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impression of the political class desperate to hold onto its privileges has been as damaging as the exposure of an out of date expenses system, totally out of touch with today's standards and expectations.But one thing that puzzles me is why Labour has not taken a more confident ground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.

In the interests of Britain, it is time for George Osborne to go

I have to admit I find myself rather shocked at the depths to which the Tories will go to win power. Even going as far to increase a risk of a run on the pound at the most delicate time for our national economy. Not only do I pity George Osborne for doing more to effectively end his future as a serious politician before it begins, but I find myself extremely angry at his thoughtlessness. He has put himself in the position of someone who has something to gain from a “run” on the pound and is probably now willing it to happen – a chance to say “I told you so”.
We all know there are risks in today’s economy. And the drop in sterling’s value hits many of us in different ways. I was just one of many who saw a trip to America planned months ago suddenly become much more expensive than expected. But I also heard many Americans saying how they might finally plan a trip to England – as it is a “good time to do so”. Sometimes a reduction in currency value can be a helpful correcting mechanism to increase investment by foreign enterprise and visitors from abroad who are also more likely to spend.
It seems to me that there is a pattern in the Tory approach to the economic crisis – to identify a fear, regardless of the probability of it happening, and stoke it up – making it more likely to be a reality. Imagine kids round a camp fire when there are smouldering embers – some trying to put them out, others fanning the sparks and hoping they’ll catch. Neither outcomes are inevitable – but they are a lot determined by the action you choose to take.
Osborne and the Tories made a clear choice – if talking Britain into a deeper recession is what it takes for them to think they can win power, then that is what they will do.
If this shows anything, it also is that Osborne has never really left behind his university debating society and operates, unfortunately for Britain, as if he just needs to get the cheers from his side in the Oxford Union and he can win the day, and no damage will really be done. Well, Britain needs more than that. And dare I say it, it needs a more mature opposition to be working in partnership with the Government. It is surely time for Osborne to go.

The Day America Changed

(This blog is posted on ProgressOnline)
It’s daybreak over San Francisco. The Golden Gate bridge stands glorious and majestic, as America wakes up to a new dawn. A new dawn in self confidence, and its standing in the world. Yesterday I spent the day with the San Francisco Democrats. The phone banks in the office just off Market Street were already packed with people – well over 100 - by 11am. With military organisation, volunteers were told to sit down with a phone and raise their hand, when a phone bank captain would come round with a script and sheet of voter ID. Blitz calls to Pennsylvania were followed by calls to Missouri (pronounced ‘Missoura’), then Iowa, then Alaska. Motivation was kept high by bells on every table “Ring the bell when you find a strong Democrat supporter!” said the sign. And round the room, which resembled a large call centre, spontaneous cheers would be constantly heard as bells were rung and callers shouted out when they found a new democrat. Raffle tickets were given out to volunteers, with occasional breaks in calling when raffles were drawn – a way to keep rewarding callers and hope people stayed longer. And to help reduce the queue for mobile phones, every now and then a “Money for Minutes” bucket would be passed round. People would donate so that a volunteer could dash across the road to buy more mobile phones.
The whole day was like a party. And as Democrat voters asked callers “How are we doing? Have you heard anything?” the same question would go round the tables as people yearned to know what was going on out there. Then the cheer as a “captain” would walk round with some exit poll results on a board – all pointing to the same thing – Obama neck and neck or just in the lead in key swing states. Still people dared not hope too much, just in case.
But Obama had to win, surely. As I talked to activists during the day, from 70 year old Jesse to 14 year old Elijah, it was clear Obama’s campaign had built together an extraordinary coalition of ordinary people from all backgrounds, all wanting, in their own way, and in their own words, change in America. These weren’t just ordinarily active Democrats –the majority of people I spoke to were active for the first time, and like 39 year old Eric from a Republican family, or 66 year old Independent Vicky, this election was a mass reaction to disappointment in what America had become.
At 8pm the long campaign day finally ended. Out of the secret back room came the local campaign director – with someone holding up a new sign saying “It’s All Over – You Did It!” An emotional speech followed, thanking everyone who had been pivotal in the local campaign – including distant friends who had gone to help in other states. Many were tearful as they realised the long hard slog was over. The 21 months for some, who had been involved with Obama from the start of his campaign. Chants of “Yes We Can! Yes We Can!” were replaced by “Yes We Did!” “Yes We Did!” And then perhaps the loudest cheer of the night – when a message went across from the secret backroom like a Chinese whisper to the campaign director giving a speech – an announcement that McCain had conceded.

