09/07/10 Lessons from Deepwater Horizon 23/06/10 A New Hope: full YouTube coverage now available 02/06/10 Latest Thinkpiece published 26/05/10 A New Hope for Labour: attend the Leaders' Debate 19/05/10 A New Hope: Caroline Lucas MP confirms to speak‏

Compass poll

Latest comments
  • Dianne deserves support not so much because of what she is, but because of what she isn't....
    Dugsie (Yorks)
  • Jonathan: I dont actually disagree with your verdict about Abbott....
    Lee (Highlands)
  • Paul: I hope you dont get angry, but I really think you are treating what Rutherford says far too se...
    Lee (Highlands)
  • Lee - she's got the support of just 2 Trade Unions and 20 CLP's - she has very little support in the...
    Jonathon Hawkes
  • Lewis, I am pleased that your idealism about Labour has dimmed somewhat....
    Paul McLean (Leeds)

Education and the Good Society Statement

Join Compass

Mailing list

Events

High Pay Commission

How to live in the 21st Century

News filter

Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford call for alliances, values and a return to society

Friday, June 12 2009

The Labour government still faces the abyss and the Conservative Party remains stuck in the discredited orthodoxies of its past. It can only hope for an election victory on a minority of the vote. Bereft of a credible economic strategy it will divide the country.

The politics of both parties now belong to the past, not to the future. As Gramsci said, 'the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born'. The MPs expenses scandal, the constitutional crisis and the profiteering of the banking oligarchy, are all 'morbid symptoms' of this interregnum. Without real ideological change talk of a new leader will change nothing over the longer term. The task is to begin building a progressive movement that unlike New Labour will break with the legacy of Thatcherism.

The collapse of liberal market capitalism and its governing ideology has been precipitous. Its toxic culture has brought down the authority of Parliament. It has created unaccountable monopolies of capital and a centralising, micromanaging and increasingly authoritarian state. Its enterprise culture, flexible labour market, and marketised welfare reform have all helped to generate insecurity, anxiety and isolation. In public service, kindness and care are out of keeping with the dominant market culture. The chronic housing shortage is a national scandal. Unemployment is growing and areas of our country devastated in the 1980s are now sinking again in the recession. The social welfare contract that once gave some protection in times of adversity has been left in tatters.

This should be the moment of the left, but it too is trapped in the same interregnum. It lacks a coherent identity, is organisationally and numerically weak, and is unclear about its values. It has no story that defines what it stands for. The self-inflicted crisis of capitalism is serving only to highlight the weakness of the left.

We need to address the big questions of how we live as well as how we create wealth. What kind of society do we want to live in? What kind of economy will sustain it? None of the mainstream political parties have the language to ask these questions. . We need to re-invent a plural and ethical socialism rooted in the ordinary life of the individual. The central value of this socialism alongside liberty is equality, because in our differences we share a common humanity. The democratic search for self realisation lies deep in our culture and involves the right of everyone to achieve their own unique way of being human. This is not selfish individualism, it is mutualism: ‘your freedom is equal to my freedom'.

The progressive future belongs to those who find a balance between individual self-realisation and social solidarity. It will be a politics made out of alliances between old and new political actors. Despite the disillusionment with political parties, there is an extraordinary level of political, cultural and community activism in our society. There is a search for new kinds of democratic political structures and cultures, which can re-connect institutions of political power with social movements and political constituencies.

These new forms of politics are being shaped by the production aesthetic of the information and telecommunications economy. In the decade ahead the new technologies will continue to transform the economy creating a diversity of economic structures, business models and forms of ownership. The future economy will require diversity, flexibility and complexity. A new politics must create strong social foundations for ecologically sustainable wealth creation. Generous welfare support, employment rights, access to education, decent pay and social insurance will improve productivity and give workers confidence to change, learn and develop their skills. We will need to build a civic state that is democratised, decentralised and networked and which is able to both assert the national interest in new structures of global economic governance and also be accountable and responsive to individual citizens and small businesses.

In the period before the next election the Labour Party and the wider left need to begin the foundations for a post-neo-liberal political settlement. Local government ‘place-shielding' can protect vulnerable local communities from both recession and from future Conservative attack. The minimum wage and benefits must be increased and index linked. Constitutional and electoral reform requires an alliance with the Liberal Democrats so let's make one - socialists and social liberals hold much in common. We need to introduce new green taxes and taxes on those who utilise the commons of public space, nature, air and water. There is time to shut down tax havens.

Banks which are insolvent must be brought into public ownership and their toxic assets separated out. A restructured banking sector will be a key factor in economic recovery and development. Let's start making the case for a social Europe. It's time for all progressive forces to unite and confront the bigotry and xenophobia of the right. Let's build relationships with European progressive parties and social movements, and create a new internationalism for global justice. The future is about alliances, values and a return to society. We need to break the old paradigm and lay claim to the future.

The full length version of this article is published in this week's Tribune magazine, available at the Compass Conference

Jon Cruddas will be discussing these issues with Salma Yaqoob, Adam Price MP and Caroline Lucas at the Soundings session,1330 in the Logan Hall

 

Share using AddThis AddThis

Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.

To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.

Comments

1 to 50 of 166
Posted by frances 
on 18 June 2009, 8:34:50 PM
Ombudsman - further refelctions

If you have an IndusDelta of advisors and each one has a training course of three days and is then trained and equipped to opine/cajole/bully/guide and judge the myriad of the vulnerable with the wisdom of Solomon and the insight of Purnell - then my question is - who could be appointed as Ombudsman who would be sufficiently gifted to judge the judgers. Can you monitor a process that is set up with totally impossible procedures and goals.

