It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Sunday, September 15, 2024
Keir Starmer in Washington: Should the UK back Ukrainian strikes into Russia?
James Moules
13th September, 2024
Credit: photowalking/Shutterstock.com
Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is set to meet US President Joe Biden in Washington today amid mounting speculation Western allies could green-light Ukrainian use of their missiles to strike inside Russia.
Ukraine has long pushed for greater licence in its use of Western weapons – including Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles – as the country fights back against the Russian invasion.
But many Western leaders have shown reluctance to allow this since the conflict began, over fears it could lead to wider escalation.
However, supporters of Ukraine argue the nation needs the ability to hit targets inside Russia to be able to stage an effective resistance – and point to Russia’s use of foreign-sourced munitions against cities in Ukraine.
Responding to remarks by Russian President Vladimir Putin – who suggested last night granting this permission would be treated as the “direct participation of Nato countries” in the war – Starmer said: “Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia can end this conflict straight away.”
MSPs called on to tackle Scotland’s public debt crisis
MEMBER OF SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
SEPTEMBER 11, 2024
The acclaimed Aberlour Children’s Charity joined with Govan Law Centre yesterday to call upon MSPs to make transformational changes to the way public debt is collected in Scotland to help end child poverty.
Both Scottish charities hosted a Scottish Parliament event that pressed MSPs to support a transformational law reform bill, which would include radical initiatives to change the way public bodies in Scotland collect debt to ensure children are not trapped in, or pushed into, poverty.
Low-income families across Scotland are facing a growing debt crisis, with public debts such as council tax arrears, rent, and school meal debts trapping them in an unbreakable cycle of poverty. Aberlour’s research and frontline experience found that 75% of the total debt supported by their Tayside Hardship Fund was to pay off debts owed to public bodies.
Aberlour and Govan Law Centre are also calling on the Scottish Government to take immediate action to reform the current public debt recovery processes, which often punish, rather than support, struggling families.
Amongst other measures, the charities are advocating for permanent support to parents in school meal debt, as well as a unified, compassionate approach to debt management that prioritises the well-being of families and children over punitive collection practices.
The charities are saying clearly that the Scottish Government must change course from the current public debt collection approaches to ones that actively support families in overcoming financial hardship.
Positive government intervention is essential not only to alleviate the financial strain on families but also to improve mental health, strengthen family well-being, and prevent issues such as homelessness and the potential loss of children to care systems.
“I felt like I was stuck in a hole and couldn’t get out,” said one parent supported by Aberlour. “Debt is like a shadow you can’t escape,” agreed another.
SallyAnn Kelly OBE, Chief Executive of Aberlour said: “At Aberlour, we stand at the forefront of supporting Scotland’s most disadvantaged children and families. Scotland, and indeed the entire UK, are facing a debt crisis that demands urgent and radical action. Public debt is a key factor in entrenching and increasing child poverty, and those burdened by debt need support, not punishment.
“We are delighted to be working with the Govan Law Centre to urgently call for new legislation that reforms public debt recovery processes. Government intervention is essential to relieve the crushing debt burden on disadvantaged families, enabling them to thrive. The welfare state should be a safety net, not a financial trap.
“Public bodies, including governments, should help people escape debt rather than trapping them in unsustainable and unmanageable financial situations. Positive government interventions to reduce debts not only alleviate financial strain but also enhance physical and mental well-being, strengthen family bonds, and foster inclusivity for children with disabilities.
“Governments and political parties must urgently address the policies that lead to public debt and reform current debt recovery practices to be more humane, compassionate, and sustainable.
“This session was a critical opportunity for MSPs to engage with Aberlour and the Govan Law Centre and hear first-hand from us about our experiences supporting people affected by public debt.
“We were pleased that so many MSPs from all parties attended this important event and committed to supporting the necessary reforms to public debt recovery systems. These changes are vital to breaking the cycle of poverty and ensuring every child in Scotland has the opportunity to thrive.”
Mike Dailly, Solicitor Advocate at Govan Law Centre said: “Govan Law Centre believes that the public debt crisis campaign with the Aberlour Children’s Charity is a vital initiative to shift the dial on child poverty. Around 240,000 children live in relative poverty in Scotland and sadly this unacceptable number has remained fairly static since 2007.
