TMP Online

New Statesman political editor, Martin Bright, has got himself into hot water by attacking the signatories to the Compass statement put out in support of London Mayor Ken Livingstone earlier this week, after it emerged that one of the signatories is his employer, Geoffrey Robinson MP, the owner and publisher of the New Statesman.

Bright’s Dispatches documentary, “The Court of Ken” which aired on Channel 4 on 21 Janaury 2008, attracted much criticism from centre left political activists. Bright (right), interviewed several disgruntled former acolytes and employees of the Mayor for the documentary and said in his New Statesman blog at the time that “like me, many of the people we spoke to had previously been supporters of the mayor, but are now unhappy with the way things have turned out.” Various unsubstantiated allegations were made in the course of the programme.

Seamus Milne (left), associate editor of the Guardian, wrote of the documentary:
“Quite how Channel 4 managed to describe an hour of primetime vilification as a ‘fair and balanced investigation’ with a straight face will be a mystery to most of those who watched a programme without a single supportive interview. Instead, we were treated to a hotchpotch of allegations and denunciations from disgruntled ex-employees and political opponents, ranging from the bizarre and sub-McCarthyite to the more serious but unproven.
“Bright as a representative of Britain’s main centre-left political weekly and Nick Cohen, who has more openly lined up behind [Boris] Johnson, as an Observer columnist…share a broadly neoconservative agenda on Islamism and the ‘war on terror’ – though Bright opposed the Iraq invasion – and that is the central issue that has turned them and their allies against Livingstone.” (continue reading…)

A public opinion poll published by The Children’s Society today, as part of its ongoing Good Childhood Inquiry, reveals a consensus among adults that increasing commercialisation is damaging children’s well-being.

60% of respondents believed that young people’s self-esteem is damaged by the media’s negative coverage of their age group. The poll, conducted by GfK NOP, also highlighted adults’ concern about various areas of children’s lifestyles, with 61% saying that the Government should ban the advertising of unhealthy food and seven in ten (69%) agreeing that violent video games make children more aggressive.

Eighty nine per cent of adults felt that children nowadays are more materialistic than in past generations. Evidence submitted to the inquiry from children suggests that they do feel under pressure to keep up with the latest trends.

(continue reading…)

Leaders from across the centre-left, civil society and from all corners of the UK, have today urged every progressive voter, activist and organisation to get behind the campaign to re-elect Ken Livingstone, in a statement – reproduced below – co-ordinated by the leading left-of-centre pressure group, Compass.  The statements 100 signatories include 18 academics, five people from the arts, MPs Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler, Claude Moraes MEP, Baroness Helena Kennedy, Tony Benn and TMP editor, Chuka Umunna.

“On 1st May London will elect a Mayor. It will either be Ken Livingstone or Boris Johnson. Livingstone has been the front runner for re-election but alarm bells may be sounding.

One straw in the wind was the unprompted comment from a progressive colleague last week that she thought Johnson was going to win. This wasn’t a statement of desirability but feasibility.

Are the centre-left and the progressive voices and organisations of the capital sleep walking into the nightmare of a Johnson victory? Well maybe. But this isn’t just about the politics of London but a battle between the forces of progress versus reaction in the nation as a whole.

Let us be clear. Ken Livingstone is not perfect. Show us a politician who is. But he is not just a serious and skilled politician compared to almost any rival (but especially the horror and embarrassment of the Johnson alternative), Livingstone is a standard bearer for real progressive politics.

That is why this election matters to the nation, not just the capital. Livingstone represents a hope that something better is possible; that a different type of society – is not just some pipe dream of the left – but can be created. This is the reason he is under such severe attack. The Conservatives see a Johnson victory as a springboard to beat Labour at the next general election. They are piling in with every resource to make it happen – not least the negative campaigning skills of the Australian Lynton Crosby.