The only candidates I can think of are Fred Goodwin who has enough nerve for anyhting, Tony Blair who takes on impossible jobs all the time with no intention of doing them and God who probably could do it but probably charges too much.
Posted by paul (hereford)
on 18 June 2009, 8:19:17 PM
Dear Sir,

WELFARE TO WORK CONFERENCE INDUS DELTA 18 jUNE 2009

PRESENTED TO CONFERENCE BY LAWRENCE KAY WHO IS A MAJOR INFLUENTIAL ADVISOR TO THERESA MAY TORY PARTY WELFARE SHADOW MINISTER following on from the work of David Freud the banker, recommendations that new labour followed.

TITLE OF DISCUSSION

THE UNIVERSAL BENEFIT REPLACING JSA, INCAPACITY BENEFIT EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ALLOWANCE AND INCOME SUPPORT

If you thought it could not get worse think again, Fors and against of the universal benefit. I believe this is definitely coming by either New Labour or the Tories.

RATE OF BENEFIT £60-70 PER WEEK FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES THEY CLAIM

Starting point for simplification was some other research by a chap called Roy Sainsburys a flat rate of £60-£70 benefit per week.

What follows after that I will leave for now because this is a going to be a free reign for employment advisors.

I hasten to add this was only a debate but when you see what they are saying it is disgraceful. This Lawrence Kay fellow is floating the ideas of research by this chap Roy Sainsburys and others,

THEY KEEP ON GOING ON ABOUT SIMPLIFICATION. BY THAT I VIEW AS BENEFIT CUTS, ITS CLEAR FROM THEIR STARTING RATE FOR DISCUSSION.

Paul

Posted by frances 
on 18 June 2009, 7:29:27 PM
'Would it help to have an independent Ombudsman'

That's a very good idea. I've been listening to the Grand Committee for four hours and it's a truly gruesome experience. Tomorrow when Hansard comes through I'll post some bits.

The LibDems keep bringing up all these terribly sad situations and the Minister keeps coming up with the same solution over and over.
The adviser is a friend, a good cop, a bad cop, judge and jury and has the judgement of Solomon and the patience of a saint - and he will steer, love and threaten the vulnerable person on the right course which will end up in a job.

The back to work adviser will meet with the vulnerable person. This is 'required' and if you don't turn up you get five days grace to show good cause or they sanction your benefits so it doesn't start off on a very good note.

The advisor is your friend. He and the Minister are so worried that you have been out of work for so long and they want to help you find the barriers to your employmenet so they can help you overcome them. The advisor discovers the obstacles and discusses with you a program of activity that will overcome these obstacles. Then he 'directs' you to do this activity. If you default you have five days to show good cause or he sanctions your benefit.

Every time the LibDem Lords say - what about if the stress cause s an episode of psychosis and the person defaults - the Minister says - no problem - the advisor has been on a three day training course and understands all about stroke/schizophrenia/autism/ whatever and will only 'direct' the 'customer' in to suitable activity. If the 'customer' has an episode and can't do the direction he can 'show good cause'. But I know that if he's not functioning he won't.

The whole thing depends on the advisor having the wisdom of Solomon and slipping in and out of the roles of nice cop nasty cop at exactly the right moment.

So, Lee, the problem is the advisors aren't angels or blessed saints and they won't be able to play God and Judge and Jury without terrible mistakes and an Ombudsman would be wonderful but mentally ill people can't deal with Ombudsmen any better than they can deal with advisors.

But it is a good idea.
Posted by Robert 
on 18 June 2009, 6:51:48 PM
I agree with Lee, the Lib Dems are the only party in England worth voting for, unless you have a Labour candidate worth voting for such as John McDonnell (forget Cruddas) or you live in Brighton or Norwich where the Greens might have an outside chance.

In Scotland or Wales there is the SNP or Plaid.

If the Scots vote for independence they might be doing England a favour since Tory domination under FPTP would be so great that Labour might be forced to come to an agreement with the Lib Dems over PR in exchange for an electoral pact. Hopefully the Liberals would also require that Labour returns to civilisation on social policy if it ever wants to gain power again.

Posted by Paul McLean (Leeds)
on 18 June 2009, 6:20:12 PM

The range of political views in support of this EDM is what is most impressive. As well as various strands of the PLP and some Lib Dems, a member of the socially conservative DUP and the equally socially conservative SDLP; and a socially liberal Tory supports it.
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 5:55:22 PM
Frances:They have given up on trying to stop the bill and are concentrating on trying to do what they can to protect the vulnerable. No Labour Lords whatsoever are helping. I suggest Compass and all well meaning Labour people try and help them because this bill is real and real vulnerable people are going to be hurt if protection isn't put in.

********************************************************
Would it help to have an independent Ombudsman ?
Posted by frances 
on 18 June 2009, 5:15:09 PM
I don't know but I suspect that as every single LibDem MP voted against the Welfare Reform Bill on the second reading until it was clear that it couldn't be defeated because of the Tory/NewLabour collusion and then their spokesman said they were going to fight in the Lords to make it as safe as they could for vulnerable groups. This is what they are doing now day after day. I have been listening to them all afternoon.

They have given up on trying to stop the bill and are concentrating on trying to do what they can to protect the vulnerable. No Labour Lords whatsoever are helping. I suggest Compass and all well meaning Labour people try and help them because this bill is real and real vulnerable people are going to be hurt if protection isn't put in.

Posted by Jon Teunon 
on 18 June 2009, 3:53:40 PM
'Why only 4 Lib-Dem signators ?'

Which is four more than from those representating the mythical 'centre left' and those MP(s) connected with Compass...