“While the Scottish Child Payment has helped, it hasn’t lifted 100,000 children out of poverty as the Scottish Government claims. The evidence for this claim relies upon projected modelling based on a range of policy assumptions.
“We know that the uncoordinated and often aggressive collection of debt by public bodies can trap or push families into unnecessary poverty and misery. The obvious lever available to the Scottish Government and Parliament is to use Scottish law to create a coordinated, fairer and more intelligent system of public debt collection in Scotland.”
Key recommendations include:
Permanent School Meal Debt Relief: Extend the Scottish Government’s one-year school meal debt write-off permanently and ensure it is implemented across the UK.
Unified Debt Repayment System: Develop a centralised, affordable repayment method for managing multiple public sector debts to ensure deductions are manageable and fair.
Prohibition of Aggressive Debt Collection: Prohibit aggressive debt collection practices that push families deeper into poverty, promoting compassionate and supportive approaches instead.
Debt Amnesty Programme: Implement a comprehensive debt amnesty programme targeting low-income families, particularly for debts owed to public bodies.
“As trade unions, we still have a major fight on our hands”
SEPTEMBER 12, 2024
An edited version of the speech Sarah Woolley made to the Trade Union Coordinating Group fringe meeting at this week’s TUC Conference.
One of Keir Starmer’s five ‘missions’ for government is “to kickstart economic growth to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country making everyone, not just a few, better off.”
That’s a goal we could all share, on the condition that growth is delivered on a sustainable basis which is compatible with reaching our climate targets.
But what is much less clear is exactly how and when is this growth going to happen?
People can’t afford any more years of economic failure. After more than 14 years of Tory austerity, and a devastating cost of living crisis, working class living standards have been absolutely hammered.
The Trussell Trust gave out 3.1 million emergency food parcels over the last 12 months (over a million of which were for children), a 94% increase on the previous year. They also saw a rise of 27% in the number of pensioners presenting at their food banks.
Food banks are now being regularly used to support households with at least one member in paid employment, such is the rise in ‘in-work poverty’. The Foodworkers on the Breadline report published by our union shows that pay and conditions in the food sector itself means that the workers who keep Britain fed are worried about feeding themselves and their families. Nearly 70% of workers who responded to the survey worried that their wages were not enough to put good food on the table, while over half reported that they had experience of running out of food.
Austerity has had a devastating impact on people’s lives, and public services are at breaking point – the NHS is on its knees. But Keir Starmer’s promise that things will get worse is genuinely frightening. People voted for change, our members were clear in the manifesto document we put together after speaking to them that they demand change and we need to see that change, not more of the same – like taking winter fuel payments off all but the very poorest pensioners.
More austerity, more downward pressure on pay and further cuts to spending are exactly what we don’tneed if we’re going to get growth in the economy. Putting money in working class people’s pockets will result in more money being spent locally as they don’t typically have off-shore bank accounts and hedge funds to save it in. By locking the government into an even tighter fiscal straitjacket, Rachel Reeves will only heap on further pain but will do nothing to help achieve the ‘mission’ of restoring growth.
Instead, we need urgent and radical action to direct investment into building local economies, investing in renewable energy, saving the high street, restoring public services and ensuring that work is paid fairly for everyone.
In circumstances like these, it would be criminal to rule out tax rises on the wealthiest in society, who pay far less in marginal tax rates than the lowest earners. It’s no good saying, “We can’t have it if we can’t afford it” while you leave all the wealth in the hands of the billionaires.
Arguing for the redistribution of wealth used to be plain common sense, even for social democrats. The labour movement as a whole needs to put it back on the agenda.
Critical, here, will be implementing the New Deal for Working People in full – including strengthening trade union rights, extending sectoral collective bargaining, abolishing all zero-hours contracts, ending fire-and-rehire and guaranteeing a decent living wage for all regardless of age.
We can’t allow powerful employers’ groups to water down these plans to maintain the race-to-the-bottom on pay and conditions. Failure to offer hope to our communities will leave open a huge vacuum for the far right to fill. Reform UK have made strides in this election and are already looking at targets for the next round of local elections to further their reach in 5 years’ time.
“The World Bank defines corruption as the use of public office for private gain,” Simon Kuper tells us in this short book. “Sometimes this use is illegal, but often it’s perfectly legal. For instance, David Cameron’s lobbying for the Greensill Capital firm during the pandemic didn’t break any rules.”
