stop, and think, that maybe people, with the same aims, might just come up with different solutions.
***DISCLAIMER: When I talk about Nationalism, I talk about the political Nationalism that has emerged in Scotland regarding independence and devolution, not cultural Nationalism, because, you know, I love Scotland and all that***
I often hear that Scottish Nationalism has nothing to do with the ‘bloody English’. After all, if a country and its people choose to determine their own destiny, then what has that got to do with anyone else, right? Wrong. Politically charged Nationalism is harming the whole of the UK, not least of all, us ‘bloody English’.
The Barnett Formula has been in operation since the 1970s, and it is what determines how much money Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales get through devolution. It was not meant to last this long; it is out dated and even its creator has admitted so. Each country gets a block grant, with which it can choose how to spend it. This does not cover all areas of spending. For example, reserved areas such as defence and pensions, are not included. However, housing, health and education are all amongst areas where we see devolution alter patterns of spending. And what is so wrong with countries choosing what they spend their money on? I hear you ask. Well, nothing in theory, but in practice, a whole lot.
For the Barnett Formula is becoming increasingly unpopular as it favours certain countries, and disadvantages others. This is not a needs based system, but rather an out dated, politicised one. Evidence demonstrates that whilst Scotland gets funding that exceeds its needs as a country, Wales gets less than it needs. England’s spending, which has no devolution (as of yet), does not meet the needs of its people either. With Sturgeon promising another referendum, coupled with the fact that Scotland could, in theory, economically support itself, Scotland is a political threat to the union. Upsetting Scotland is just not in Westminster’s interests. Wales on the other hand, does not have full legislative powers and could not sustain their level of provision of services if they chose to go independent. To disadvantage Wales is not much of a problem to Westminster. It makes political sense to maintain a system which appeases the country which threatens the UK.
Much of Scottish Nationalism angers me (surprise, surprise). It presumes that you cross a border and the people of Scotland face infinitely bigger struggles than those faced in England, and so they must have more money to solve said issues. The reality is, that Scottish people are gaining the most out of anyone in the Union from the Barnett Formula and the current state of devolution. People in the North of England’s needs have been proven to be higher, yet they receive much less. Devolution, contrary to popular belief, is far from a needs based system.
Much of Scottish Nationalism presumes that disillusionment is determined by the number of miles away from Westminster you are, whereas in reality, people who live a few miles away from the Houses of Parliament in London are just as disillusioned with the government; it is absurd to presume otherwise. I still hate David Cameron just as much living in Edinburgh as I did when I lived in Warrington. I don’t gain a little more respect for tax credit cuts when I get on a train 200 miles closer to London.
Hating English people because you think they are taking money from you is a fallacy hidden behind a facade of Nationalism. In reality, the people of England, especially in the North, have needs greater than much of Scotland. Insulting us on the basis that “English people are all privileged”is again, wrong. And I’d urge you to think carefully about your free University Education compared to my £50,000 of debt. Your free prescriptions compared to the £8.20 I have to spend on every item I need at a pharmacy. This is not a competition. I am not saying that England has it worse than Scotland, but rather that the facade created mainly by the SNP of “English privilege”must be lifted with a bit of perspective.
Scottish Nationalism is my issue, as much as it is anyone else’s in the UK, and I refuse to be told otherwise.
It was 5am, May 8th, and I was on the phone to my Mum. I was angry, upset, devastated. The thought of five more years of a Conservative government scared me. And so I did something about it, and joined the Labour Party.
I have always been a leftie. With a mother who swears mainly about David Cameron and a father who calls himself a Marxist, how couldn’t I be? As a Politics student, of course I am interested in the UK government. I study politics in order to hopefully one day be part of the change I want to see in the world. However, back in May I just didn’t know which Party I wanted to cast my vote for.
I considered the Greens, SNP and Labour. Green policies appealed to me; they were so radically left, but quite frankly far too idealistic and many not so well thought out. What is more, Natalie Bennett really did lack any of the qualities of a Prime Minister, not least to convey her passion and be inspiring, which through failed interviews and stuttered answers, did not come across.
The SNP was a party I seriously considered for a while, but I think even then I was sceptical of whether the left wing rhetoric they espoused would translate into left wing policy.
It was Labour that got my vote in the end, but it saddens me to say that this was not because I truly believed in their policies or found Ed Miliband inspiring. Rather, the goal with my vote was to keep Britain free from harsh Tory policy making, and the Labour Party were realistically the only viable option to potentially hold office. Still, I could not help feeling like I had cast a vote for the lesser of two evils.
