Were the BBC right to give Nick Griffin respectability?

The following interesting piece is from a press release from an academic at Warwick University. Food for thought. In a democracy and in a society with a social conscience we have choices to make, and where those choices contribute to particular outcomes we need to take that share of the responsibility. For me the most useful thing that came out of the BNP broadcast on Question Time was the clear cloak of respectabily that Nick Griffin displays being just that. A cloak, which masks what he really stands for. Behind his leadership is an acceptance amongst a BNP supporting sub culture of the righteousness of attacks on gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, people with obesity, Jews, Muslims and anyone else seen as different. The arbitrary cut off of the post Ice Age population of those who "belong here" vs those who might have a right to be here under certain terms (but far from equal terms) is beyond belief, but not beyond possibility if we do not see a concerted attempt to outvote the BNP everywhere, which is the best weapon we have in a democracy.
The second thing that came out more strongly than before, which is where leading politicians like Jon Cruddas and Liam Byrne have been pushing the debate already, is for the mainstream parties to tackle the tough issues on the ground that people, particularly those in more deprived areas, actually face and their perception of who is on their side. Where the vote for the BNP has been a protest vote against the seeming lack of concern by the main parties, this absolutely must be put right, and we need to keep pressure on the main parties to do so.

Extract from Warwick University website press release from Dr Tim Shields:

"The forthcoming appearance of BNP leader Nick Griffin on Thursday’s Question Time panel has led Dr Jim Shields, an Associate Professor in French Studies at the University of Warwick, to recall what happened after the first appearance of far right French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front National (FN), on a key French TV programme in February 1984.
The programme was the prime-time evening L’Heure de vérité (The Hour of Truth) on channel Antenne 2 (one of what was then three main French TV channels). On it, politicians were questioned for an hour by a panel of journalists before a live audience. The show had many parallels to the UK’s Question Time - in its topicality, its political focus, and the fact that getting invited on it was the mark of being, or becoming, a nationally significant politician.

Dr Shields says:
“This was February 1984, when Le Pen and the FN were still almost entirely boycotted by the media, and electorally insignificant (more insignificant than the BNP today). The programme attracted a lot of opposition and large viewing figures. Le Pen acquitted himself well, under pressure, and dispelled something of his 'bogeyman' image. In the days following, the FN reported a rush to join, raising its claimed membership to 30,000. This was an implausible claim - real membership probably rose to less than half that figure - but it is clear the TV programme had a real impact in legitimising Le Pen and drawing new people to his party.”
“Just after the programme went out, voting intentions for the FN in the European elections of June 1984 doubled, from 3.5% to 7%, and in the election itself the FN would score fully 11% (2.2 million votes). It should also be noted that after the programme, in a Figaro-Magazine poll, those with a 'positive opinion' of Le Pen rose to 13%, and then rose again to 17% by summer 1984.

“This single hour on prime-time television paid huge political dividends for Le Pen and the FN - a real milestone passed in political acceptability. In his autobiography, Le Pen would point to that TV programme as the start of his political rise, calling it 'the hour that changed everything'. If the clock ticking down to Thursday evening on the BNP's website is anything to go by, Nick Griffin anticipates a similar effect from his appearance on Question Time.”

Dr Jim Shields is an Associate Professor in French Studies at the University of Warwick."

Leadership - is it relative?

A comment today that I heard in a panel discussion this evening with a FTSE 100 Chairman led me to wonder whether we all mean the same thing when we talk about leadership. In his view, the leadership he was talking about - the leadership that is real in his world - is running a FTSE 100 company. In discussion with a group of emerging women leaders, he went on to ask who really wants to be a leader. Because leadership was lonely; at the very top there is no-one to consult with; the decisions are all yours, with advice from others that is very often biased. Thousands of lives can depend on your decision. His comments generated some fiery discussion, particularly from those who thought he was fundamentally trying to put women off leadership as he saw it. His intention he said was almost the opposite; in fact, as an orphan, at boarding school and through his life he had been groomed for loneliness, and hence was able to cope with life at the top. I found the whole exchange a fascinating human insight into the world of the sort of person I rarely meet, but often talk about. And whilst it sounded like it was far from a joyous experience, it was one from which all can learn, about the real challenge of life at the top and coping mechanisms if you see the space you want to step into, but know you were not groomed for. The exchange also led me to ponder what a leadership heirarchy might look like, particularly if you took as the starting point the leadership of a FTSE 100 organisation, and how aspects of leadership might cascade from there if we saw leading companies as the pinnacle.