Effective 'co-ordinators' will have to think about this - anonymous or not.
Posted by  
on 18 June 2009, 2:29:01 PM
Jon Teunon
On 8 June 2009, John McDonnell proposed the following Early Day Motion:
***************************************************************

Why only 4 Lib-Dem signators ? Coordination problems ? How many Lib-Dems attended the Compass conference as speakers, facilitators etc ?
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 1:42:55 PM
Paul Mc: Frances, the blackout might not occur. Apparent Robin Butler is to make a speech in the Lords saying that at least some of it should be in public.

We know that Brown has only agreed to it because he is in a politically weak position. It should be a full public enquiry or something very similar. But as we know from the Brian Hutton enquiry, public enquiry/judicial enquiry does not necessarily mean that a comprehensive search for all of the facts will take place.
*******************************************************************

I dont believe that there is any chance that the enquiry will be open. The only possibility is that there is still an opportunity for Cameron to open it up. If I were Mandelbrown I would have rushed it through while still in power, rather than drag it out to 2010. Maybe Mandelbrown has a secret deal with Cameron to protect some Tory enthusiasts for Blair's criminal venture. We also know that Davie has a deep affection for St Tony.

Its impossible to have an open enquiry. The various cabinet memos and papers already leaked by the Sunday Herald, prove beyond doubt that Blair not only lied but knew the intelligence was fake, and had conspired with Bush to attack Iraq long before they made up the lies about the WMDs. However, even althoughg these papers are now in the public domain, they are still cabinet papers and the government will declare them secret and inadmissable.

They will not call any of the journalists who exposed the lies and crimes...Pilger, McWhirter, Fisk, Goodman. They will not call any constitutional lawyers who have proven without doubt that the invasion was illegal and a war crime which requires a Nuremberg Tribunal response.

So because the experts who have the evidence and arguments will be excluded, it has to be a whitewash and a cover-up. The goal is to ensure that the whole issue vanishes and there will be no legal consequences. Its a way of nailing down the lid on the coffin of public outrage. That is why it was possible for me to write a summary of the conclusions of the enquiry and post it below.

The trick the pro-invasion supporters use in the face of overwhelming evidence of crimes, both domestic and international, is to deflect the debate by introducing ridiculous red-herrings, that sound like criticism, but are not real criticisms.

Therefore, we will hear almost nothing about the period prior to the invasion...there we will be told that there were "errors" and "mistakes" but they were all accidents, someone else's fault, and everyone acted fully legally and honourably.

Then the enquiry will move to the red herrings and spend all their time on these. The first will be "did we have enough troops and equipment", which is the equivalent of arguing that the ax murderer didnt use the best ax. The second is the fatuous and ridiculous cliche made up in the USA (where people are so gullible they are impressed)and imported into Britain by the BBC. It goes: "Its not good enough just to win the war, did we do enough to win the peace".

This is an utterly deranged and idiotic concept. Not only doesnt it mean anything, its the equaivalent to asking whether Mein Kampf was adequately marketed.

However, it will be good enough for many people. I hope there are huge protests outside the enquiry, and I will certainly travel to join them. But we will lose because the outcomes have been pre-ordained, and nothing of value will emerge. Justice will once again be shown as not having been done. Still, it will be applauded by Obama, so that will be good enough for most. And St Tony will be able to "move forward" and increase his wealth and highly remunerated puppet positions.

There arent many of you who post here who seem to care much. Compass has a three-line whip on Iraq never being mentioned here. So, once again I will be largely alone on this site. But it comforts me that the Scots will never forgive and forget this dreadful crime. Appeasement of Blair has been the single biggest (albeit not only) factor for the meltdown of Newlabour north of the border. Maybe the Scots and English Lib-Dems simply feel human rights issues more deeply. We have after all our own atrocious treatment by the English as a core milestone of our history. Many of the English are still invested in nostalgia for empire.

Posted by Jon Teunon 
on 18 June 2009, 12:52:37 PM
On 8 June 2009, John McDonnell proposed the following Early Day Motion:

‘That this House condemns the proposed abolition of income support which is a crucial lifeline against destitution and poverty for parents, carers, those they care for and other vulnerable people; further condemns the requirement contained in the Welfare Reform Bill that claimants with children over seven years old must find a job or work for their benefits for £1.73 an hour if they are unsuccessful in finding work after two years; notes that unemployment has risen to over two million and that many parents cannot access affordable childcare in their area; deplores this erosion of the principles of the welfare state and the minimum wage, and regrets the hardship that many families will now face; and calls on the Government to maintain income support in recognition of society's collective responsibility for childrearing and the important work of carers and parents for society.’

In a political landscape that is increasingly blurred by the interests corporate lobbyists and careerist politicos, (how much is their average salary, I wonder - you access their can’t their expenses etc on the net, with or without key data blacked out) it is always helpful to have some meaningful markers.

Thanks to McDonnell, those MPs who insist on declaring a social assault on the most vulnerable and misfortunate in our society, have been given a second chance – while of course those humane representatives, who already knew right from wrong could reaffirm their common decency – by standing up right now for the poor and sign his motion.

Make no mistake a lot of people will be watching the outcome very carefully – there is too much at stake for too many for it to be buried with all the other dire news. Those who put their heads above the parapet now before it is too late - will be remembered when the fiercest General Election in living memory takes place.
Information is getting faster, deeper and more widespread – exponentially and it will be used accordingly by.

