Nawas Ali and Lynnette Kelly PPC launch campaign for South Yardley ward

Another impressive young Bengali talent makes a political debut today. I was delighted to join Nawas Ali from Birmingham as he kicked off a campaign to win back South Yardley ward for Labour. Meeting with community leaders from the Bangladeshi community as part of the campaign kick off, he and Lynnette spoke passionately and inspiringly about aspirations of new communities, the desire of families to succeed and for parents to see their children grow up with a better quality of life than they had themselves. Lynnette held the audience captive with a moving account of her experience working with Muslims in Bosnia, how they were attacked for being Muslims, but how the desire to stay as part of a multicultural community rather than seek separatism remained important to them. I've no doubt she'd make a fantastic MP - and Nawas a hugely impressive councillor. Birmingham will benefit from his energy and entrepreneurialism.

Gloria De Piero selected to stand in Ashfield

A friend from university days has just been selected to fight the safe seat of Ashfield - vacated by Geoff Hoon. Probably the best thing Geoff has done for the Labour Party in the last week is hand over his seat to a woman who I've no doubt will be a fantastic MP. She's done a fabulous job of being a reporter of independent mind, whilst knowing where her roots are and what she believes in. She now joins the 186 women candidates selected so far to stand in the General Election. Sure, some are in non-safe seats. But many are in winnable if not safe seats. Still not enough though - as a male member of the Labour Party who was a union official negotiating for equal pay for women in the sixties (before Labour's Equal Pay Act) said to me yesterday, we need to see a better gender balance in parliament. For the full list of Labour's women candidates, take a look at
http://www.labourwomensnetwork.org.uk/lwn.html.

At Birmingham Fabians

I had the honour on Friday evening of visiting the Birmingham Fabians at the Birmingham & Midlands Institute to lead a discussion on women in politics and changing our politics to engage more with men and women. It was a fascinating debate, with almost thirty people present from across the West Midlands; from Hereford to Selly Oak to Edgbaston and beyond. It was a testament to the local Fabian group that they have managed to keep alive such a thriving spirit of exploratory discussion about politics, what it means in our lives, and what it can deliver for us. As well as a discussion about whether Labour does ‘Government’ but has not done enough ‘Politics’ over the last ten years, we covered why women, particularly younger women, are very much in a position of “don’t know” on political questions, why opinion is so divided on AWSs, why we should boycott the term ‘Blair Babes’, and why balanced political leadership is so vital for a thriving democracy. The issue of younger voters, particularly women, not feeling like they have a real opinion they feel confident about around the big political questions is a big reason to look for new ways to inform and educate, hence the importance of traditions like the local Fabian Societies. Yet ask them what they feel passionately about and most likely there will be a whole range of issues from the environment, to poverty, to international relations. The deeper point is not that women aren’t interested in politics, but that political systems have become disengaged from ordinary people’s lives and day to day activities. Movements like cooperative initiatives (and as if by magic, the Birmingham Coop movement was meeting in the room next door) and London Citizens are starting the fight back, reconnecting at a grassroots level to help give some anchoring and influence to life locally, countering the feeling of the distant state. Well done Rosa Birch for organising the evening, and inspiring so many new people from a wide range of life experiences for coming along.

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.