This article could very easily be about Jeremy Corbyn, but it is not. I’m a far left social justice warrior feminist, of course Corbyn definitely gives me hope for a future I want. In many ways, it was Corbyn who inspired me to become more active in the Labour Party, because he represented so much of what I truly believe in. However, I can’t often help but feel distant from him as a leader. He is someone who is set in their views and often unwilling to compromise or put much effort in to uniting the party in the way it so desperately needs to be.
If I am really honest, his Shadow Cabinet appointments were alienating. Goals of socialism, such as equality, liberation, justice and fairness, are goals we simply cannot achieve without the input of oppressed groups in society. To see no women in positions of power is something you would expect from a right wing government, not the socialist paradise that Corbyn’s leadership is supposed to be. The Conservatives are putting more women in positions of real power than Labour, which is terribly disconcerting.
What really inspired me to take action beyond my vote and my Labour Party member card, was the Scottish Labour Party. I came away from the Scottish Labour Conference at the weekend feeling something I had never felt before for a political party: an immense feeling of pride and solidarity. This was a party I believed in. This was a party I wanted to see in government. This was a party who could deliver real change. Together, Ian Murray MP and Kezia Dugdale MSP carry the Scottish Labour Party with a vision that simply did not exist at Westminster on May 7th with Miliband. It is their commitment to true Social Democratic values and confidence in the abilities of the Labour Party that makes the party one I feel proud of.
Kez’s speech at Conference gave me chills. I had never felt so impassioned by a political speech before then, and I came away awestruck. This was a woman I could trust to do everything in her power to deliver Labour seats in Scottish Parliament next year. Unlike Jeremy, whose passion can sometimes err on the side of aggression, Kez was personable. She is someone I can identify with.
As a woman in the world of politics, seeing a woman as the Leader of a Party is inspiring in itself. The line “We don’t just need women in positions of power, we need Feminists in positions of influence” was bold and resonated with me. Kez went where very few politicians dare to go, identifying with a word that is often seen as dirty and tarnished. She committed herself to gender equality and the liberation of women within the realm of politics; a difficult and commendable stance to take.
As some one from a state school, I have seen first hand our failing education system. It upsets me that in UK general elections, education is never really on the agenda. It is even ignored in discourse by Corbyn. Like Kez said, “if there is a silver bullet to slay the monsters of poverty, inequality and ignorance, then it is education”, yet we never seem to talk about it in politics. This is a woman who is putting the most important tool available to humanity back on the agenda. And not because it is politically sound, because it clearly is not ‘on trend’ in current affairs, but because she truly cares. That is the attitude of a woman I want to see leading not just the Scottish Labour Party, but the country.
In May, I voted to keep Tories out. The Scottish Labour conference inspired me to make the decision that, next year, I will be registering to vote up in Edinburgh for the Scottish Parliamentary Elections. When I voted for Miliband in the General Election in May, it was a vote in my mind for the lesser of two evils. When I use my two votes for Labour in Scotland next year, it will be a vote for values I am proud to believe in.
Youth apathy – it’s a stereotype favoured by the British media and politicians alike. A quick Google search of the term returns no less than 847,000 results, including headlines that read “Apathetic and Disaffected: The Generation Who May Never Vote”, while another asks “Has Our Generation Lost Faith?” Only 43% of people aged 18-24 voted in May’s election, the lowest turnout of any age group, but with young people increasingly at the forefront of social media and grassroots activism, are voting statistics really the fairest way to determine the enthusiasm of British youth?
Since the general election, anti-austerity marches have lined the streets of many cities up and down the country, from Leeds to Liverpool to London. Among the protestors were hundreds of students who will arguably be some of the hardest hit by new Conservative Party measures. Regardless of whether these people voted or not, their involvement in these events undoubtedly demonstrated their willingness to engage with politics, be it directly or indirectly.
One of the most frustrating and unfortunate things that young people have to deal with as they engage with the world of politics is the constant backlash from other voters telling them they’re too young to understand how politics works. It seems that young people just can’t win; first they’re stereotyped as apathetic, yet when they do engage in politics their views are rendered irrelevant.
In the lead up to the General Election, Abby Tomlinson came to prominence as the leader of the “Milifandom”, something she describes as a “movement against the distorted media portrayals of Ed Miliband”. At 17, she isn’t currently eligible to vote, but that hasn’t stopped her from writing about politics day in day out, whether it be on her Twitter (@twcuddleston), or for newspapers and websites such as the Guardian, and the Huffington Post. Having met Abby at one of the Labour hustings in July, it’s not hard to see that she’s someone who knows what she’s talking about. She’s had the opportunity to interview all of the Labour leadership and deputy leadership candidates, and she’s appeared on BBC and Sky News alongside the likes of political writer and war veteran Harry Leslie Smith. Yet she’s still experienced an ardent amount of online abuse, most of which uses her age as the main insulting factor. One tweet reads: “who cares what @twcuddleston says? She isn’t even 18 yet. Talk to her about One Direction and alcopops”, another: “since when did the political opinion of little girls matter enough to air on the news?”