This is part of the problem. In just six years, Britain has fallen from eighth to twentieth in Transparency Intenrational’s global anti-corruption index. At times, Kuper seems nostalgic for a supposed lost era when a deep-rooted public service ethos was shared across Britain’s upper class elite – strange considering his withering critique of that elite in his previous book Chums. However, it’s doubtful that public life was ever particularly sleaze-free.
Yet things have got worse, and more blatant. Cash for honours is now so routine, it rarely makes the news. And in a country where only 5% of offences reported to the police lead to a charge – let alone a conviction – corruption is quite likely to go unpunished. Breaches of campaign finance laws especially are largely ignored by the English police.
Corruption has many consequences but one of the most damaging is the erosion of public trust in politics. In 2023, public opinion on whether politicians were “out for themselves” hit 70%, the highest ever.
Political donations have long been a problem. They are growing both absolutely and in proportion to other sources of a party’s income. By 2000, the Conservatives were getting less than 5% of their money from membership fees.
State funding of political parties is one solution, although difficult to justify in a context of ongoing austerity. “Yet a donor-free political system could have saved the taxpayer a fortune,” suggests Kuper, citing the Covid VIP lane, where the government gave lucrative contracts to “useless companies run by Tory donors.” This, however, implies that donations automatically entail an expected payback. From the standpoint of trade union contributions to Labour, this is highly contestable: such donations are probably the cleanest in politics.
Evidence suggests that when a government becomes more nationalist it become more corrupt. The elevation of the morally deficient Boris Johnson to Prime Minister certainly created a permissive mentality. Kuper catalogues how cash for access mushroomed under his premiership. The situation was worsened by the poor calibre of many of Johnson’s ministers, who, not understanding the complex processes of their own departments, could be easily swayed by a persuasive donor to cut corners.
The author is rightly concerned about how easily the rules banning foreign donations can be circumvented. Russian money is a particular problem. Once UK citizenship is acquired, legal donations follow – as with Lubov Chernukhin, whose husband had been deputy finance minister under Putin and later chairman of Russia’s state development bank. By 2023, she had given the Conservatives more than £2.4 million. “Lubov Chernukhin’s money cannot be disentangled from the Russian regime,” says Kuper – and he cites other donors with links to post-Soviet regimes about whom the National Crime Agency has been alerted. Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee reported in 2020 that Russian influence in the UK is “the new normal”.
“Of all the Russian influencers in British politics until 2022, first prize must go a father-and-son operation: the former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev and his son Evgeny, the newspaper proprietor,” writes Kuper.
In 2008, the Lebedevs bought the loss-making Evening Standard newspaper. In the 2012 London mayoral election, the paper backed Boris Johnson. In the same year, Johnson attended one of the Lebedevs’ legendary parties at their Italian Palazzo in Umbria. The Italian authorities believed the building was being used for espionage purposes, which the Lebedevs strenuously denied.
In 2017, Johnson, now Foreign Secretary, flew directly from a NATO summit in Brussels to the Palazzo, where he later admitted to attending an undocumented meeting with a longtime KGB agent, without officials present – an event that would normally be unthinkable.
On becoming Prime Minister, Johnson nominated Evgeny Lebedev for a life peerage, against the advice of intelligence officials. When Covid hit and the Evening Standard’s circulation collapsed, due to the absence of commuters, Johnson allegedly “funnelled hundreds of millions of subsidies in the form of Government advertising with a select group of newspapers”, which included the Standard, according to an article in Byline Times, entitled “Why Did Boris Johnson Meet Evgeny Lebedev Twice in Days Before First Covid Lockdown – With No Civil Servants Present?”
Russia’s war on Ukraine saw the British establishment detach itself from the Lebedevs. Johnson’s government never sanctioned Alexander Lebedev – “perhaps worried about what he might reveal” – but Canada did. Yet the Tory party continued to accept donations from individuals linked to the Russian economy, notably Chernukhin.
For Labour, the big donors that had become a feature of the Blair years deserted the Party as it moved left in Opposition. The emergence of the anti-Corbyn faction Labour Together, and its capacity to mobilise donations for itself, laid the basis for a well-funded Keir Starmer leadership campaign in 2020. Only after former director Morgan McSweeney – now Starmer’s head of political strategy – stepped down as Labour Together’s administrator were the organisation’s donations fully registered. The Electoral Commission found that Labour Together had committed 20 separate breaches of the law and fined it £14,250 , equivalent to a mere 2% of the undeclared donations.