These genuinely honourable people can continue to work for the people with a clear conscience – I wish them every electoral success in the next few months regardless of Party, they’ve passed the test:

Bottomley, Peter
Campbell, Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Clapham, Michael
Clark, Katy
Cryer, Ann
Davies, Dai
Drew, David
Durkan, Mark
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Drew, David
Gerrard, Neil
Godsiff, Roger
Hamilton, David
Hancock, Mike
Hopkins, Kelvin
Illsley, Eric
Leech, John
Jones, Lynne
McCafferty, Chris
McCrea, Dr William
McDonnell, Alasdair
Reid, Alan
Riordan, Linda
Robinson, Iris
Vis, Rudi
Turner, Desmond
Wareing, Robert N
Webb, Steve
Posted by Rosemary 
on 18 June 2009, 11:30:30 AM
*****If the public understood that there is no protection for the really vulnerable in this bill I think they would be shocked*****

What is more shocking is that those with the power to change things know the effect all this is going to have and yet still they push forward with it.

Welfare reform is definitely needed but this is persecution of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

This is from CAB ...

*****The CAB consider that sanctions in relation to JSA are currently administered in a

way which does not take into account individual claimants with mental health problems or

learning disabilities. They consider that further conditionality in respect of JSA and ESA

may exacerbate these problems:


Government indicates that sanctions are a last resort, but CAB advisers report seeing

clients who have been sanctioned several times. They are often vulnerable clients

with learning disabilities who have failed to understand what is required of them or

who haven’t attended courses or applied for jobs because the options have been

inappropriate to their disabilities or levels of literacy****


Just yesterday PCS issued a statement which included this

****With the recession deepening, the union called on the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ditch plans in the Welfare Reform Bill aimed at privatising areas of welfare, which will also see the safety net of income support removed and harsh conditions attached to benefits for the most vulnerable in society. *****

So we have individuals,groups of people,charities,organisations,unions,EDMs by MPs' all saying the same thing.Some of the proposals being put forward are WRONG and just think,DC and co want to "" take forward the welfare reform agenda "further and faster" than the Labour government"".

It scares me, it really does, the direction this country is going,when our govt cannot protect those who cannot speak up for themselves.







Posted by Paul McLean (Leeds)
on 18 June 2009, 11:04:10 AM
Frances, the blackout might not occur. Apparent Robin Butler is to make a speech in the Lords saying that at least some of it should be in public.

We know that Brown has only agreed to it because he is in a politically weak position. It should be a full public enquiry or something very similar. But as we know from the Brian Hutton enquiry, public enquiry/judicial enquiry does not necessarily mean that a comprehensive search for all of the facts will take place.
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 10:00:29 AM
Does anyone know why an MP should be able to claim the expenses paid to his accountant for preparing his tax return ?
Posted by frances 
on 18 June 2009, 9:21:37 AM
The enquiry in to the Iraq War is going to be completely blacked out.
Posted by paul (hereford)
on 18 June 2009, 8:54:52 AM
Dear Sir, to the anonymous poster. 18 June 2009

You will not have to worry about KITTy USHER she is not going to stand as an mp next election (FAmily reasons, how caring from a DWP ex minister, Welfare Reformist.

Paul
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 8:43:26 AM
I have just received a missive from No 10, saying it is utterly unfair to say that the Prime Minister is unconcerned about financial sector scam and fraud. He is about to announce that in future all banking and financial sector executives will have their salaries and bonuses published, with the amounts blacked out
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 8:35:18 AM
Gordon Brown, the man who saved the world's banks and carries zero responsibility for financial market meltdown and recession, has now stated that additional regulation of the Britah financial sector is entirely unnecessary and will not happen and Britain will boycott an EU effort to toughen regulation. Most European leaders are trying hard to avoid the term "cognitively challenged" in their opinion of the world's superhero. This view appears to be shared by the Bank of England. And even in the heartland of neo-liberalism, Obama is pushing for (albeit minimal) regulation.

I imagine that sooner or later Lord Mandelson will go into No 10, and give Superbrownman, a slap on the temple to get the creaking machinery to work again. Superbrownman still hopes he will be remembered as the leader who saved the world from financial sector regulation.

***************************************************************

So in an effort to restore trust and confidence, parliament has published MPs expenses with all the evidence of fraud blacked out. Sounds like Superbrownman had a hand in this, known as he is as a champion of transparency. Lord alone knows how they thought the public will respond. Instant trust expressed by uncontrollable synchronised vomiting ?

Hope the Telegraph systematically publishes all the information blacked out. My goodness, what a bunch of yoyos
Posted by frances 
on 18 June 2009, 8:12:44 AM
Can I just add to my last post that whereas the electorate seem to believe there is scamming and malingering on beneifts and many can be persuaded to join the witch hunt and so will support this bill -I don't think the electorate imagine for one moment that really vulnerable people like those diagnosed with severe and enduring illness are not going to be protected.

The Minister obviously feels that if you exempt the most vulnerable it will be the thin edge of the wedge. Just as Purnell had a tantrum when mother sof infants escaped he will see any more exemptions as a chink in his total power over all claimants. And he prefers to keep all power to harass and sanction everyone intact for him and his officials who will be judge and jury. This is not safe legislation.

In 2009 protection has to be written in law, not left to officials to hand out like old Roman Emporers.

If the public understood that there is no protection for the really vulnerable in this bill I think they would be shocked.
Posted by frances 
on 18 June 2009, 7:56:07 AM
Lee to Martyn
'The reality is that Newlabour and the Tories, if they continue to unite on the Welfare Reform Bill, will get it passed regardless of the timing of the election and its detailed outcome'

From the Indus Delta conference yesterday
'But Teresa May said the Tories wanted to take forward the welfare reform agenda "further and faster" than the Labour government and would act quickly to ensure this happened. "The Government sees the welfare reform bill as the culmination of a long process," she said. "But we see it as just the first step."'