What is conveniently forgotten amid such backlash is the numerous things that young people can legally do before they’re 18. At 16 years old, teenagers can legally have sex, join the army, leave home, and have a full-time job. For those who choose to exercise these new rights, they can be huge steps; steps that arguably put teenagers on the path towards adulthood. Yet in the world of politics, they’re still seen, and spoken to, as children who have no experience of the real world.
The aforementioned Conservative austerity measures won’t necessarily have the heaviest impact on those who currently sit in the 18-24 age bracket. Instead, measures such as the reform of maintenance grants, and cuts to housing benefits will have a drastic impact on those who weren’t even able to defend their voice in May’s General Election. There is no better case for reducing the voting age to 16 than knowing that young people will finally get to have a say on the matters that affect them the most.
The media, politicians, and what seems to be just about everyone on social media has got it wrong about young people. They do care. Some have no faith in a political system that speaks to them, not for them. Some are too young to be allowed to express their opinion. Some are simply too afraid to speak out in a world that constantly tells them that their opinions are irrelevant. But make no mistake about it, whether it be by campaigning on the streets or debating on social media, young people are going to stop at nothing to ensure that their voices will be heard.
If you’re anything like me, you’ll be sick to death of the Labour leadership race by now. It’s hard to believe that it’s only been 100 days since the defeat of the Labour Party at the General Election, it almost feels a lifetime ago. Those 100 days have been dominated by the leadership race, from the shock ballot nomination of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn early on in the contest, to the personal attacks from candidate to candidate in the past couple of weeks. Despite being a fan of Ed Miliband, I was hoping that the leadership race would bring some spark back to the Labour Party, but I, like many other party members have been left less than enthused about what the next 5 years could be like under a new leader.
Left to right: Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn
One of the main talking points of the race has been Jeremy Corbyn; a breath of fresh air for some, and a headache for others. Having scraped together 36 nominations at the last minute, Corbyn became the fourth and final MP to make it on to the ballot paper. An MP since 1983, he’s well known for taking a stand against austerity, war, and poverty. But despite being the candidate that arguably represents the true core values of the Labour Party (it is a democratic socialist party after all), his presence on the ballot paper has led to intervention from high profile individuals such as Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and Alistair Campbell. It was MP’s such as Diane Abbot, Frank Field, and Sadiq Khan who nominated Corbyn, even if they don’t necessarily support his politics. Dawn Butler, another MP who nominated Corbyn, stated in this now infamous interview with Kay Burley that it was the duty of the MPs to make sure there were many different people on the ballot to ensure that there was the widest possible debate in the party. However, judging by the backlash that Corbyn has faced, it seems that people only want democracy until their favourite politician isn’t on course to win.
Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North since 1983
Jeremy Corbyn didn’t enter the contest with the view that he was going to become party leader, but recent polls have been suggesting that the MP for Islington North is on course to win the contest by a huge margin, with some also claiming that he is the most popular candidate among voters from all parties. However, as always we should take these polls with a pinch of salt. Nothing is certain until the ballot papers are counted and verified.
Constant input and influence from former politicians and aides is annoying enough, but the most frustrating thing about the race has undoubtedly been the attacks on Corbyn from his fellow leadership candidates Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, and Liz Kendall. Throughout the race, Burnham and Cooper have treaded tentatively around the subject of so-called ‘Corbynmania’, both unwilling to rule out serving in a Corbyn cabinet, or whether or not they would have a place for him in theirs. However, the past week has seen a complete change of strategy in the Burnham and Cooper camps, with Burnham claiming that Jeremy Corbyn will make Labour a party of protest, and Cooper going as far as saying that he is offering “old solutions to old problems, not new answers to the problems of today”.
On the other hand, leadership hopeful Liz Kendall has thoroughly opposed Corbyn from the start, which is understandable seeing as she represents the Blairites of the party. Yet it’s not her opposition to Corbyn that’s the problem; she’s allowed an opinion just as much as anyone else is. The problem with Kendall is the way she puts her opposition across. She’s criticised Burnham and Cooper on numerous occasions for even considering giving Corbyn a place in their cabinet. Her most severe attack on her rival came just several days ago, as she warned members to vote for only three of the four candidates on their preferential ballot, leaving Corbyn off the ballot completely.