How will America vote?

Tuesday 4th November 9am.
It’s a bright day in San Francisco. The torrential rain is holding off, and the papers are predicting record turnout in today’s general election. I’m expecting to see legions of people around town wearing the official “I’ve voted” sticker – as the nation goes to the polls.
I heard this morning some interesting views from a neutral but well informed American entrepreneur – the sort of person who embodies the American dream. He has been struck by the how close the two candidates are in the politics – more closely aligned on the middle ground than the country has seen for a long time – and surprising when you consider how divided the country has been.
Perhaps, of course, not that surprising in one way, as you consider where the real battle is likely to be – around the middle ground. However he therefore “liked them both” – though what concerned him most about Obama was whether the was really experienced enough to be President. I understand that isn’t to devalue the hugely developed political skills he does have of oratory, debate and connection. It is just to state a fact, that brings with it a risk factor that votes have to assess for themselves.
This same voter talked about how he has had cause to go to Alaska in recent years and how he has been aware of Palin for some time. Longer than the masses.
And has been impressed by her confidence and tenacity in standing up to corporate oil forces. There aren’t many who will have had a view about her before the elections. And what this clearly shows – albeit from one view of an informed and respected citizen who in his own way is an opinion former, is that the fault lines of this election, even a day before or on the day of poll, remain incredibly close to call.

It is fascinating being in America for the General Election. Not just because the results here will have profound implications for the economy and politics worldwide,but because there is always something to learn from the way America does politics. Voters in California don't just have the ballot for President. There are a host of other smaller elections and votes on measures - or "propositions" which were put on the ballot paper by the legislature or campaigners. I'm browsing the California General Election supplemental guide, which contains one additional measure which has qualified for the November ballot. Proposition 1A is for a safe, reliable high-speed passenger bond act. A YES vote for this measure means "the state could sell$9.95bn in general obligation bonds to plan and partially fund the construction of a high speedtrain system in California, and to make capital improvements to state and local rail services". The guide then goes on to provide "impartial analyses of the law and potential costs to the Taxpayer prepared by a legisative analyst", arguments in favour of and against the ballot measure prepared by proponents and opponents,text of the proposed law and other useful information."
I'm struck by the extent of information provided, and the clear focus not just on arguments but on costs, including a section on "fiscal effect". What strikes me about this system, which I have read about but not previously seen in action, is the respect it has for voters in providing such analysis, more along the lines of what you might produce for a company board, and the greater seriousness which which these votes are then taken.

Civilising Society?

The row over Ross and Brand this week has been fascinating to watch, for the reaction it has triggered and what it says about the BBC. We are remarkably inconsistent in our opinions of what is acceptable, but the growing chorus of anxious complainants suggests we are increasingly moving to a culture of public conservatism (as distinct from morality) when it comes to sex and also violence. Which in some ways may be no bad thing. Have we gone too far? Big Brother being a striking example, when what is clearly encouraged in later series (rather than the early few which were genuinely fascinating to watch) is pretty demeaning behaviour that lowers the tone and encourages vulnerable young people to pursue a life of being a tabloid babe with story after story of sex and "relationships". Two things struck me when listening to Jim Naughtie interviewing Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC trust on Radio 4 today programme yesterday. The first was the rather innocent question which said "Doesn't the BBC have a role in civilising society?". Good question. A more interesting question might be who doesnt have a role in civilising society, and are we going to start a new conversation about de-civilising society? What are the public standards we now want to adhere to? And a second thought, which made me feel incredibly fortunate to be a British citizen. The mild irony of a BBC news programme, interviewing the Chairman of the BBC Trust, holding him accountable to the public about how the BBC behaves. Fantastic listening. Well done BBC.