The lead attack dog is of course the Daily Mail group’s Evening Standard. The Standard is the most influential paper in the country because every decision maker and influencer in London reads it. It is being used day in and day out as a battering ram, not just against Ken Livingstone, but against the ideals of more democratic, egalitarian and sustainable politics. This is not the freedom and independence of the press but the disfigurement of the fourth estate into a blatant propaganda machine for the rich and powerful who fear the re-election of Ken Livingstone. It is indeed the few using their wealth and influence over the many.

And perhaps most alarming of all we see writers and commentators who claim to be ‘on the left’ taking the fight to Livingstone in a way that will only result in a victory for Johnson and all that means for the poor and dispossessed of the Capital and the future politics of our country.

So a battle is being waged in the country and it is time to stand and fight to ensure that Livingstone wins so that the ideals of democracy, equality and sustainability endure and are given new hope.

(continue reading…)

Ahead of the second reading of Labour MP Andrew Miller’s Private Members Bill in the House of Commons today, the TUC has produced a briefing on agency working. TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: ‘Employers cannot claim that agency workers are all fairly paid and then say that it will be prohibitively expensive to pay them fairly. But even their more plausible arguments such as better rights will stop agency work providing a bridge into permanent jobs for the unemployed do not stack up.’ The briefing is below and the CBI briefing on the same topic can be read here.

How many agency workers are there?

The correct answer is that no one knows for sure. The Government’s Labour Force Survey (LFS) says there are around 260,000, but agency trade body the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) claims to place 1.25 million workers on any one day.

The LFS figures are certainly an underestimate as this is a telephone household survey. It makes no effort to trace workers living at their place of work – not uncommon in agency placed workers in the agriculture, hospitality and care sectors – and seriously underestimates non-English speakers, long hours workers, multiple occupation households, which are all characteristic of migrant and other groups high in agency working.

The big difference means that either the REC figures are right and there are up to one million invisible agency workers, who do not show up in official statistics, or the REC figures are an overestimate. The LFS sample is usually used for the statistical profiling of agency workers but is likely to be skewed towards well paid, relatively stable workers. Put simply, it is more likely that a supply teacher will be included in the LFS than a Lithuanian fruit picker.

What issues are at stake?

Unions are supporting two routes for better agency worker rights, and in particular giving agency workers the rights to equal treatment with permanent staff doing the same job.

The draft EU Temporary Agency Worker Directive (TAWD) has failed to make progress since 2002 due to a failure to reach agreement in the Council of Ministers. The UK has led a blocking minority, but there are signs that support for the UK is diminishing and that once the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified, ministers will no longer be able to block progress.

A second private members’ bill on agency workers (moved by Andrew Miller MP) is to be debated in the House of Commons today.  An earlier Bill introduced by Paul Farrelly MP was talked out with Government support.

The Directive is part of a family of three measures to improve protection for what the EU calls atypical workers. Yet the directives to protect part-time workers and temporary workers were passed in 1997 and 1999. Only agency workers remain unprotected.

There is a separate issue about whether there is effective enforcement of existing rights for agency workers, given the many media exposures of exploitation of migrant and other vulnerable workers placed through agencies. The Gangmaster’s Licensing Scheme – opposed by the Government until the Morecambe cockle pickers’ tragedy – only covers some sectors. Unions support better enforcement and licensing, but action on enforcement is not sufficient. Both agency and existing permanent staff deserve protection, by stopping the replacement of secure jobs with insecure agency staff on worse terms and conditions.

Are unions opposed to agency working in principle?

No. As TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has said: ‘There is nothing wrong with agency working. Matching employers with short-term needs with employees with short-term availability or who genuinely prefer working this way, as some do, is not just a perfectly respectable business, but good for the wider economy.’ (continue reading…)

Hot on the heels of his routing of Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in Virginia, Washington DC and Maryland last week, Senator Barack Obama has won the primary and caucus in Wisconsin and Hawaii respectively, giving him 10 straight wins in a row in the race to win the U.S Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. He took 58% of the vote in Wisconsin and 76% of the vote in Hawaii, where he spent time growing up.