We aren't going to stop this bill. The principle of harassment and bootcamp for people who don't have jobs is going to be established under NewLabour and driven forward in whatever way the Tories decide.

When the bill passed its second reading in the House Purnell wasn't able to look smug because he was so furious with Teresa May 'letting him down' and leading mothers of pre school children to safety. He had the most ridiculous tantrum.

The LibDem spokesman was very dignified and said it was a sad and shameful day and the LibDems were dismayed but would continue the fight in the Lords to try and protect the most vulnerable. They have been doing this whole heartedly and this is playing out in the dog days of this Parliament as everyone else thinks about expenses and banks and recession and coups.

I shall watch again this afternoon at the fourth Grand Committee and cheer them on. There are two more committees on Monday and Thursday next week. Anyone can watch them live or recorded or pick it up from Hansard.

Any protection that can be managed for the most vulnerable will in human terms prevent catastrophic trauma and fear. Read the Testimonies on the CarerWatch website to see how this ideological persecution terrorises the vulnerable. Any pressure that can be brought to achieve emergency protection for the most vulnerable in society in the next week or so would be so valuable.

Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 7:17:31 AM
STOP PRESS !! I have just received the executive summary from the Iraq Inquiry that Mr Brown has just announced.

We know that Mr Brown wants it entirely secret, although some Newlabour figures are squirming with embarrassment that Brown/Madelson would so crassly announce yet another cover-up and white wash. No doubt there will be some fudgy compromise which will ensure that the inquiry WILL be a cover-up and a whitewash, but WILL NOT obviously appear to be so, unless you have an IQ of 80 or over.

In any event, my agents from the future have just sent me the final executive summary from the outcome of this inquiry; so those of you who dont want to wait for another year, can read the outcome here, now, courtesy of Compass, another first !!

**************************************************************
IRAQ INVASION INQUIRY OUTCOME: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The conclusions of this extraordinarily open, honest, and unprecedently transparent enquiry are as follows:

* Yes mistakes were made, and we must learn from these to ensure that they never happen again

* There is no evidence that any minister of government or the prime minister, did anything untoward. They were entirely motivated by the most moral and honourable intentions, used to the best of their ability (given the context at the time) the information at their disposal to reach reasonable conclusions and take the action those conclusions required. In other words, all behaved according to their duties of office, maintaining the highest possible public standards.

* If there were any errors of fact in the information which resulted in the decision that the UK should join the US invasion of Iraq, (and this inquiry hastened to state that no such errors were discovered), then these are the responsibility of officials so minor that their identity is entirely unknown

* The Iraq invasion was a glorious moment of heroism for the brave forces of this nation to his glory the results of this inquiry is dedicated. They played their part in taking over from bounty-hunters a brutal dictator and having him hanged which has made the world a better and safer place, although this inquiry does not regard it as part of its responsibility to demonstrate how that judgement can be made.

* This inquiry dismisses any suggestion that torture at Abu Graibh, Guantanemo, and thousands of other secret prisons and countries to which victims were rendered extraordinarily, was known and ignored by any member or official of Her Majesty's Government, and in any case all these tortures were carried out by Al Qaeda dressed like US soldiers and CIA officials

* This inquiry concludes by recommending that the nation's highest honours be bestowed on the Right Hon Anthony Blair, John Scarlett, Alistair Campbell, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, and John Crud the Lesser.
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 6:27:28 AM
Here is another good reason not to vote Newlabour:


Tony Blair knew of secret policy on terror interrogations. Letter reveals former PM was aware of guidance to UK agents

Ian Cobain The Guardian, Thursday 18 June 2009

Tony Blair was aware of the ­existence of a secret interrogation policy which ­effectively led to British citizens, and others, being ­tortured during ­counter-terrorism investigations, the Guardian can reveal.

The policy, devised in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, offered ­guidance to MI5 and MI6 officers ­questioning detainees in Afghanistan whom they knew were being mistreated by the US military.

British intelligence officers were given written instructions that they could not "be seen to condone" torture and that they must not "engage in any activity yourself that involves inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners".

But they were also told they were not under any obligation to intervene to prevent detainees from being mistreated.

"Given that they are not within our ­custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this," the policy said.

The policy almost certainly breaches international human rights law, according to Philippe Sands QC, one of the world's leading experts in the field, because it takes no account of Britain's obligations to avoid complicity in torture under the UN convention against torture. Despite this, the secret policy went on to underpin British intelligence's ­relationships with a number of foreign intelligence agencies which had become the UK's allies in the "war against terror".

The policy was set out in written instructions sent to MI5 and MI6 officers in January 2002, which told them they might consider complaining to US officials about the mistreatment of detainees "if circumstances allow".

Blair indicated his awareness of the existence of the policy in the middle of 2004, a few weeks after publication of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

It was around this time, David ­Miliband, the foreign secretary, told MPs on ­Tuesday, that the policy was changed, becoming more "comprehensive and formal".

In a letter to the intelligence and ­security committee (ISC), the group of MPs and peers that provides political ­oversight of the UK's security and ­intelligence ­services, on May 24 2004, Blair said that rather than considering making a ­complaint, "UK intelligence personnel interviewing or witnessing the interviews of detainees are instructed to report if they believe detainees are being treated in an inhumane or degrading way".

The Guardian has learned from a ­reliable source that MI5 officers are now instructed that if a detainee tells them that he or she is being tortured they should never return to question that person.

*****************************************************************
Any comment from Compass ? An article from Chuka decrying the Labour Government's appeasement of and cowardice towards American torture ? How about one from Cruddas ? Or perhaps a think-piece from Rutherford about how torture can be an integral part of the good society ?