Liz Kendall, MP for Leicester West, has urged voters to avoid voting for left-winger Jeremy Corbyn
Perhaps it was too idealist to presume that each candidate could just focus on their own campaign rather than try to discredit the other voices, but the attacks have left me and many other Labour supporters feeling somewhat underwhelmed by the candidates. Claims that Labour MP’s will try to oust Corbyn should he gain the leadership isn’t the the sort of rhetoric that is going to fill Labour members and voters with hope and enthusiasm for the future. If their party isn’t going to be united under a Corbyn leadership, then what chance has it got in 2020?
This isn’t to say that people can’t have an opinion on each of the candidates, but the perpetual personal attacks are growing tiresome. How much simpler the contest would be if all the candidates focused on putting their best foot forward; surely avoiding becoming enthralled by the vitriolic criticism would make their campaigns seem less immature? From the very start, Jeremy Corbyn promised to avoid making personal attacks on his fellow politicians, and it’s a promise he’s stuck to. Perhaps this is one of the reasons he’s proving so popular with Labour party members?
But it’s not just the candidates who are engaging in such criticism, Labour Party members, supporters, and really just about everyone else have been expressing their opinions on the leadership race. Although it’s a brilliant tool to speak with like-minded people and spark debate, social media is largely unrepresentative of the population. Behind a screen, people feel free to post whatever they want, no matter how vicious.
Liz Kendall has arguably been the subject of the most online abuse in the past few months, with many suggesting that her views would be better appreciated in the Conservative Party. The Photoshops of Kendall wearing a blue rosette might seem funny at first, but the verbal abuse she has faced is anything but. Just like Corbyn and his socialist politics, Kendall and her Blairite views have every right to be part of the race.
Liz Kendall’s Blairite views have caused some Labour supporters to suggest that her ideas would be better appreciated in the Conservative Party
The final thing that won’t be missed? The amount of literature that has been distributed to Labour Party supporters since May. Another day, another letter from Labour; whether it’s to ask for donations, or a candidate pleading for your vote, Labour Party members have no chance of forgetting which party they belong to. Here you can read Sophie Heawood’s humorous piece on the matter. Her article echoes what everyone seems to be thinking; stop spamming us! The personalisation of emails, texts, and letters verges on embarrassing; we don’t know the candidates on a personal level, so why pretend? The casual manner of the contact masks a desperate plea for support, but it’s easy to see straight through it. Something tells me that when the leadership race comes to a close, the emails will continue to flow, but at the very least I can hope to stop getting emails from Caroline Flint with a subject line reading “I don’t want to talk about irrelevant rubbish” (ironic, seeing as I received 3 emails from her in as many days).
The leadership race should have injected Labour supporters with enthusiasm and hope, but instead they can’t wait for it to be over. It’s only natural that the party would be fragmented after such an unprecedented defeat in May, but the contest should have been the time to demonstrate that the party could remain united in preparation for 2020, regardless of the political leaning of its leader. One thing is for sure though, when the ballot papers are collected and the results are announced, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that it’s finally over.
On the 8th of July, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced in his budget plans to reform the welfare system, including a cut to tax credits for families with three or more children. Less than two weeks later, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was debated in the House of Commons. However, something was missing. Hundreds of things actually; the MP’s themselves. Most notably, there was a huge lack of Labour MP’s present as the debate got under way. So the question has to be asked; how can Labour see itself as a legitimate opposition if it refuses to stand up and actually oppose the government?
To say that May’s general election was a huge blow to Labour would be an understatement, but it seems that the party is taking a remarkably long time to come back from it. It has become a party that is confused as to which direction it should take itself in, and the leadership race is quickly becoming an embarrassing display of personal attacks, with various media outlets only helping to pit the candidates against each other. Ultimately, the party is suffering from an identity crisis, and it needs to get itself back on track as quickly as possible. Welfare reform has undoubtedly been one of the most controversial aspects to the Conservative budget, with a cut to tax credits, a lower benefit cap, and the removal of some housing benefits being proposed by the party. However, despite the Labour Party not agreeing with these measures (with the exception of the benefit cap), interim party leader Harriet Harman advised her Labour colleagues to abstain from Monday’s welfare reform vote, stating that the party “cannot say to the public; you were wrong, we are going to carry on saying what we said before the election”.
