Jennette Arnold AM becomes London Assembly Chair

17 05 2008

Many congratulations to Jennette Arnold AM (left) who was last week elected as Chair of the London Assembly, becoming the first black woman elected to the post.

The Greater London Authority has a total budget of £11 billion and it is the London Assembly which is the body responsible for holding the Mayor of London to account for how he administers this budget on policing and community safety, transport, fire and the other strategic areas of capital city responsibly.

Jennette was born on the ‘small’ Caribbean Island of Montserrat, where her extended family-home in Long Ground was destroyed in 1996 by the Souffriere volcano.

Ms Arnold said:
“It is a great honour to be elected as Chair of the London Assembly and particularly to be the first black woman to hold the post. This is symbolic of London’s greatest strengths – its diversity, tolerance, inclusion and opportunity for all. That opportunity has enabled me, the daughter of migrants, to rise to hold one of the highest offices in our great city. It’s been a long road from Long Ground to City Hall!
“The occasion brings me special pleasure coming so soon after my role-model and uncle Sir Howard Fergus stood down as Speaker of the Montserrat Assembly and as Deputy Governor.
“I look forward to leading the London Assembly in our key role of holding the Mayor to account for the pledges he has made to London. I aim to work with all colleagues who show themselves interested in moving London forward in a progressive way”.

Ms Arnold was elected to the London Assembly constituency seat for North East London with a majority of over 28,000. This more than doubled her majority from the 2004 result. The constituency covers Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest and is home to a hugely diverse community with over 200 different cultures. In 2007 she was listed among the top 50 of Britain’s most powerful Black Women, published by the New Nation newspaper, and appeared in the Evening Standard’s list of the 1000 most influential Londoners.



What does Obama stand for ?

17 05 2008

Is Obama all spin and no substance asks Tim Caswell.

Barack Obama is a charismatic, eloquent, possibly even sincere, pretender to the United States’ Presidential throne who lacks gravitas and policies. Support for this proposition can be found in every newspaper in the English language. There is a technical term for the journalists who write such drivel – “lazy Idiots.”

They are mostly the same people who told us simultaneously that Tony Blair would do anything to appease public opinion then criticised him for defying half the population to fight fascism in Iraq or prevent ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo. Apparently Blair stood for nothing but changed the Labour Party fundamentally. I can think of one or 50 Labour MP’s who will appreciate him a little more when they sign on the dole for the first time in May 2010 (Things are too bad for my last prediction of a June 2009 General Election to be credible now, although Gordon may have another dither in the autumn next year).

Journalists able to read and operate a keyboard could discover in a few minutes on the Internet that Obama is the only candidate pledging to withdraw all combat Brigades from Iraq within sixteen months of taking office. For fans of detail this will commence 60 days after he takes office and progress at a rate of two Brigades each month. His Health Care plan may be of interest to the 47 million Americans without access to health care even though 9 million of them are too young to vote.

His detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions by eighty percent in the only country in the world with a hole in the ozone layer is ignored as if it were a mere reiteration of an all party consensus. One almost wonders why George Bush and his oil baron paymasters refused to sign the less ambitious Kyoto Treaty.
Promises and policies are easy of course but we all know Obama has no principles or if he does, they must be a closely guarded secret withheld from the world’s press. Good news – the secret is out. All has been revealed between the covers of his book, “The Audacity of Hope – My thoughts on reclaiming the American Dream.”

I cried twice when I read it; once for joy at its lucidity and simple exposition of a philosophy that should be tattooed inside the eyelids of every Social Democrat and Liberal in the world. On a single page Obama links the need to be eternally vigilant in defence of Liberty (after Hobbs, Locke and John Stuart Mill), warns that belief in infallibility leads to the “gulag or the Jihad” (after Karl Popper who thought political dogma was always a short goosestep from a gas chamber) then he mentions the enlightenment.

The second time I cried it was in despair at the ignorance of people who have been walking past his book in Waterstones for several years before denouncing him as lightweight in the allegedly quality newspapers they write for.

But the real indictment is that he is not supported by black people. This must be true; Panorama ran a whole programme on it giving the Revs Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson the chance to vent what religious folks call “doubts.” We were left in no doubt by this pair that our boy was, at best, a coconut and, at worst, an Uncle Tom. Unfortunately for these tribunes of African America, the 90% of Black and Hispanic people who voted for Obama in some primaries obviously don’t watch Panorama. That just leaves the racists and the, “A Liberal can’t win.” merchants who will be dismayed by recent opinion polls showing Mc Cain trailing behind Obama.

Someone asked me recently. “Will Barack Obama be a disappointment?” “Of course”, I replied, “all politicians are disappointments.” As everyone who phones Talk Sport radio knows, running a family is really hard but running a country is easy, so running the free world must be a doddle. Such people are easily disappointed.
Sober reflection might lead one to conclude that Nelson Mandela did not fullfill every promise the African National Congress made during the struggle but most people preferred his “warts an’ all” People’s Republic to P W Botha’s Apartheid. Unlike Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton, Mr Mandela supports Barak Obama and I think he may have a point.

Even disappointing Presidents leave a legacy. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was sleazier than Bill Clinton and his father was thrown out of Britain for supporting the Nazis, leaving his brother Robert to nurture the few real principles the family had.

But visit Runnymeade and read JFK’s words in defence of internationalism and freedom from his inaugural address on the stone that marks the acre of England given to the America people in his memory, and you are reminded why old men like John Kenneth Galbraith described the Kennedy administration as like “Camelot” (The Court of King Arthur not the lottery).

Barack Obama rejected religious domination of politics in a speech last year which has been compared to John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s declaration of independence from the Vatican in Houston in 1960. The similarity does not end there. Bill and Hillary used to be the comeback kids; when Obama wins the nomination and then The White House, the American dream of the founding fathers, democracy and Camelot will all have made a historic comeback.

Tim Caswell is a Labour Party member of over 30 years standing and a writer. His radio play, Extra Time was produced by the BBC and he has written for the film, Nineliveslondon.



This is not terminal

2 05 2008

TMP editor, Chuka Umunna, reflects on last night’s local elections.

“Ken Livingstone has five children by three women” screamed one headline, “Johnson admits using cocaine as a teenager” shouted another.The other candidates for London mayor were never really going to get a look in. Two larger than life characters, oozing charisma, the personification of their politics. This was no ordinary election.

After a decade of national success for the reds, the blues are allegedly on the march and politics has got interesting again, it is said. Last night’s results will be viewed in this context.

It was always going to be a difficult set of results for Labour, though it was not quite as bad as many had expected, with Labour down 162 councillors around the country at the time of writing. However, it is the London result that everyone is waiting for. What happens in the capital will dominate the weekend’s headlines and set the political scene for next few weeks. So what will the London result tell us about the state of the parties and, most importantly, the forthcoming general election? In the short term, it obviously matters; in the long term, its significance is surely questionable.

People may not know what tier of government has competence over which policy area but they do draw a distinction between the local and the national. For example, on the doorstep in Streatham (admittedly not a bellwether seat), the overwhelming majority of voters voiced strong opinions on the two principal mayoral protagonists, but this was mostly to do with their like or dislike of the personalities involved.

When asked about the government and the prime minister’s performance to date, the majority of voters in Labour and non-Labour wards in Streatham were not rushing to judgement, even after the 10p tax rate saga (an avoidable and regrettable mistake made by a party that has lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty since 1997). Many are waiting to see how the PM responds in the coming months.

These doorstep encounters are, of course, not reflected in the polls which suggest a bleaker picture for Labour. But the polls have been bouncing all over the place since last summer and the general election is some time away. There is still a good deal to play for.

For those outside the Westminster bubble, politics is not a game. They want to know how the politics of each party will make a tangible difference to their daily lives. First and foremost they want the government to take the long term decisions to ensure economic prosperity and stability in an uncertain world which affects jobs and mortgages,. But parties need to do more than act as competent managers of UK plc.

Labour must present the public with a vision of the kind of society it wants to bring about if it is to convince voters that it deserves a fourth term. It needs to show that government is not simply a matter of service delivery and management, but about transforming society. Labour needs to clearly and succinctly give the answer to the question “why and for what purpose?” in a way in which people can connect.

Gordon Brown did that in a passionate speech he gave to the Compass national conference four years ago. He said that Labour should seek to create a Britain where “the town square is more than a marketplace, the city centre more than where people buy and sell, the community more than a collection of individuals”. He continued: “a measure of success would be that people think not of the hospital, or even just of my hospital but of our hospital” and in every town and city people would talk “not just of the school or even of my school but talk with pride of our school at the heart of our community.”

He needs to return to that kind of oratory and complete the story so there can be no doubt what Labour is for, what it is doing and where it is going.

Chuka Umunna is editor of TMP.