Come on, Lee, you must be kidding !! You would have to tie them down and extract it with forceps !
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 18 June 2009, 6:04:36 AM
Martyn

The reality is that Newlabour and the Tories, if they continue to unite on the Welfare Reform Bill, will get it passed regardless of the timing of the election and its detailed outcome. So you are correct that the only hope lies outside of Parliament: a people's campaign, in which sympathetic MPs can become allies. The single strongest group in the country that can lead would be the trade unions; so from a practical viewpoint, that is where the energy would best be focused. If the unions were sufficiently fired up and united on this point, they would stand a chance of getting Newlabour to step back. So the unions combined with a people's movement could work, but its a long shot.

I was answering more specifically in terms of what those people directly threatened by this legislation should do: by their very situation, they are a weak and ignored group so they have limited intervention power. As my study of the Public Whip website showed me, the most consistently progressive parliamentary group is the Lib-Dems..they do better than Labour left. They are the main parliamentary fighters against this disgusting bill. So in terms of civil and human rights, regardless of what we may think of their political capacity in the longer term, the evidence shows that the Lib-Dems are the party in England most likely to protect the weak and vulnerable, fight against the erosion of civil liberties, oppose imperialist wars of aggression, campaign for nuclear disarmament, and struggle to preserve the welfare state. I am not conducting a campaign on behalf of the lib-Dems..I am simply pointing out that at this juncture, where as Dugsie has pointed out, Newlabour's betrayal has made Britain a virtually one party state, thye Lib-Dems represent progressive thinking in England. In Scotland, that mantle is carried by the SNP.

This is a conclusion that life-long progressives and socialists will find it hard to stomach. I am one of those and I find it hard to stomach. But if I were in a constituency in England in which there was any chance of the Lib-Dems winning, I would vote for them. The only exception might be a Jeremy Corbyn or a John McDonnell. I dont see this as a long-term answer.Hopefully it is transitional, the goal being a hung parliament and the fracturing of Newlabour to release the progressive Labour group that in the first instance will need to ally with the Lib-Dems, SNP, PC, Greens, and progressive independents. Having as large a Lib-Dem presence in the next parliament is the single most important goal. I dont like it...it goes against all my political instincts. Left Labour MPs locked up in Newlabour are less reliable than Lib-Dems, whom the Public Whip has shown, have been voting progressively as a bloc, with the greatest consistency.

So what do we follow ? Our heads or our hearts ?
Posted by  
on 18 June 2009, 2:05:21 AM
The left should campaign for a tactical vote against Labour regardless of whether this means Lib Dem or Green, unless the Labour candidate has opposed this Workfare Bill. Come the election we should all write letters and speak out on radio phone ins saying this was the issue that lost Labour our votes. We should all canvass against Purnell, Kitty Ussher etc in their constituencies come the election. The only way these creatures will ever register that this kind of thing is a mistake is if it hurts their careers. They assume that their victims are too weak to fight back. We must prove them wrong. It might be worth appealing to mental health and poverty charities for help in this regard - even if they can't officially make political statements without losing their charitable status people from those charities could speak out in a personal capacity.

New Labour, in my opinion, is far more dangerous than the Tories. It is only the existence of New Labour where social democracy should be that enables an abomination like this to happen. I don't actually believe the Tories would dare do this - it would blow Cameron's cuddly image to be putting the boot into the mentally ill once he enters Downing Street. The fact that it has come from a so called Labour party has allowed it to get under the radar.
Posted by Jon Teunon 
on 17 June 2009, 10:08:55 PM
If the Bill goes through unchanged or with just cosmetic tweaks – then Lee’s advice is good, as long as the two prospective Green candidates and the minority of Labour MPs who did not support it are also considered.

But there so many overlapping issues – such as the replacement of Trident and the I.D. cars because they will consume so money that could be used for more compassionate means – and the faltering Green movement because that could both provide jobs and human and natural welfare are parts of the same whole. (Lewis is right in feeling cheated on this).

This is where Compass has been quite astute – it pays off to try and forge links with credible ‘progressive’ Lobbying interests. The weakness is that it is vulnerable to glaring anomalies and contradictions, like Cruddas’voting record and the flirting with Harman et al. (How many of those groups share these values? Lee have you researched her record yet – remember she won by copying Cruddas’ unconvincing act as the ‘left’ candidate).

So if someone like Unison started linking up with those against the Bill and all those other very expensive centre right New Labour suicide notes, then the choice between what some might call a ‘progressive coalition’ would take shape very much different to one imagined by those such as Neal Lawson.

All those to the left – while of course still having their differences are all against the Bill. It would not take long for them to realise that this alternative is a vote against both New Labour and the Tories. Who is more dangerous to the poor: Lib Dems, New Labour or Cameron? Any leftist with a brain knows who would be easier to influence

It might still be a temporary vote to a Lib Dem, but it wouldn’t be a vote for those that supported an agenda to their right. If Labour wanted to stop a worse outcome for them than 1931 they would have to show a real sign – the most obvious being pulling the Bill. But this seems highly unlikely, as Mandelson continues to strap Brown’s corpse to his horse like El Cid for one more charge at the Tories.

And as Brown hasn't a chance (and nor should he have) then a liberal/left alliance would actually have a far better chance of defeating the explicit representatives of the right David Cameron.

Time to kill two centre right birds with one stone - even if one is mortally wounded already.
Posted by Martyn Rosen 
on 17 June 2009, 9:36:39 PM
"How about campaigning for an election as soon as possible, to prevent the legislative work being completed, and then voting Lib-Dem."

