“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.

The purpose of this year’s Compass national conference on Saturday 14 June will be to make the case for a more equal society and help change the terms of debate towards greater equality for all across a broad-range of policy areas. 

Helping make the case for greater equality will be major speakers throughout the day including: Neal Lawson, Derek Simpson, Ed Miliband MP (left), Ruth Lister, Douglas Alexander MP (second right), Bea Campbell, Danny Dorling, John Harris, Helena Kennedy, Polly Toynbee (middle), Jon Trickett MP, Jon Cruddas MP (right) and Chuka Umunna, who’ll be joined by other leading figures from across the left and wider progressive community.

For more information, log on to: http://www.compassonline.org.uk/conference/.

I had planned to join the celebrations welcoming the Olympic torch to London but in the end GLA campaign work took over.  Reflecting on the debate and the protests during the day (the torch relay that is, not the GLA campaign!) I was left feeling that most of the coverage had missed the point.

We cannot divorce sport from politics and should not try. People often confuse ‘politics’ for the knock about of Prime Ministers Questions. Real politics is a serious business; it’s about values and choices. It leads to decisions about how we educate our children, care for our elders, look after the environment - and it provides the context in which we live our lives, and establishes the rights and responsibilities we have as citizens.

Sport, especially international sport, shares this context. That is not to suggest that everything that happens in a sporting context is right. Just looking at the Olympic context, who can excuse the murder of Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972? Equally, who could not be cheered by Jesse Owen’s success in Berlin 1936 - a black man beating the so-called ‘master race’? Black civil rights issues reached the medal platform in Mexico 1968 and an American led boycott in 1980 resulted in over 60 countries not sending athletes to Moscow. There are many other examples outside the Olympics and the sports boycott of South Africa is only one.

I judge the merits of these individually, not from the premise that is is essentially wrong to mix sport and politics.

In the case of the 2008 Bejing Games, sport is being used as a carrot - China has been awarded the games with the expectation that the current dictatorship will change its ways. The demonstrations supporting Tibetan autonomy and reminding us about human rights outrages in China quite rightly used the  opportunity to get their message over.

Jennette Arnold AM is London Assembly Member for Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest.  She is Deputy Chair of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust and Chair of the London Health Commission.  For further information log on to her website - www.jennettearnold.com.
   

He delivered his last speech – “I’ve been to the mountain top” – the day before at the Mason Temple in Memphis and, in closing, had said:

“Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land.”

To mark the occasion, we have included an extract of that last speech here:

Signatories to the letter include Patrick Stewart, Vivienne Westwood, Colin Firth, A C Grayling, Iain Banks, Ken Loach, Sir David Hare, Nick Broomfield, John le Carre and Labour peer Lord Ahmed.

The letter calls on the Government to abandon proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. It states that extending the limit would damage community relations and undermine human rights protected by international law. It concludes:

“Habeas corpus, which safeguards people from arbitrary detention by the state, is the bedrock of British justice. A convincing case that it should be eroded has not been made by the Government. The case that it should remain has been made for nearly 800 years.”

Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said:

“‘The consensus against 42 days detention without charge is growing stronger and stronger. Despite a serious effort by the Home Office to ’sell’ these proposals, they have failed to make a convincing case.

“MPs should refuse to be part of this assault on UK civil liberties and oppose any extension of pre-charge detention limits. There is a real opportunity to defeat this Bill and take a stand for human rights.

“The British public can do their bit too - we shouldn’t sit back and let our rights be taken away. We must tell the government that these draconian measures are a step too far.

“Police in this country should not be allowed to lock someone up for six weeks without even charging them with a crime. Habeas corpus has long been a fundamental principle of Britain’s judicial system and it should not be undermined.”

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith MP has insisted that the increase to 42 days is needed and “would only come into force in exceptional circumstances, and would only last for a temporary period before automatically lapsing”.  Making the case for the measure on the Compass website in February, she said:

“[The measure] would be subject to judicial and parliamentary oversight throughout.

“Countering terrorism and preventing violent extremism is one of the most important priorities for government.

“It is an effort which goes much broader and deeper than the provisions of the Bill, bringing together central and local government, police and enforcement agencies, faith and community organisations to prevent people becoming terrorists in the first place by challenging extremist ideology and by supporting communities in rooting out its influence.”

Observers will be watching keenly to see whether finally, after years of misrule, the Movement for Democratic Change’s Morgan Tsvangirai or former government minister Simba Makoni can topple President Robert Mugabe and, if so, whether the country’s secrutiy forces will abide by the electorate’s decision.

Ahead of this tumultuous day, Dr Knox Chitiyo, head of the Africa Programme at the Royal United Services Institute, has written an overview of the political situation in Zimbabwe for Chatham House which can be read here.

The report – Immigration, faith and cohesion – published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, was written by a team at the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) at Oxford University. It looked at what factors contribute to, or undermine, community cohesion in three urban areas in England with large migrant and Muslim populations.

Most migrants felt there was no conflict in having a sense of belonging to both Britain and their country of origin. Sixty per cent of long-term Muslim residents born outside the UK said the people most important to them were in Britain.

Co-author Hiranthi Jayaweera from COMPAS (right) said: ‘Evidence suggests that it is discrimination and the perception of being unwelcome, rather than attachment to their country of origin, that reduces migrants’ sense of belonging in Britain.’

Ninety-nine per cent of recent Muslim migrants strongly emphasised democracy, justice and security as the top reasons for living in Britain. Researchers also found that Muslims and non-Muslims shared a common concern about the problems of crime, drugs and pollution in the areas where they lived.

A good introduction to life in Britain through established communities was found to be a key way in which Muslim migrants were helped to integrate with wider British society. In the areas studied, new migrants relied heavily on established Muslim communities for the support and advice they needed on first arriving in Britain. Recent migrants from non-Muslim backgrounds in these areas said they felt more isolated.

Co-author Tufyal Choudhury said: ‘The report shows the importance of family and friends in providing support for new migrants. Consideration should be given to how the role of established communities can be enhanced within a broader strategy towards the induction of new migrants into employment and community life.’

The findings also challenge perceptions of Muslim women as being isolated from wider society. The researchers looked at how different groups interact with each other and found that Muslims, including women with family responsibilities, interacted with people from other religious and ethnic backgrounds in different settings, and broadened their social networks over time in the UK. Both new migrants and established residents emphasised the important role played by schools, colleges and work places in bringing local people together.

Regardless of whether or not people think Barack Obama is capable of being the next president of America, he has shown himself this week to be one of the greatest post-civil rights thinkers of this generation. Many people – both black and white - now feel that the polarized, divided, white-versus-black rhetoric of leaders from the civil rights era is outdated, yet no senior politician or public figure has been able to offer a new cohesive vision or understanding of modern day American race relations.

The Civil Rights movement was an extremely important part of American history. The vocal, often angry, finger-pointing, in-your-face nature of civil rights leaders was necessary and appropriate for the time. That energy was needed in order for crucial changes to take place. Today though, as the media storm about Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s comments have shown, that kind of presentation of America’s racial problems is seen as divisive and turns people off. Those who have not been brought up watching a fight for basic rights simply do not understand black people who talk about race in that way.

Post Civil Rights, America appears to have struggled somewhat in an effort to find a newer political and social vision that incorporates the racial challenges of today, resulting in less than honest or open discussions about the topic. For example, it’s only recently that people believe that the issue of race has become a core issue in the American electoral campaign yet it has been discussed, albeit indirectly, almost daily. Barack Obama went a long way towards directly addressing the issue that this week with his brilliant “Perfect Union” speech.

Few find it easy to discuss race in a way which is not divisive or inflammatory. Obama’s speech showed that race can be discussed and presented in a way that takes in the concerns of all people of all colours and addresses them in a progressive manner, whilst also taking history and its present-day ramifications into account. He does not discount the anger felt by some sections of the black community, nor the anger felt by some white people. He recognizes that all viewpoints are legitimate. The question that he addresses – the most fundamental question – is how to move forward from that.

Moving forward requires looking at the real issues, rather than simply putting problems down to racism or racial differences. The young men standing on the corner selling drugs are not there because they are black. They are there because, as Obama says, many of “…the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.” Despite that recognition, however, Obama still calls on the black community to be responsible and take positive action in spite of difficulties.

Obama was right to say that the comments made by both Geraldine Farraro and his own pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright are expressions of the complexities surrounding race. Indeed race is a complex issue, which until now seemingly had no unifying path. Blacks and whites in America have come closer together, but in many ways still remain so distant and still view each other with some suspicion. Obama, however, points out that the unifying factor is that ultimately all Americans want the same thing: a better future. As he says: “…we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes;…we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.” It’s so simple but yet has been so hard to reach and so hard to articulate.

I was thoroughly impressed by Obama’s speech. Anyone who has questioned Obama’s ability to understand the challenges facing African Americans should no longer be in doubt that this is a man with a very deep and thorough understanding – and forward thinking vision – of race in America today. He clearly also understands how race affects and impacts on white people which is vital because difficult race relations is a problem for all of America, not just some sections of it.

Obama’s speech is not only relevant to America. All western countries can benefit from Obama’s vision and I hope our own UK government will read his words and reflect.

Here is the New Stateman’s Andrew Stephen bemoaning the media’s treatment of Barack Obama in January:
“Obama’s relationship with the press and the electorate is still at the stage of starry-eyed infatuation. Yes, he is a mesmerising political orator who offers a magic elixir that somehow contains both stimulants and sedatives: that we need not worry about the present or future, because we can look forward to a new dawn of hope and reassurance in the safe hands of President Obama. Exactly how and why this would happen is not clear, but it is heady and exciting stuff.”

Pondering why the Democratic nomination race has become so fractious, the New York Times’ Paul Krugman said shortly after Super Tuesday back in February, in a piece entitled “Hate Springs Eternal”:
“I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”

So readers of TMP may be amused to watch this video clip of an Obama supporter being interviewed by a reporter who appears to presume the said supporter has no knowledge of Obama’s policy positions or how they differ from the other Democratic candidates, but is simply a fan of the Democratic candidate’s personality. The reporter finds it turns out to be quite the opposite with this Obama fan.