Legal restrictions and tougher enforcement in relation to the abuses itemised in this book might not do much more than create new loopholes, as corruption itself is really just a manifestation of a wider problem. For all his spotlighting of political sleaze, Kuper seems to shy away from a more fundamental, point. In any liberal democracy, there is a central contradiction between the basic equality implied in one-person-one vote and the stark inequality of a neoliberal economy, where the economically powerful can throw money into politics in a variety of ways – including donations, but also ownership of the media, contacts and networks with a range of state officials – to get the outcomes they want.
As Britain’s inequality has worsened, it’s not surprising that those distortions in our democracy have proliferated and been expressed more flagrantly. While not denying that corruption is an issue for all parties, it’s a particular problem for those in thrall to the rich, the Tories especially. Kuper ducked this structural problem in his previous book, but the question remains: is the system fixable – and if so, how?
Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.
UK
Solidarity with Barnet UNISON’s mental health social worker strike!
“Barnet UNISON mental health social workers’ dispute with Barnet Council since1 September 2023has been over the failure to agree a recruitment and retention payment due to high turnover of staff across three mental health social worker teams.”
From Barnet UNISON
Background
There are three mental health social work teams in this dispute.
Mental Health Social Work North Team = 13 staff
Health Social Work South Team = 14 staff
Approved Mental Health Professional Team (AMHP) = 5 staff
Barnet UNISON mental health social workers’ dispute with Barnet Council since 1 September 2023 has been over the failure to agree a recruitment and retention payment due to high turnover of staff across three mental health social worker teams.
On Monday 15 July 2024 UNISON wrote to Barnet Council suspending strike action and agreeing to go into talks to try and resolve the dispute.
Unfortunately talks broke down, as it became clear in the meeting that Barnet Council were not prepared to reconsider their position.
This report seeks to provide information about the dispute which is now one of the longest running disputes in UNISON’s history.
Leavers’ data
1. Did you know 50% of the permanent workforce will have left the three mental health social work teams workforce since 1 January 2024?
2. Did you know that 31 mental health social workers will have left one of the mental health social work teams in the last two years?
3. Did you know that 12 mental health social workers have left the mental health social work team North in the last two years?
4. Did you know that 17 mental health social workers have left the mental health social work team South in the last two years?
5. Did you know that the mental health social work team South has no AMHPs?
6. Did you know that mental health social work team North has no AMHPs as of 1 September 2024?
7. Did you know that only one out of a mental health social work team management team of four is an AMHP?
8. Did you know that two out of four managers mental health social work teams have no previous experience of working in mental health services?
9. Did you know that by the end of August 2024 of the four Lead Practitioner (LP) posts across North and South mental health social work teams there will be two vacancies, leaving only one LP with experience working as a mental health social worker and one LP with no previous experience working as a mental health social worker?
10. Did you know that 40% of AMHPs have left the AMHP team in the last two months?
11. Did you know that there are only 3 AMHPs across the three mental health social work team team?
12. Did you know that there are only 3 social workers left out of 14 who were in the mental health social work team North on 11 August 2022? Nine of the social workers have left. This represents 80% of the team. Please note that this team only employed social workers. Barnet Council introduced unqualified staff into the team in 2023 when social workers started to leave.
13. Did you know that there are only 3 social workers left out of 14 who were in the mental health social work team South on 11 August 2022? Nine of the social workers have left. This represents 80% of the team. Please note that this team only employed social workers. Barnet Council introduced unqualified staff into the team in 2023 when social workers started to leave.
Service user issues
1. Did you know that every time a social worker (either permanent or locum) leaves this means further disruption for mental health service users?
2. Did you know that there is still a 17-month waitlist for service users with mental health problems?
Barnet Council
1. Did you know that Barnet Council were asked to provide staff leaving data in July 2023 and only brought some data at a meeting with UNISON in March 2024? The data provided was not evidence of recruitment and retention issues.
2. Did you know that in July 2023 Barnet Council informed UNISON that they had a budget of £266k to resolve this dispute?