I disagree with this - it's just not practical politics. So we all vote Lib-Dem and the Tories become the next government. Where does that get us ? It gets us a Purnell-Ultra Welfare Reform Bill from the Tory government.

A better route surely is to mount a single-issue campaign NOW against the Purnell Bill, and to hope that Brown succeeds in hanging on for a June 2010 election. That gives us a full year for the campaign to take hold, and to become a major issue in the general election hustings. Then every single parliamentary candidate can be forced to declare a position on the issue, and we can all vote for the candidate who PROMISES to vote in parliament according to his/her declared position.

I accept it's not perfect, but it's a lot better surely than voting for people who won't get elected.

Posted by lee ( highlands)
on 17 June 2009, 7:29:36 PM
Dugsie: What do you think the options are for those opposed to the Bill Jon
*********************************************************

How about campaigning for an election as soon as possible, to prevent the legislative work being completed, and then voting Lib-Dem. That is the advice I would give to anyone whose life and sanity is threatened by this bill.
Posted by Dugsie (Yorks)
on 17 June 2009, 6:01:46 PM
'Those who sincerely think of themselves as being of the left - whether in or outside the LP have to act, and act now. Right now, the only two questions that really count are which side of the Welfare Reform Bill are you, and what are you going to do about it? There is plenty of time for general housekeeping at a later date.'

What do you think the options are for those opposed to the Bill Jon ?
Posted by Jon Teunon 
on 17 June 2009, 5:23:42 PM
It is now crystal clear that neither New Labour or the Tories can be trusted with welfare - as Frances and Paul point out they're both fighting over different variants of the same workfare con.

Those who sincerely think of themselves as being of the left - whether in or outside the LP have to act, and act now. Right now, the only two questions that really count are which side of the Welfare Reform Bill are you, and what are you going to do about it? There is plenty of time for general housekeeping at a later date.

The next decade or so of how our most vulnerable people will be examined and judged by the State is being decided before our very eyes right now by the House of Lords. (It seems the commons weren't fit to purpose). And the ideology is far from 'progressive' or left of anywhere...
Posted by paul (hereford)
on 17 June 2009, 4:03:53 PM
Dear Sir, Frances new article

Reference Tory Welfare Reform policy The bigots are arguing about who can be the most ruthless. In the end you have to laugh, there pathetic all of them.

Who can be the biggest bully in the playground, what an acolade to have. The nasty party want to be as nasty as New Laobour. Purnell will be switching sides soon if Theresa May carries on with the rhetoric.

Every disabled person should vote liberal and get rid of both Tory and New Labour.

Some of thes politicians have disabled children and one has just tragically died. Is this what they want for those children in 10 years time?

They should reflect on that when they consider the next step, I won't spell it out, just remind people about 1930.s Germany and who were the first victims



Best wishes

Paul
Posted by frances (london)
on 17 June 2009, 3:14:12 PM
Look at this. Look at this. Look at this. Out of their own mouths. The Tories see this bill as a leaping off point. You ain't seen nothing yet.

But Teresa May said the Tories wanted to take forward the welfare reform agenda "further and faster" than the Labour government and would act quickly to ensure this happened. "The Government sees the welfare reform bill as the culmination of a long process," she said. "But we see it as just the first step."



A Conservative government would scrap the latest bidding round of welfare-to-work contracts in order to re-start the process on its own terms, shadow work secretary Theresa May has said.
Speaking yesterday in Liverpool at the Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion¹s Welfare to Work conference, May said that if the Department for Work and Pensions had not signed off its second phase of contracts for the Flexible New Deal by the time a future Conservative Government took power, she would scrap the contract bidding process and restart it, based on the Tory¹s ³more radical² welfare to work agenda.

Speaking prior to May, new work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper ­ in her first keynote speech following her appointment - announced the opening of the second phase of the bidding process for the FND, which will see private and third sector welfare jobs providers given a much greater role in the delivery of welfare across the UK.

The 14 successful first phase bidders were announced earlier this month and their contracts, covering around half of the UK, will begin in October, with the second phase contracts to follow a year later.

But May said the Tories wanted to take forward the welfare reform agenda "further and faster" than the Labour government and would act quickly to ensure this happened. "The Government sees the welfare reform bill as the culmination of a long process," she said. "But we see it as just the first step."

May said the Tories would roll out a model of payment that allows DWP to pay jobs providers by the savings they generate from the department¹s welfare budgets immediately, across the FND. To date the Government has only agreed to pilot this model in a few areas
Posted by Jon Teunon 
on 17 June 2009, 12:15:05 PM
Imagine if one of your family had only just got back to a position of stability - after a sustained period of desperate mental anguish and upheaval - where you could hardily recognise someone you had known all your life - and only because they had had months and months of expensive medication and intelligent but sensitive care provided by Professionals supported by over a hundred years of empirical evidence.

This respite though is still only tentative and fragile - small steps are struggled for with compassion and hope always accompanied with constant worry that person who you love more than ever, could return again to where you had lost them so abjectly before. The medication makes them sleep for over 12 hours and when awake there are still many hours, when they just seem to sit and think (about what you’ll never know, but at least they're not back there again...). But slowly, they adapt themselves back to coping with a world that had once seemed so natural.

Then after months of recuperation - your relative gets a job! It’s only a few hours a week (and far more basic than the career they had once so enjoyed - that seems like a lifetime ago…). You can't be sure why the employer is being so understanding - s/he seems to overlook some of the more unusual traits of the person they are taking on - who knows maybe it's religious feeling but who cares(!) the relative is getting the essential benefit of regular and purposeful activity.