Interim leader Harriet Harman asked that her MP’s abstain from the vote on welfare reform
On most days, tuning into BBC Parliament would be a last resort for me and many others; after all it does have a tendency to be quite a dry affair. However, just from taking a look at social media, it seemed as the Welfare Reform and Work Bill would draw in quite an audience. As the cameras in the Commons panned out to show the whole chamber, it was obvious to see that most MP’s seemingly hadn’t received the memo that a debate was taking place. Unsurprisingly, the Conservative benches were occupied by only a handful of MP’s, but the lack of politicians sat on the Labour benches was far from encouraging. As half of the Labour benches remained empty for a piece of legislation that could potentially drive people further into poverty, it was hard not to feel a sense of embarrassment towards the party that is supposed to stand for “fairness, equality, and social justice”.
The Conservative and Labour benches were largely empty at Monday’s vote.
Among the Labour MP’s that did attend the debate were Helen Jones (Warrington North), Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland), and John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington), who claimed that he would “swim through vomit to vote against this Bill”. These three MP’s were among just 48 who actively voted against the bill, leaving 184 abstainers. So why did so many fail to defy the whip and stand up to the Tories? Some MP’s such as Deputy Leadership hopeful Stella Creasy took to social media to defend the decision. Writing for the New Statesman, Creasy stated that Harriet Harman was right in her decision to ask MP’s to abstain, adding that “the value of the parliamentary process is that by our amendments and our arguments we can show how our alternative reforms would instead deliver fairness and prosperity for all”. She has a point; this wasn’t the final reading of the bill and the Labour Party can still propose amendments at a later date. However, it has to be said that when the third reading does take place, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that Labour could again fail to have their amendments heard by the Conservative majority.
Perhaps the Labour Party should follow in the footsteps of the Scottish National Party. Regardless of whether they were forced to be there or not, the SNP benches were full, and all of the party’s MP’s voted against the bill. Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon commented on the lack of so-called ‘rebel’ Labour MP’s by saying: “if Labour had voted with the SNP against George Osborne’s assault on those of low incomes, then the Tories could have been beaten last night”. Even though this may have not been the case, Sturgeon raises a very valid point. Now that it’s the third largest party, the SNP are in the Commons firstly to create opportunities in Scotland for the Scottish people, but secondly to cause a headache for the Conservative Party. The Conservatives only have a majority of 12, leaving the party vulnerable to opposition.
With the Labour leadership race well under way and dominating the party’s agenda until at least September when the votes are counted, it’s almost understandable that the party hasn’t quite gotten to its feet yet. Although, one thing is for sure. When the new leader is elected later this year, they will have to turn the party on its head if it stands any chance of coming into power in 2020. The sad fact is that many of those who walked away from Labour believe that the party doesn’t offer anything drastically different from the Conservative Party, and with votes such as the Welfare Bill, who can blame them?
Ultimately, the Labour Party needs to recognise that giving in to Tory demands is by no means the best way to inspire the electorate in 2020. If the party becomes an effective opposition today, then there may be some hope for the next general election.
I found that deciding who I was going to vote for as the next leader of the Labour Party was relatively easy; all of the candidates are prominent within the party, and they’re household names to those who follow politics. On the other hand, I found the decision for who I wanted as Deputy Leader to be a little more challenging. Out of the five candidates on the ballot, I have to admit that I was that familiar with many of them, and with ballot papers being sent out next month, I realised that I would have to do my research quickly.
One of the names I had heard mentioned a number of times was Tom Watson, MP for West Bromwich East, and current Deputy Chair of the party. He recently held a web conference for members of Young Labour to voice their opinions and listen to what he would do if he were elected Deputy Leader. The following part of this article is a transcript of that conference (I’ve only edited it slightly, just so that it looks better on the blog, but none of the points discussed have been manipulated in any way):
Deputy Leadership candidate, Tom Watson
Tom:
Hello, how are you all doing? Thanks for coming in on this, I’ve got some very clear ideas on how to bring the party closer together. I want members and young members to be close to the leadership of the party and this is one bit of technology that I think we can use to do that. What I’m hoping to do today is talk for five or ten minutes to tell you about what I’m looking for from the Deputy Leadership race. Then I’ll answer some questions on policy issues and then do ten minutes of questions on organsation. Firstly, why am I in this race and what am I trying to do?
I’m a big fan of Harold Wilson, and Harold Wilson had a very close leadership – he thought that a leader of a party needed to know what was going on in the country. In a book he wrote called the Governance of Britain, he told a story about how on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday afternoon in the Commons, he would have an open door policy so that any MP of any party could pop in and tell him what was going on in their constituency. Those of you who have been in the Labour Party for a little while will know that that’s a million light years away from modern politics, and I want to try and bring our membership closer together. One of the technological things we’ve got is the ability to cross geography and bring communities of interest together, be it young members like we’re talking about today or our coastal towns or communities of interest such as people who are interested in sports or the arts.That’s why we’re trying out this technology today – to see how it works and to see how interactive it is, because I want members to feel that they’re part of a movement and part of something bigger than themselves.