Could a soft power partnership between Parliament and the People finally change our democracy?

At a packed room in SOAS tonight, Young Fabians and Fabian women came together to talk about Revisioning our democracy. It was a fascinating debate, with discussion around women in politics, hard and soft power and lessons from Abroad. Brazil has a fascinating experience of democratic spaces that operate outside of formal political structures; spaces in which citizens come together to make or veto decisions; spaces, as they were described, with "teeth". What was interesting is the fact that the democratized culture of Brazil is in someways a conseqence of the fight against oppression, that equalised the nation. It was an engine of injustice from which new and power sharing democratic structures emerged. It did lead to the question as to what might end up being the deep drive for change in Britain; the position of unempowerment or disempowerment that collectively results in a united move for change and consensus on new models of democracy. But perhaps that wont be our evolution. Perhaps the haves and the have nots in terms of power are too split and disunited in our society to lead us to have a journey like Brazil into a new democratic reality. It might well be that the Fabian inevitability of gradualness is how our change comes about, perhaps with a little radicalism inserted from the women and youth. For coverage of the discussion, visit www.next-left.org.

The choice of our time

I was on my way back today from a Unite meeting when I was thinking about possibilities - the need to get new people into unions and political life - and whether we should be defeatist or keep going with the fight back after a disastrous Norwich North result. In some ways I've been in discussions like this every year since 1997; discussions with people who think Labour has lost its soul; arguments that the worst Labour Government is still better than any Tory Government. The issue now however is quite stark; there is no room for luxurious debate. Within one year, the election will have happened. Decisions we make now - individually, or in terms of policy and organisation will deliver one of two outcomes: a Labour or a Tory Government. But Labour needs now perhaps to do less and deliver more, as well as show what it has delivered in terms of outcomes for Britain, and outcomes for individuals. People need to know what they and the country are going to lose by not voting Labour; Labour needs a clear statement on this with a vision of the country's future too, that people can then choose to invest in when they come to vote at the ballot box.

The Power of Networks to Give Voice to the Voiceless

The Fabian Women's Network runs its own events, but also raises the profile of outside campaigns. One example is he VDay campaign. This is a campaign to stop violence against women, and in particular sexual violence against women as a tool of war, as is happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 1100 women a month are being raped, some again and again, by different armies, as a way also of destroying families and communities and gaining access to natural resources. It’s a horror story happening every day. But it won’t stop until the voiceless have voice – and part of what women around the world can be are amplifiers of that voice to our own politicians.

Delivering change through Networks

Something that I myself really came to appreciate last night was the power of networks and communications to bring about change. When we founded the Fabian Women's Network four years ago, we wanted to create a unique space in which women can engage in debate, discussion and networking. But that isn't an end in itself. It's also a means to achieving more. A real benefit that came home to me last night was the importance of networks to help an individual work out their own path in public life (or other sphere) – their stepping stones.
A common story I hear from older women who we see as having "made it" is that yes, they have got to the "top" but it was a harder journey and took a longer period of time. This was much to do with the difficulties of navigating choices particularly around work/life balance that women face more than men at different stages of their life. So one of the things I took away is how as women we can, and need, to support other women work out their stepping stones and negotiate their pathways efficiently and confidently.
This would have benefits not just for the individual, but for the country. Take some examples of our public life. Women currently form over 50% of the population, but 33.3% of public appointees; less than 20% of Parliamentarians; 13% of University heads and 10% of High Court judges. But there is no point talking about more women coming forward if we don't recognise and address much more the emotional and practical barriers that women face, but also recognise some of the very simple interventions - often one to one - that can help a woman move forward at her next cross roads. All of us have something we need but also something we can give. Being part of a network gives the opportunity both to give and take, and see social change begin to happen.