3. Did you know in a meeting with Acas in March 2024 with UNISON they doubled that figure to £532k?
4. Did you know that Barnet Council said they could easily settle our dispute because it was cheaper?
5. Did you know that it would cost £150k to settle this dispute?
6. Did you know that it took Barnet Council seven months before they would agree to a meeting with UNISON and Acas?
7. Did you know that in July 2024 UNISON wrote to Barnet Council suspending strike action? In that meeting with the knowledge that another 25% of permanent social workers had handed in their notice, Barnet Council brought no revised offer to the negotiating table.
8. Did you know that Barnet Council used a recruitment agency to strike break? They deny it was strike breaking, arguing that they outsourced the service. There has been no consultation about outsourcing services with UNISON.
9. Did you know that Barnet Council carried out a restructure of mental health social work teams? A report entitled “Adults Social Care Mental Health Service Restructure Consultation Report and Final Proposals, July 2022” was shared with staff.
Two years on and this is the list of their 17 outstanding actions:
There will be further consultation and engagement with staff to review team criteria; improve processes and pathways; and ensure there are effective ways to work alongside health colleagues for the benefit of the residents we support.
Move of MH Front Door to SCD – suggested this is postponed until referrals criteria are confirmed and training for SCD staff is provided on this basis
To develop and implement a retention strategy for mental health social work staff
To review existing staffing ratios in mental health service to ensure sufficiency and that teams can operate safely and will not be at risk of burn out.
Further need for data cleansing (those noted on Mosaic as having a mental health as a primary need are accurately recorded as such) and addressing backlog of updating contacts in Mosaic
Co-production with people we support to find out what they think and what changes are necessary.
Ideas to explore further in transformation process:
A multi-agency crisis team
Staff specifically dedicated to conducting Care and Support Plan reviews
Specialist worker for carrying out CHC checklist or using existing resources in CHC.
Risk highlighted:
End of Think -Ahead Students placements impacting negatively on capacity (students are currently holding large number of cases)
Backlog of reviews.
Gaps in service availability need to be addressed by the commissioning plan.
Additional business support resource was added to the original proposal.
The transfer of the MH front door to SCD has been postponed until September, to ensure criteria are clear and staff have been trained on this basis.
Further work will be undertaken as part of the workforce strategy and business planning process to look at the capacity of teams across adult social care given the pressures of demand that the service faces.
Duty arrangements will need to be finalised and discussed with managers and staff to reflect the move of initial contact to SCD.
Mental Health Teams wished to maintain access to Rio.
Publicity about the dispute
1. Did you know that Community Care published 15 articles about this dispute which you can read here on our website?:
2. Did you know that UNISON wrote to CQC outlining our serious concerns about the crisis unfolding across mental health social work teams?
3. Did you know that UNISON wrote to Association of Directors of Social Services (ADASS) outlining our serious concerns about the crisis unfolding across mental health social work teams?
4. Did you know that UNISON wrote to Social Work England outlining our serious concerns about the crisis unfolding across mental health social work teams?
5. Did you know that UNISON wrote to Executive Director of Adult Social Care Dawn Wakeling outlining our serious concerns about the crisis unfolding across mental health social work teams?
6. Did you know that UNISON wrote to Director of Adult Social Care James Mass outlining our serious concerns about the crisis unfolding across mental health social work teams?
7. Did you know that UNISON wrote to Leader of Labour controlled Barnet Council Barry Rawlings outlining our serious concerns about the crisis unfolding across mental health social work teams?
8. Did you know that UNISON produced a community newspaper (Barnet VOICE) for Barnet residents outlining our serious concerns about the crisis unfolding across mental health social work teams?
9. Did you know that 20,000 community newspapers were delivered to Barnet residents?
10. Did you know that Guardian Journalist Aditya Chakrabortty wrote an article about this dispute entitled Euphoria felled by reality and scant ambition – I have seen what could be Labour’s future?
13. Did you know that hundreds of trade union members have signed a public statement calling upon the Leader of Barnet Council, Cllr Barry Rawlings to stop the use of agency workers to strike break? View statement here:
“Private contractors run services as cheaply as they can: cutting corners and slashing staff pay and conditions so that they can make a profit.”
Labour Outlook is sharing this petition from UNISON opposing the outsourcing of NHS support staff in East Suffolk and North Essex- it is crucial that we build opposition to proposals like these which are directly opposed to the interests of both staff and patients.