What am I trying to do with the Deputy Leadership? Well I think we need to change some of the things we do to get us ready for the 2020 election. Whoever you choose as your leader is going to have to cast a new vision for the country in 2020 and reconnect with those millions of voters we’ve lost over successive general elections. I think that the Deputy Leadership’s job is to help realise that vision and that means we’ve got to change the way we do things.
Firstly I would like us to focus much more on the community in the first half of this parliament before we move into the Westminster general election campaign. Secondly, I think we need a digital revolution. It’s not just about bringing people together with technology like this; we’ve got 50,000 new members of the Labour Party that have joined since polling day and I want to feel that they can be on a journey with us in the build up to the 2020 Westminster election. However, so far I suspect that many of them are hardly being welcomed into the party or engaged. I would love to get a text message off Labour HQ when a new member joins so that I can ring them up within the hour of them joining and welcome them to the party. Thirdly, I want a more inclusive party. I want the barriers to participation in the Labour Party to be knocked down. We’ve got a rule book that is 83 pages long and it sometimes feels like the rules are there to prohibit you from going out and campaigning for a more socially just and more equal society, which is probably what brought you to the Labour Party in the first place. I’ve got very clear ideas as to how young members can participate and be involved in the party, where they themselves can go away and discuss the campaign priorities they want, what policies they want to debate, and be supported by the party in so doing, and for many years there wasn’t a full time youth officer in the party and I think that’s really important to have someone who is working for you.
What do you think young people can do to further the cause of Labour?
What a great question! We’re a party that was founded over a century ago because we felt that wealth and power was in the hands of too few people. You probably joined the Labour Party because you still think that’s the case. For me, the cause of Labour is important because we want to build a fairer, more equal society and we want people to prosper and be all they can be. That’s why I think that even though we’re going through quite hard times as a party now, we’ll ultimately be triumphant because people need a Labour government that believes in the idea of an empowering state. We need to focus state energy and power to allow people to make the best of themselves, to create greater opportunities, and to provide security when people fall on hard times. I still think we need a party in the United Kingdom that has got those values, it’s just how do we put them in the context of the current situation we find ourselves in, and part of our solution will be down to your involvement within the party over the next few years.
How can we better organise the structure of the party from the PLP down to CLP to councillors and individual members?
Well firstly there is this idea of closed leadership. I genuinely think that we need a new leadership team that are far more in touch with our younger members and if I win this election, I see myself being very much the bridge into the sections of the party that the Shadow Cabinet need to hear for example, our councillors, our members, and our representatives in the devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales. It also means getting out of Westminster more and taking more time to listen to our members, so if I win it, I think I’ll be out of Westminster each week. We need a closer leadership and a more federal structure as well where we have representatives from the English regions and Scotland and Wales help shape our future.
You say you want a digital revolution, how do you do this without discrimination against people who may not be able to afford much up to date technology?
I wrestled with this when I was the Digital Engagement Minister in the Cabinet Office. The answer is that you don’t do digital only services. You have to give people choices. There are different channels by which people can involve themselves in the party. I represent West Bromwich East where some of my members still want their correspondences sent using an envelope and stamp because they don’t want to receive emails. It’s important that we don’t forget people who choose to not use digital channels. But the experience of being a member can be much richer for those that do. Every so often we get opposition debates in the House of Commons, and there’s always a debate within the party about which topic we should discuss. I don’t know why we don’t occasionally ask our 250,000 members to choose from an option of three because they are the ones who are out in the community talking to people all the time. This is about supplementing the work we do, not just replacing the work we do.
When is the Labour Party going to stop letting the Conservative Party dictate the agenda when it comes to policies, for example on the benefit cap?
The difficulty of being in opposition is that the government quite often makes the weather. They’re the ones who decide the debates that take place in the chambers. They’re the ones who lead the newspapers with announcements. But we still have the power to set out our own agenda. When it comes to the attempt by the government on the benefit cap to divide our movement and to set political traps that they want us to jump in, I think we can try and set out another agenda to challenge what the government want you to believe – the idea that anyone in receipt of some kind of benefit is a lazy, fat, anti-citizen. We know that most of the social security budget is spent on pensions; people who have worked all their lives and paid into the pot and are now trying to find some peace in retirement. But also those benefits that are paid to people may be in work benefits but these people are still suffering. I think we can make the case that people on in work benefits need to be respected not marginalised.