Now is not the time to walk away from Politics

Well over 200 women turned out for the Fabian Women's Network in Westminster this evening, to mingle, chat, hear a few politicans and plot how they can change the world. In large and small ways. What was remarkable was not just that women turned out en masse for such an event, but the small details that became apparent. People turning up for their first Fabian/FWN event. Some people standing for council in their areas for the first time - and standing for Labour. People joining the Labour party and the Fabians - all during one of the worst times our politics has seen. One could almost start to feel the wall of resistence that was starting to form in defence of politics, and indeed a bigger sense that now was not the time to walk away; now was the time more than ever to come into politics and help change it for the better. In such a time we also see the Downing Street Project building a coalition of women to think about the brand of politics in a new way; not to react against politics, but for women to engage more strongly with it. It is almost counter cyclical - happening at a time of low public confidence. But it is another sign also that there is more to politics than expenses, and in dealing with the crisis and issues around expenses we must still defend politics and, when necesary, stand up and be counted.

Labour needs to be more confident on the expenses crisis

There is no doubt that the expenses issue is a constitutional crisis, the likes of which I do not think we have seen in our time, not may see for another generation. In 100 years time, what we are going through will be the a key topic I am sure in many a GCSE student's history and politics class. It is hugely serious, and enormously sad. I for one feel enormously let down by politicians across all parties who have clearly done the "unforgiveable" - simply because they could.Perhaps it is the final trigger that will bring the parliamentary expenses system into the 21st century.

I have never understood why expenses whether for Westminster or Europe were so loosely defined. Perhaps this comes from having had a career in the private sector, where my expenses have always had to be backed up by receipts, scrutiny was clear, and accountability was clear. As well as the finance teams monitoring expenditure and rules, so did the business you were in. For projects I have run, I had to estimate project expenses and be accountable to the business for costs incurred. Accountability, and clarity of accountability is a jolly good thing.

The crisis we are currently going through has been exacerbated I believe by Labour's reluctance to get on the front foot. I knew from talking to journalists a year ago that this was the issue political journalists were going to hold on to like a dog to a bone. It was never going to go away. The end result we were going to arrive at, by hook or by crook, was transparency of the expenses. There is no doubt this fervour by the media would have been fed by inside information that was not in the public domain; they knew the extent of the story perhaps more than politicians and certainly the public. Politicians may have known about their own expenses but very little about each others; hence the system blindness that led do a total underestimation of this issue.

That's why for the Speaker to have led the resistance in making expenses information public has been perhaps the biggest tactical blunder. And I for one would join the calls for him to go. The resistance to making this information public only delayed the inevitable, and the resulting impression of the political class desperate to hold onto its privileges has been as damaging as the exposure of an out of date expenses system, totally out of touch with today's standards and expectations.But one thing that puzzles me is why Labour has not taken a more confident ground on this issue. It is Labour that came in in 1997 with a desire to clean up British politics. Political donations reform through the PPERA has meant that for the first time all can see who is potentially pulling the purse strings of political parties. The removal of hereditary peers; unquestioned for generations, and against which as an injustice the expenses system is like a younger cousin. Freedom of Information - courageous and morally right. Labour brought it in. And once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot push it back it in.

We should still be the rightful leaders to sort out the expenses system - it has been the predictable consequence of what we began in 1997. And even at this time, I am proud to be Labour, and that the exposure of this issue would most likely not have happened without my party. But it means that now we need to find the courage to step forward and to consistently be leaders not followers on this issue.

But to do that is going to require real clarity. Clarity on who is in charge, and who we want the public to know is in charge. Clarity on how to respond to the public mood. Clarity on how the parties must work together - things will only change if consensus is reached. Clarity on how we think the expenses rules should change, which were clearly wrong and in which there is no public confidence. Clarity on who is accountable for the system, including the fees office who I hear have apologised to some MPs for the advice they gave; but who had a responsibility to the public on this and have little defence for what they have allowed to happen.

No crisis in insurmountable in my opinion; no valley of despair is so deep that there is no way out. There is always a way forward, and it may well be a long march. But with confidence, a clear view of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and communication of this, tough action against Labour MPs who have crossed the line (e.g Elliot Morley and David Chaytor), but equally defence of those who have been potentially libelled or certainly unfairly treated in this frenzy (e.g. Phil Woolas, Ed and Yvette).