Obama’s victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii are less significant than the demographic there that voted for him. Clinton has been carried along by the support of Latino, blue collar, and women voters, but Obama made inroads into the latter two groups this time round. Also, Clinton’s last minute attacks on Obama for allegedly plagiarising the speeches of his supporter, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, appear to have backfired.

Many are now talking of the uphill climb Clinton now faces as the all important Ohio and Texas primaries loom large on Tuesday 4 March. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes:
“All of [the data from Wisconsin] suggests one thing: Obama is building the coalition that Clinton appeared to have built in earlier votes. And without winning back a significant portion of that coalition, it becomes VERY difficult for her to come from behind and claim the nomination.”

(continue reading…)

In a Guardian/ICM poll published today record numbers of people say the gap between the rich and the poor today is too great.  75% of those questioned said the gap between high and low income earners is too wide in Britain – the highest ever level found by ICM – whilst only 15% think the income gap is about right.

The poll also suggests that Middle England is open to a more progressive political message with less middle class voters than lower income voters believing they are paying too much tax.  73% of those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale think they pay too much tax, against 62% of those at the top.  Middle class voters are also more likely to think taxes make society fairer.

(continue reading…)

I’m fortunate to have had the opportunity to travel to many places around the world in my 27 years. One country I’ve never had much desire to visit, however, is Australia. I’ve been told of its beautiful white beaches and wonderful scenery by friends who have visited and lived there, yet I’ve also heard a great deal about a darker side to the country, an ugly racist side, that has – until this week when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued an apology for the racist mistreatment of Aborigines – appeared to be very much a part of Australian culture.

It is a very sad fact of life that people of colour – native Americans, African Americans, Africans, Aborigines – have suffered appallingly at the hands of those who have believed them to be inferior because of their colour. Around the world, black people have been subjected to slavery, colonialism, apartheid, the denial of basic human and civil rights and, in the case of Australia, the legally enforced removal of an estimated 100,000 Aboriginal children from their parents over a 60 to 70 year period. Like other government-led forms of oppression, this policy – which led to many children being placed in homes in which they were abused or brought up as servants – was thought to be for the good of the Aboriginal people.

Finally, Kevin Rudd has done what his predecessors were too weak to do and publicly repented for the sins of his forefathers by acknowledging the significant hurt and damage caused by such misguided and racist policies.

For governments, “sorry” has always seemed to be the hardest word. Both British and America governments are yet to issue full apologies for slavery. It may be too little too late but saying “sorry” is definitely a step in the right direction. Prime Minister Rudd should hope to follow the example of South Africa, where apologizing for apartheid led to the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, which went some way towards healing that racially divided nation.

The importance of a government-issued apology is in its symbolism. Who, when wronged, does not want the perpetrator to recognize, and acknowledge, the hurt that has been inflicted? Most importantly for me, Australia’s apology sends a strong message to white Australians that racism is no longer acceptable. Previous governments which have refused to apologize have essentially told their country that such attitudes and treatment are ok, thus providing silent support for their continuation.

(continue reading…)

Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee and Chair of the Labour Party’s Ethnic Minority Taskforce, introduced his much anticipated 10 minute rule bill – the Race Relations (Election Candidates) Bill – in the House of Commons last week.

The Bill is meant to exclude from the operation of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 certain matters relating to the selection of candidates by political parties. The Bill would allow political parties to adopt positive discrimination measures such as all ethnic minority shortlists – from which parliamentary candidates would be picked - along the same lines as the legislation introduced to allow for all women shortlists.

The Bill is supported by Britain’s most senior, elected, ethnic minority politician, Skills Minister David Lammy MP, who called for the adoption of such measures last June. Labour Party Deputy Leader and Leader of the Commons, Harriet Harman MP (left) was present at the First Reading of the Bill last Wednesday. Harman, has said that four times the current number of ethnic minority MPs need to be elected if the Commons is to reflect the national population. In a speech to London’s South Bank University recently, she said:
“The last General Election saw a net increase of only two minority ethnic MPs taking the total to just fifteen. But we still have further to go. If the chamber is to reflect the make-up of society, that figure needs to increase four-fold.”