Would you support any young member running to become an MP?
I would! I believe in votes at 16, I supported measures to reduce the age at which you could stand for parliament from 21 to 18. I think our youngest MP is 26 at the moment. What I find interesting in the Labour Party is we’ve now got a huge intergenerational range of members from 26 to MP’s in their 80’s. That’s very good because you need that mix of energy and experience and wisdom in a political party. We need more young people standing
Do you think we can challenge the budget tomorrow effectively?
I hope we can. It’s very hard when you’re in opposition because the government set the agenda all the time, as I’ve just said. They’ve obviously been leaking parts of the budget to the newspapers this week, and you have to respond to that. We don’t get to see the budget until just before it is announced. Harriet Harman will have to respond to it as best she can on the spot. Behind the scenes there will be a team of people who will be going through the red book, looking for all the clauses in the budget that George Osborne would rather not promote to find out whether there are policies where people are being penalised.
How can we get young people engaged in politics?
Well firstly I think it comes down to having the right policies for young people; that they feel attracted to our party. Your generation entering the labour market for the first time have fewer opportunities than previous generations. If you choose tertiary education then you’ll enter the labour market in debt. If you live in a city you will probably be the first generation who will have the expectation that you’ll never own your own home. The private rented sector is lacking in security for long term tenancies, so times are tough for young people and I think that Labour needs to work with our young members to get a framework of policies that are attractive to young people. When we get that bit right, you also need to show respect to our young members and that means supporting a space where they can decide their own policies and be supported by an officer that helps them do that. In the end, young people need to set their own agenda within the party.
Is there a need to re-establish Labour’s underpinning philosophy? What would this be under your Deputy Leadership?
Well I think you definitely need to look at our history on this, to see what are the fundamentals of the party and why did we come together as a movement? How do you put that in a modern context? For me, the greatest leader that managed to respect those values was Clement Atlee who managed to merge the idea that your individual aspirations align with the collective aspirations of the NHS. He persuaded people that they should put money in the pot to create a National Health Service, even in the good times. I think we need to get back to that kind of notion that individuals gain when they see things as a collective good. It means that our public services need to be incredibly efficient and modernised. I’ve been trying to write a one sentence mantra about what our mission should be in 2020. I haven’t got it right yet but it should be something like ‘Labour stands for a more entrepreneurial, but fairer and kinder country. When I say entrepreneurial, everyone always shakes their head because it’s a long word and can be narrowly focused but for me it means that everyone can realise the best of themselves.
It is very anti-Labour in mid-Wales and it feels like Welsh Labour have forgotten about us. Their campaigning resources go to the north and south of Wales. What are you doing to address this?
The only way that Labour is going to have deep roots in all communities is by putting trust in its members and we cannot run the Labour Party in the United Kingdom with our professional staff alone. So it’s about devolving power down to local constituencies in my view and having faith in our members to do that. I genuinely believe that community organising should be at the heart of what we do, and I hope that we can expand the training we give to our lay members so that they can become leaders in their own communities. In the end, it’s not down to Labour. It’s down to all of us to make sure that Labour is represented in the community.
What should Young Labour do to appeal to young people as the home of democratic socialism?
There are now 10 Conservative MP’s who sit on majorities that is smaller than the Green vote in their constituency. Had all those Green voters voted Labour we would have 10 more MP’s now. For me, it means we have to have the best policies on climate change. My kids are 10 and 7 years old, I don’t want the planet to warm up more than the projected 2 degrees centigrade because terrible things will happen. Already our economy is having to reform itself in order to adapt to the challenges of climate change. I also think that we need to make sure that in local authorities we can out do the Green’s. The Labour Party in Brighton (the only Green constituency) are now prioritising a green agenda. i also think that in the Parliamentary Labour Party, we need to plant a flag; we need MP’s that can lead on climate change. Perhaps using this technology can bring together those members of the party who are particularly focused on green issues.
Are you comfortable with our party identifying as anti-austerity?
We’re a party that stands for the many not the few. We want every individual in this country to do the best for themselves and we know that George Osborne is likely to bring out policies that are going to benefit people who are sitting on inherited wealth, and that’s not the party I want to be part of. I want to be part of a party of opportunity where everyone can make the best of themselves.
How do we have less of the Westminster politics?