East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust has announced plans to sell hundreds of cleaners, caterers, porters, security and other support staff out of the health service.
It means facilities services will be run by a private company responsible to their shareholders, not patients. Private contractors run services as cheaply as they can — cutting corners and slashing staff pay and conditions — so that they can make a profit.
Colchester services are currently in house, but at Ipswich facilities services are outsourced.
The £50m contract runs out in April 2025. Instead of taking the chance to bring everything in house and run directly for the benefits of patients, the trust board has decided to privatise all services as a job lot.
Sign the UNISON petition to send a message to the trust board: we want NHS services to be delivered by the NHS!
Left Foot Forward spoke to Wera Hobhouse at the Liberal Democrat conference
The Liberal Democrats are currently holding their autumn conference in Brighton – the first to take place since the 2024 general election saw the party win a record 72 seats in the House of Commons, and – of course – the first to take place under a Labour government for 15 years.
This context is the backdrop to the conversation Left Foot Forward had with Wera Hobhouse – the Lib Dem MP for Bath – at the conference. Hobhouse is the party’s spokesperson on climate and transport, and our conversation centred on these two big issues which the new government has already made major policy announcements on.
Hobhouse is clear that there is a marked difference between the new Labour government and the Tory one that preceded it. Branding the record of the Tories on climate “abominable”, Hobhouse told Left Foot Forward that the first steps from Labour have been “very welcome”.
She said: “We just needed something fresh and new, and I’m glad that the Labour government has come in with a mission. Ed Miliband has set out immediately – and we’ve already done the second reading – of the GB Energy Bill. So clearly the government is pushing forward and that is very welcome.”
“Two months is obviously not enough to make any judgement really on their record. But what has definitely changed is the whole atmosphere and the way government is talking about the climate emergency and the need to have the energy transformation in order to avert all the things that we have been talking about in the past. So it’s a fresh start. It’s welcome. What we hear is absolutely right.”
Despite this positive tone, Hobhouse also has a strong critique of elements of Labour’s plans. Saying that she intends to spend the next year “scrutinising” the government on its action on the climate.
In particular, Hobhouse told Left Foot Forward that she is concerned about the government’s willingness to engage local communities in its development of the infrastructure needed to transition to net-zero.
“They haven’t really looked at any process of how they can gain local consent”, Hobhouse said, adding: “I think if they’re not careful, then they are running into trouble.”
She went on to argue that without engaging local communities around the development of new infrastructure, the government risked people turning towards the political right and to campaigners who oppose taking action the climate crisis.
Hobhouse told Left Foot Forward: “We do have very strong local democracy campaigners and advocates for having their voices heard. And unless a Labour government recognises this and understands that these decisions also have to be made from the bottom up rather than the top down, I think that is the greatest danger that we currently see – that it’s going to all be top-down decisions and we’re building up a large group of discontent people which will then only fall into the hands of anti-climate campaigners and the right wingers – we’ve already seen that. So it’s a big challenge for the government to contain that.
Building on this, Hobhouse suggested that the Liberal Democrats could play a role in supporting the government to garner support in local communities for this transition.
She said: “I think we Liberal Democrats are best placed to support the Labour government in that we are on board with their overall aims, but we are also strong advocates for localism and decision making from the bottom up. And I see my role particularly as making sure the government engages with myself – if I continue as a spokesperson – but also the Liberal Democrats, on how can we strengthen community energy, how can we strengthen a new devolution settlement with funding for net zero for local authorities”.
This isn’t the only time that Hobhouse mentioned community energy. When discussing the areas she wants to influence the government on, community energy comes up again. She said: “My amendments to the GB Energy will be on community energy because it’s completely missing. And that’s a little bit disappointing since Labour in opposition has talked a lot about community energy, and now it’s missing.”
While she has critiques on some areas of Labour’s policy programme like this, in other areas, Hobhouse is almost wholly positive. One such area is the government’s proposals that local authorities should be given powers to regulate and franchise their buses – powers which are currently only held by combined authorities with metropolitan mayors such as Greater Manchester.
She said: “We have been arguing for local authorities franchising their own buses. So it shouldn’t only be mayors, it should also be local councils so that’s absolutely gone into our direction. So, no further things things to say. That’s positive, we support it, fantastic. Bus services couldn’t be more on their knees than they already are.”