This is vital; MPs who have either minor misdemeanours or factually incorrect allegations against them should not be listed alongside the potentially criminally fraudulent; they should not be hung out to dry or given to the lynch mob that is the Tory led media. Gordon's leadership is not under challenge; but his support could start to fall away if the party does not show it is prepared to defend the right-doers as well as punish the wrong-doers. We will start to see an "each person for themselves" response that will simply lead to death by 1000 cuts.This story has a long way to go before it ends. But by being leading player, we might yet be surprised at how this story starts to turn, where the public mood goes and the confidence in politics that could and should start to return. We really should take the moral high ground on this issue and find the courage to do it, that we know is there in our leaders and in our party values more widely.

The 50p tax needs a stronger narrative or it will cost Labour dear

Some time ago I was aware of the YouGov/Fabian poll result that showed levels of public approval for a 50% tax rate for the rich. Earlier Fabian research has also shown support for higher tax rates particulary where hypothecated for public services. This is not a new conversation, but it was a huge and significant leap for (New) Labour as it finally opens the door to attacks that the Labour of high taxes and uncontrolled public expenditure is back.
I personally do not believe that the party of old is back. I also believe it made economic sense (as well as political sense) to make the move in the budget in April though I would not on previous signs have expected a jump above 45%.
Even so, we are in tight economic times and every part of society needs to play its part. My concern is not so much with the 50% tax rate, but with the lack of a clear narrative as to why we have done it, that keeps the wealthy parts of society bonded in common purpose with the poorer parts of our country.
Labour has been successful not because it has stood up for one section of society, but because it supported aspiration for all parts of society. You could be poor, you could be on middle income, you could be rich. But Labour was on your side as you developed your talent, pursued your dreams and supported yourself and your family. And through this was a common ambition for Britain. Cool Britannia with a loose tie and rolled up sleeves, despite cycnicm, I believe is still a contribution to our culture and our modern story of our nation.
I do not think the wealthy, even the socially aware, will now believe Labour is the party for them, without a narrative as to why the tax rate was needed. Was it about fundamental consideration of fairness today and economic necessity in the interests of Britain? Was it punishment of the rich generally just for being rich? Do we see all wealthy people as proxies for risk taking irresponsible bankers?
It should be the former. Indeed I don't really want to subscribe to a mob-like mentality that indiscrimately seeks a social "out group" that can be blamed for everything. The 50p tax should not be about punishment for the wealthy, but part of a clear and well communicated story of how the nation needs to move next, and why this is necessary and fair to do at this stage.
It is vital we maintain a cross-class progressive consensus that we have held together for twelve years, and I do believe that many of those who are better off would recognise that the burden needs to be shared. Wielding the axe against the rich indiscrimately with no clear message to accompany the act may make us temporarily feel better, but could cost Labour dear in the long term.

The Power of Dreams

When you look at the people who have made real changes to our world, our expectations or our way of thinking, there are often common characteristics you associate with them. We call them inspiring, inspired perhaps, determined, passionate, committed to their cause.

But what is also a powerful force behind the movers and shakers of our world is the power of the dream. An account of Walt Disney as an entrepreneur on the American website YoungEntrpreneur.com describes this beautifully in the article Inside The Magic Kingdom: How Disney Achieved Success. It reads: "He Followed His Dreams: “You reach a point where you don't work for money,” Disney said. He reached that point early on in his career; he had pursued his passion to the point where he had made it successful and his work became a pleasure. "

I believe there is a lot more we can do to nurture the entrepreneurial spirit in our nation. And that what will result is an increasingly powerful nation, empowered and confident through the creation of dreams and the courage to realise them. It is not just Martin Luther King and other greats of our world who have had dreams; dreams that have inspired others even beyond their own lifetime. It is an experience we all have before we condition ourselves to shut down our out of the box thinking about how the world can be different. On the first day of Labour's thirteenth year in power, I'm going to state my dream; that this country comes alive with spirit that each person has to change their life and the world around them.

The Day the Tories said Goodbye to the Women's Vote

(This blog was also posted on LabourList today)

The attacks on Harriet Harman at Business Questions were the most vicious and sexist I have heard for a long time. She was right to not dignify their questions with an answer.
It is beyond me why valuable time in Parliament, at a time of recession and a need for hope and confidence in our country, that the Tory frontbench finds it is more productive to talk about the shoes that women MPs are wearing.

If the Tories want to talk about their record on women in political life, then yes, let’s have that debate.

They talk about having had the first woman Prime Minister. So what was her record?
At which point did Margaret Thatcher have six or more women in her Cabinet, which we have seen almost consistently under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? At which point, under and since Margaret Thatcher, did the Tories have the majority of women in the House of Commons? Currently women make up more than 50% of the population, but 19.4% of MPs. After the 2005 election, the Tories had 17 women MPs, and the Labour Party had 98. Even the Liberal Democrats are hot on their tails with 10 women MPs.
So maybe we should take a look at local councillors. At 2008, we had 30.8% of women councillors. 0.8% of councillors (149) are ethnic minority women. Of these 149 heroines of our nation, 20% are in the Tory councillors, and 64% are Labour councillors.

Perhaps we should move to the positive action measures the Tories have in place. The A list? Say no more.

No, yesterday was truly the day that Cameron’s Conservatives showed themselves to be what they really are – and how stuck in the past they are. And the point is that individual Tory women MPs may want to see things change, but they will never have the critical mass of numbers of women at the top in the Tory Party that research shows any organisation, public or private, needs in order to turn things around and shake up the deeper cultural issues that hold back progress.

The demonstration of the Tories at Business Questions of the kind of Yah Boo politics that turns women off politics. Their performance was about playing to their schoolboy chums on the back benches, not about playing a public role in the nation’s political life.
Politics should be about principles and about debate. Not a debate about women’s attire that would be more appropriate for the sort of debate Parliament might have expected 200 years ago. If there is such disrespect for women politicians on the side of the Tories, how can women ever expect that they will be defenders of their needs and rights in Parliament.

Yesterday was truly the day that the Tories said goodbye to women’s votes. Every woman (and principled man) should listen to the debate and spread the word

Let a Million Women Rise

(This post was also posted on LabourList this week)

A shocking news story this morning about the murder of Katie Summers, stabbed to death last year in a frenzied attack by her ex-partner is a stark reminder of the risk to their lives that many women, often unsuspecting, come to face in their own homes. The IPCC are launching an investigation into the police handling of Katie’s murder. Just 24 years old and with two young children, she had called them in the days leading up to her death, following multiple incidents of domestic violence.

It is also an important reminder about the relevance and symbolism of International Women’s Day. I spent Saturday marching with 6,000 other women, on the Million Women Rise march through the heart of London. The aim was to make a simple statement: it is time to end violence against women.

I hadn’t had any particular expectations of the day, but by the end of the march, I became convinced that those I had walked with were some of the bravest women in Britain. Many not just victims, but now fighters for change. One woman I talked to had been a rape victim. She said that violence against women needed not just a political response, but a change in social attitudes – a much greater awareness of its prevalence and of its impact. A second was a woman who as a child had witnessed violence at home – and grew up thinking it was normal. She wanted to stop children also being the hidden victims of domestic violence. A third recounted the sexual attack on her by a stranger when young; now much older, of course she coped but the trauma left her unable to walk in woods for ten years, and in many ways the crime still lived with her every day.
We can become quite immune to some of the numbers. Up to 600,000 incidents of domestic violence reported each year in the UK. Around 5% of rape claims ending in conviction. Two people a week murdered, just like Katie, by their partner or ex-partner. But the Million Women Rise march was not just about British women, and the violence that so many face behind closed doors. Gender has a relevance across class and across countries.

The march was also to remind us about how violence is used against women as a weapon of war, and how Britain, and British women, can offer support to women victims in other nations. And the feedback from the international speakers was a huge reminder of how significant such solidarity can be.

The march organisers (all volunteers) have a simple aim – that the march grows each year, and as it does so, awareness grows of violence against women, and what needs to be done about it. They hope that soon One Million Women will be marching together – as a statement of support for the victims of the on average 1500-2000 known incidents every day in the UK, and the millions more across the world. As Sabrina, the founder, said to me “There are 30 million women in the UK – why can’t we get one million to join us?”

One big takeaway from the march, particularly in the new Age of Obama, the king of grassroots connection, was the absence of politicians with the exception of Margaret Moran MP. A stark reminder that politicians with hard power need to do much more to connect to passion power – as part of staying relevant to people and the issues they campaign on. And in doing so, they will also learn a great deal.