There’s a famous American Senate majority leader who worked for the Kennedy Administration called Tip O’Neil who coined the phrase ‘all politics is local’. For me, I know that back home when I was a young MP in 2001, my case worker complained that there was a lady who was very very upset and agitated that a tree in her front garden was blocking out the light. He said that he have more important things in the world to deal with. I said ‘no’ for this lady, the most important thing in the world is that she can have light so that she can read the newspaper. Her world was small; she was retired and used the shop at the end of the street and didn’t often go into town. If she couldn’t read the paper in the day then that was a very big deal for her. As politicians, we need to be at the grass roots, in our communities building strong relationships between our local councillors and our campaigners on the ground.
How do we improve the communication between Young Labour groups and the Constituency Labour Party?
It’s important to use technology like this so that we can cross constituency borders and have debates on particular issues. I certainly want the relationship between party HQ and our members to be deeper. The only transaction that seem to go on is when we send out these emails, we ask for money, members send the money, and then you get another email asking for more. It can be much more than that. I think members can help shape our national campaign priorities and they can certainly help the national debate. I’d like our frontbenchers to be able to talk to you more regularly. It’s not always easy to get out of Westminster in the week if they are key votes but if we can have this technology then I don’t think it’s unreasonable that our education team can talk to our teachers and students a bit more often from their desks in Westminster. It’s about building a closer party and that’s partly to do with the way you organise yourself, but it’s also about the culture of leadership that wants our MP’s to be more open and accessible.
Attending CLP meetings may seem boring and bureaucratic to some members. How can we make being active in the local Labour Party seem more dynamic?
It canseem boring and bureaucratic to older members too. I’ve been to some dull meetings in the party. I’m a big fan of Young Labour groups and I hope that we can make sure to push for young members to be able to come together at a constituency or borough level so that they can share in slightly more lively debates. I also think that good meeting skills are important.
One way to get young people involved in politics is to introduce compulsory education into schools. Is this something you would support?
I believe that good citizenship begins in the classroom and it’s important to get young people understanding how politics works and how it affects our lives. Unfortunately, we’re not in government and so we can only make the case from opposition. We do have the power to change things now. We have got the power to educate young people outside of school and this can be done through developing our Young Labour groups and making sure that we’ve got a welcoming party to those young people who are interested in what goes on in their community.
Should there be community hubs where people can go and talk to their councillors and MP’s and to launch campaigns?
I view that one soft power that an MP has is the power to bring interested parties together to apply their wit and ideas to problem solving. I think if you want to stand for the Labour Party then you have to show leadership in your community and bring people together to try and make the world a better place.
Do you think that the Labour Conference will be useful in order to understand the movement?
Yes, the conference is important because it’s our sovereign body; it guides what we do and decides our rules. But it’s not the only forum where we should be shaping our future.
What sets you apart from the other Deputy Leadership candidates?
I shouldn’t be saying this but you’ve actually got five really good candidates running for Deputy Leader and I think we’re all very able and can do the job. I think that a leader has to cast a vision for the country and the Deputy has got to help them realise it. For me it’s about campaigns and elections. I’ve been around a while. I first started collecting polling numbers for the Labour Party in the 1974 election when I was seven years old, and I’ve worked in ten general elections since. I’ve run or been active in about 60 parliamentary by elections, so I think I’ve got a lot of experience in campaigning and elections. I’ve also been a Digital Minister of Britain so I’ve got some knowledge of what is possible with digital technology. I guess I tick the single issue, single minded campaigner box. In the last Parliament I ran campaigns on media ethics and child abuse that have led to two judge led enquiries. So, I guess a have a reputation for being a tough campaigner.
How do you think you complement each of the Leadership candidates?
When you put your name in for the Deputy Leadership job you have to be reasonably confident that you can work with each of the Leadership candidates and I think I can. I’ve worked with all of them over the years from Jeremy to Andy. They’re going to be very different kinds of leaders; you’ve got an array of different views on the direction in which the party should take. I guess my ideas about campaigns and elections can be applied to whoever you choose as your leader. I very much see it as being part of a team. I view this role as being a bridge from the Shadow Cabinet into the different parts of the party.
– End of transcript –
Although the web conference was primarily focused on the role that Young Labour plays within the Labour Party, a whole range of topics was covered, from Labour’s underpinning philosophy to the problems faced by the UK as a result of austerity. I’m impressed that Tom Watson took the time to hold a web conference for members of Young Labour, but I feel like I shouldn’t be. This is something that needs to occur on a regular basis, incorporating all corners of the Labour Party from councillors to campaigners to front benchers. The conference didn’t necessarily help me decide who to vote for in the Deputy Leadership election, but knowing that at least one of the candidates is on the side of young people is definitely something I’ll remember when it comes to filling out my ballot.
The Political Critique 