But that uncritical support doesn’t extend to Labour’s other flagship transport policy – bringing the rail operators back into public ownership. Describing the Liberal Democrats’ position as “agnostic” on renationalisation, Hobhouse told Left Foot Forward that her priority was “improvements of rail services”, irrespective of the ownership question.
She said: “On what is called renationalising the railways, we have said that we are ultimately agnostic about whether it’s in private or public ownership. We can wait and see whether the government is correct in saying that all the problems that we have with the railway system is because it’s private. That is, of course, a particular argument. What we’ve been saying is we just want to see the improvements of rail services for passengers – and that is around more affordable journeys, that’s about a more reliable service, and that’s about a much more transparent ticketing system.”
Overall, Hobhouse struck a clear tone throughout the conversation – relief that the Tories are no longer in office, optimism about some elements of Labour’s programme, and determination to push for changes to government policy where her party has disagreements with it. Expect much more of that from the Liberal Democrats in the coming five years.
Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward
Stand-up routines. Confetti cannons. AI generated images of Ed Davey in a wet suit. This rally had it all.
The Liberal Democrats are in high spirits. Following their record-breaking election results earlier this year, that’s no surprise.
There are now more Lib Dem MPs in parliament than ever before. July saw the party jump from 15 to 72 seats, and the membership is over the moon. Joy among the party faithful has been on full display as they gather in Brighton this week for their autumn conference.
On the conference’s first night, a packed-out auditorium played host to the Lib Dems’ post-election celebration. It was billed as a ‘rally’, but in reality the event was more a slightly surreal hour of light entertainment hosted by an assorted cast of the party’s new MPs.
Complete with light shows, audience participation, confetti cannons, stand-up routines and AI generated images of Ed Davey in a wetsuit, the rally saw newly elected MPs tell the story of the Lib Dem general election campaign and thank the activists that helped deliver it.
The elation in the room was palpable. Not just among the MPs, who grinned their way through their scripted jokes, canvassing anecdotes, amateur dramatics, and highlight reels of Ed Davey’s antics from the campaign trail. But also among the audience, who whooped and cheered their way through the event. Whenever the number ’72’ was mentioned, the room burst into spontaneous applause.
Clearly the Lib Dems are chuffed with themselves. And they have every reason to be. For a party that since the demise of the coalition government has been treated as a footnote by the bulk of the media and regarded – until recently – as an afterthought by much of the electorate, becoming established as a major parliamentary force again is something they are understandably keen on celebrating.
However, what was missing from the rally was any clarity on what it was all for – any clarity on what those 72 MPs are planning to use their new found influence to change. For a political rally, it was pretty devoid of politics.
What little we did get in that regard came from the party’s deputy leader Daisy Cooper. But even that didn’t go much beyond slogans. She told the audience: “After almost a decade of the worst Tory government of our lifetime, the British public deserve a fair deal,” later saying: “Until every single person in this country can see a doctor or a dentist when they need one, until every hard-working family does not have to chose between heating and eating, and until water companies stop pumping raw sewage into our rivers and seas, we will continue to fight on these issues.”
But perhaps it doesn’t matter that we don’t yet know a huge amount about what these MPs plan on doing, beyond being ‘local champions’ – as every speaker in the auditorium seems keen on repeating. There’s still plenty of time at the conference and in the coming months for the party to set that out.
The Lib Dem leader Ed Davey – closing the rally to a standing ovation – certainly didn’t think that was the key question. Instead, he asked the audience: “Do you like winning?” and “Are we gonna keep on winning, and winning more?”
For the Lib Dems, winning has been elusive for some time. So it’s not hugely surprising that winning is the big thing on their mind and the big thing that’s made them happier than they’ve ever been.
Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward
UK Poll shows that the Greens are the only party with a positive favourability rating
The Tories also have the most negative favourability tarting
Polling firm Ipsos has released its latest Political Pulse – a monthly tracker of public attitudes on political parties, major politicians and the big issues facing the UK. The data has revealed what the public think about the major political parties in the UK.
Ipsos asked a representative sample of the British public whether they had an favourable or unfavourable view of each of the parties.
That means that of the UK’s political parties, only the Greens currently have a positive favourability rating, where more people have a favourable opinion of them than have a negative one.
It also means that the Tories have by some distance the most negative favourability rating…
Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward
