We Are Labour - A Rallying Call to the Grassroots

Without a doubt, this is a watershed moment in Labour party history. The loss of power at the General Election has given us the greatest signal possible that we need to change. Not only a change of leader, but a change in how the Labour party is perceived. At the last General Election, we earned our lowest share of the vote since universal suffrage (h/t Ed Miliband) and that alone should be a wake-up call of epic proportion. If we could not defeat a party that openly admitted that it would make life difficult for the very people the Labour party was created to defend, then we were getting many things very wrong.

It is a cliché to say that failure is an opportunity but in this case it really is. Labour has achieved so much to be proud of during its thirteen years in government and has implemented some of the most socialist policy this country has ever seen.  After eighteen years of Tory mismanagement of public services, it was up to Labour to put things right. We repaired the crumbling buildings of our hospitals and schools or built new facilities to replace them; we ensured that parents were able to contribute to the workforce with tax credits and childcare support to help them and we ensured that everyone who did work, was paid a minimum wage.

We can rightly point to these achievements as a record we should be proud of but the public need more. The public remember the things we didn't get right, despite the economic downturn being a GLOBAL phenomenon, there are many who still try to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Labour government. There were things we could have done to prevent the bankers having such an impact and this is a lesson we must demonstrate that we have learned.

By far the biggest issue that we must, as a party, prove that we have learned from, is the fact that we did not listen. Members deserted us in their thousands because they felt that there was no point in being in the party when they had the same lack of influence from outside. The party conference became a PR extravaganza and was not about discussion, debate or formulating policy.  Members felt that they were unable to influence policy, so they gave up and walked away. A huge number of people protested against the invasion of Iraq, did we listen?

This is where we failed. Labour became a party that was managed and the leaders created a top-down infrastructure, where policy and process was managed and dictated from above.

This is our chance to put that right. Although I'm sure the grassroots would still rather have a Labour government, the election defeat has handed them the best possible opportunity to reclaim their party. The Leader that we choose must be inclusive, open, willing to share responsibility and ready to listen and, most important of all, to lead us, not manage us. It is time to allow the New Labour brand to fade into history. It served its purpose, made us electable and then, became a caricature of itself, a self-serving parody, with its faults magnified and satirised.

When I hear Ed Balls say that we must “cling on to the foundations of New Labour”, my heart sinks. This is exactly the opposite to what we should do. We must celebrate our achievements and firmly and clearly sound the clarion call “WE ARE LABOUR”. The New Labour label comes with far too much baggage, it is dated, worn and will forever be associated with spin, Blair and Iraq. It is time to move on. As a party we must move forward and look to the future.

What Labour Giveth, Gove Taketh Away

As George Osborne calls for every Cabinet Minister to appear before a panel to justify every single penny of their department budget, we are reminded yet again of just how little the future generation really means to this ConDem Coalition.

While Ed Balls was planning to extend eligibility for Free School Meals, Michael Gove is announcing his plans to cut it. Yet again, those who are feeling the true brunt of the cuts the ConDems seem to relish telling us about, are exactly the ones who cannot afford to take it. The families who were to benefit from the extension of the criteria, were those on the lowest incomes. In addition to ending the stigma that can exist for those children on Free School Meals, the Child Poverty Action Group calculates that 55,000 children would have been lifted out of poverty by this move. As they say on their website:

"Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has the right ’to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development‘. The Government is under a duty to provide ’material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition‘. No child in the UK should go hungry."

Research has demonstrated that school meals are higher in nutritional value than packed lunches, with only 1% of lunchboxes meeting the advised nutritional standards. Further, more than a quarter contained snack foods, sweets, and sugary drinks, items that had been banned under the 2006 standards for healthy eating in LEA schools.  Guidelines stated that school meals are to contain protein-rich foods and low fat starchy foods, in addition to meeting the "five-a-day" requirement for fruit and vegetables. In contrast, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health reported that only one in five packed lunches contained any quantity of vegetables or salad.

The link between good nutrition, good health and learning has long been established and helps children from poor backgrounds to avoid poverty in adulthood. The benefits and positive effects to other services such as the NHS also strengthen the case for protecting this right. 

Ensuring a healthy diet is vital for children from all backgrounds, but ensuring a nutritious meal for children who may otherwise not get one, is an important step and for Michael Gove to dismiss the needs of the poorest in this way, yet again, demonstrates the true priorities of his party.

Why a Strong Labour Leader Will Gladly Give Members a Voice

I hope that the Labour Leadership campaign will bring real choice to the party members. A wide field of candidates benefits us all and allows us to debate the issues, whether they be the economy, education, employment, taxation or immigration. An open discussion is the only way that members will know exactly where each candidate stands on the issues that matter to them.

In exactly the same way that no sensible person would blindly agree with everything their party does, I do not expect that one candidate would have absolutely everything an individual member wants. This is why the leadership hustings are vital to the process and why I would urge all members to try and attend at least one, so that they can find the candidate who best represents their views. 

I am delighted that the contest for a new Leader has opened up debate within the party. This is such a positive step and demonstrates that we are indeed a broad church with members as diverse as Tony Benn and Tony Blair (as someone highlighted to me on Formspring). In exactly the same way that a successful relationship requires give and take and acceptance of differences, as members of the Labour party, we can also respect the diverse opinions whilst celebrating the common beliefs that have kept us together for so many years.


Whoever our new leader is, it is essential that he or she (however remote that possibility may be) acknowledges and encourages the input of the membership.  Consultation and inclusion will ensure that members believe that being on the "inside" is worth it - that they have a direct influence on the direction the party takes. I have spoken to so many former members, who said they left because they felt unwanted and disenfranchised. If we are to reach out to those people, who once stood shoulder to shoulder with us, we have to demonstrate that we have learned from our past mistakes in this regard. This will also enable us to reconnect with the voters who turned away from us in the recent election.

The direction our party takes from this point on should be determined by a strong leader, who understands the importance of listening. As I recently commented on Twitter, "We do not want a manager, we want a voice", a strong leader will not be frightened to give us one.

We Are Choosing a Leader, Let's Play Fair.

As the competition to become the next Labour Leader increases in intensity, it is interesting to see the manoeuvring and commentary from all sides of the political spectrum. I am however, disheartened to see negative campaigning from some quarters within the Labour party.

Campaign for your chosen candidate, by all means, but not by producing guff that could have come straight from the pens of Guido, Dale or the Bear.  I have heard snide comments and read deliberately damaging remarks on blogs and Twitter, some under the faux innocence of “I'm just saying!”.

The Labour party is in a period of huge transition. Most members I know are ready for this and are looking forward to the beginning of a new era. It is a time of hope within the party and with the number of new members joining us, whoever becomes leader must give us an inclusive, truly democratic organisation. One where members matter and know that they really do have a voice when it comes to the important issues, such as policy and selection of candidates.

Whoever the members choose to lead us, should be someone who understands the true meaning of representation. What we do not need is a Manager. We must protect the spirit of democracy and ensure that it is seen to be an integral element of our party's core constitution.

We can return a future strong Labour government, only if we are united as a party. Our strength is in our ability to debate and discuss, this is how the Labour party has survived - we have always been a broad church of members who share a common belief in fairness for all. 

No matter who we would like to see as leader, every one of those who have put their name forward is worthy of our consideration, all have the desire to make a difference and all are committed to restoring fairness to our society.