Harman announced at the Labour Party Conference last September that she had asked Simon Woolley (right), the director of the pressure group Operation Black Vote to carry out an investigation into the viability of all ethnic minority shortlists. OBV recently won an award at the highly acclaimed Channel 4/Hansard Society Political Awards for its Welsh Assembly Member Shadowing Scheme. Reports over the weekend indicate that Woolley has now presented his final report to Harman. The Observer reported that Woolley concludes that all-black shortlists would be needed for two decades, after which talented candidates could be expected to make it on their own, and he identifies 100 constituencies with large ethnic minority communities as prime targets for such shortlists. (continue reading…)

Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Labour Party’s Ethnic Minority Taskforce,  gave a speech last week in the House of Commons to introduce a Race Relations (Election Candidates) Bill, which would allow the introduction of all ethnic minority shortlists for the selection of parliamentary candidates.  A transcript of the speech is below for TMP readers. 

The United Kingdom is a diverse nation. A snapshot of what it means to be British today would surely provide us with a mosaic reflecting the many cultures, ethnicities and religions that make up our population. Post-war and post-colonial migration flows have enriched our country with more than just numbers of people. Every town, city and region has benefited from Leicester to London, from Wembley to Wigan and from Sunderland to Southall. It is not only the composition of our population that has changed, but the composition of our national identity – our Britishness.

The change in our national identity must be reflected in the way we think of ourselves as a country, represent ourselves to others and, most importantly, in the composition of our Parliament. It is that change that must be reflected, and I intend to address it in my Bill. I am delighted to see the Leader of the House of Commons, who is also the Minister for Women and Equality, on the Front Bench because she has championed the cause of equality throughout her long political life.

There are currently 15 ethnic minority Members of this House: 13 Labour Members and two Conservatives. As the House knows, the 2001 census reported a 50 per cent increase in our ethnic population over the last 10 years. The lack of such representation in Parliament is therefore truly disappointing. If Parliament were to reflect adequately the population of ethnic minority citizens, there would be 58 ethnic minority Members of this House. At the current rate at which ethnic minority Members are taking up seats in Parliament, it would take 75 years to achieve a proportion that would reflect the ethnic minority population of our country.

Since 1987, when I was elected along with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), Mr. Paul Boateng and the late Bernie Grant (pictured right with Vaz), progress has been painfully slow. There were two more ethnic minority Members in 1992, three more in 1997, two more in 2001, four in 2005, and five in by-elections over the last 21 years. It is not that there is a lack of talent, numbers or desire to come to this place, but it is clear that ethnic minorities still face proportionately more hurdles than others in getting elected to this House. This Bill seeks to address the problems of imbalance in representation through the democratic decisions of our political parties, but there is no miracle cure.

The race issue does not have to be divisive; race can be used in a positive way to electrify the political process. Striving for the Democratic nomination in the United States, we have a candidate who embodies the multi-ethnic, multicultural and international character of its society: Barack Obama. Born to a Kenyan father and an American mother, and having spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, Senator Obama is a poster boy for the integration and amalgamation that has taken place globally – the mixing of cultures and consequent reforming of identities.

(continue reading…)

Fresh from victory in Washington, Maine, Louisiana, Nebraska and the British Virgin Islands, Senator Barack Obama is hoping to win the U.S. Democratic primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC today. In the latest poll of polls he leads Senator Hillary Clinton by 17.7 points in Virginia, 22.3 points in Maryland, and is expected to take Washington DC.

Presently Obama has 1144 delegates to the Democratic Party’s national convention in August which will decide who becomes the party’s nominee in the presidential election on 4 November. Clinton has 1138 delegates but, crucially, has more super delegates than Obama – 213 to his 140. Super delegates are made up of current or former elected officeholders and party officials – the party establishment – and are free to support any candidate for the nomination, whereas other delegates are subject to some kind of mandate, primarily based on how their state voted in its primary or caucus. Democratic super delegates are thought to favour Clinton.

(continue reading…)