A profit motive is almost entirely absent – but the Professionals never mentioned anything about that having any relevance to health therapy - physical or mental, that’s just political dogma dressed up as Science. You're almost happy for the time in over a year which only increases as your relative manages to keep to this limited but beneficial routine, you would never have believed that this would be possible back then.

But then the feeling of dread as you the letter from the DWP followed by nervous interviews. The bureaucrats are insisting that because your relative has worked for a year under the 'permitted work' conditions until the DWP s/he’ll have to work full time or stop the job. Your heart sinks, you know that they will never find an employer as understanding as the present one (who else would tolerate the ‘bizarre’ appearance, erratic attendance and his refusal to speak to other employees – and for 35 hours a week?)

You have to make the case (which has never been you strong point) because your relative won't speak to any of them themselves: “This is absurd!” you sputter. “Getting someone with schizophrenia comfortable, stable, compliant & holding down six hours a week job is a triumph! The fact that he is happy and comfortable is a tribute to everyone, the psychiatrists, the mental health team, the NHS that pays £25,000 a year for his medication. They don’t respond well to pressure – too much stress and they start to withdraw back inside themselves, which just deteriorates further if threatened with ‘conditions’ or ‘sanctions’ whether issued by you, the State or anyone else.”

Your outrage is just met with a cool silence. 'Permitted work' is a step in the wrong direction. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Full time work – they say we don’t want people to get comfortable on benefits.

“But that is your role, to aid and support. How far can you take the work ethic?” You are in an impossible situation, you have to protect your relative from all unreasonable pressure – the psychiatrists told you so. In effect you are their guardian. But they can’t afford to lose their benefits, and you’re not wealthy, you’ve always worked in the public sector. And for them to lose that one element of normal activity in their lives, where you that for a few hours a week they are working while causing no harm to anyone (especially themselves) could have a catastrophic effect on their mental well being. “I’ve never heard of Indus Delta. What do they know about mental health? Come to think of it what do you know about mental illness?” There is no reply. They are still looking nervously as you leave the room.

What would you do? I know someone who is faced with this terrible dilemma, and it constantly informs my political approach – in a way that a book can’t. Sometimes the ‘left’ has to get out there to see the wood for the trees. We can’t let this kind of thing happen in the UK in 2009.
Posted by paul (hereford)
on 17 June 2009, 10:02:54 AM
Dear Sir,

NEW UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES RELEASED TODAY

Unemployment Benefit claimants up 30,000 but less people working in country by 271,000. Biggest drop since 1971.

They cannot all have retired, proves how hard it is to get any benefits at all.

Paul

Posted by frances 
on 17 June 2009, 9:08:23 AM
There seems to be a mismatch between private providers managing employment and the public provision of the NHS. People with mental illness is extremis are hospitalised. But this is kept to a minimum and most are treated with very expensive medication in the community. Community care involves CPNs and other workers liaising in a regular way. They try and keep people stable. This is all publically funded. Up until now back to work programs have been part of this effort and run as part of the effort to help people stay stable and join in with the community. All research shows that kind support and help achieves results with mental illness and that coercion brings on relapse and loss of function. Carers are told not to get impatient and move to high 'emotion' strategies.

Suddenly a disturbing newcomer has arrived who is going to disregard the reports from the NHS and make their own assessment and then start helping/harassing. The first jarring note comes at the medical evaluation now done by at ATOS by private trained nurses who have had a two day course.

They have imported a private back to work model and it won't bolt on the a public health system. They accuse the NHS of colluding with patients in presenting as ill. They say patients must not get comfortable on benefits. But getting the patient comfortable and stable and happy is the aim of the NHS workers. The cost of benefits is negligible compared with the cost of medication and treatment and the cost of relapse and readmission to hospital.

These two systems will not bolt together. The harassment will perhaps have a few successes but mainly it will disturb and distress and this will add enormously to the NHS budget. This is disregarding the emotional cost and the suicide attempts and the sheer misery of a mental health relapse for absolutely everyone.

They say patients (sorry customers) must attend for work focussed interviews every week for two months. They say they must agree a program with their advisor of activity. They must accept 'direction' in to activity. If they don't turn up and do all this activity the sanctions kick in.

So now the CPNs and community workers all still paid by the public are spending all their time attending interviews with patients (sorry customers) and trying to explain and negotiate for them and deal with their distress and inability at comply with this system.

My son's psychiatrist says - don't go near the DWP - they are making my patients ill.
Posted by Dugsie (Yorks)
on 17 June 2009, 8:36:13 AM
Posted by frances
on 17 June 2009, 8:01:22 AM
'While Compass has been having its conference Indus delta have been having their own conference only there's seems to be going on for a week. Yvette Cooper and Teresa May are both there. I've been trying to read the reports of the conference coming in to the Indus delta site but I don't understand most of it. It's like stumbling in to a Masonic Ritual.'

They inhabit a strange world indeed.What we can understand about it, is its sheer lack of humanity.They see the most vulnerable and needy of our people as a means of making money for themselves. Not as citizens who, at the risk of sounding sentimental,most urgently require our love and care, but as 'customers' whose lack of power in the market place,makes them vulnerable to exploitation.

Old Labour, for all of its imperfections, would have been outraged at such a scenario. New Labour joins its Tory competitors in treating people as commodities. Our response should surely be to reject the marketisation of the vulnerable.

From each according to their ability.To each according to their need.
Posted by  
on 17 June 2009, 8:17:02 AM
Can anyone else help Paul and me here and go and trawl round the Indus Delta site and find out what they are up to. It says the conference reports will be coming in all week.

Out of the whole country our area has been picked for the first pilot - how unlucky can you get - so I'm expecting men in jackboots to be knocking on my son's door soonest.
Posted by frances 
on 17 June 2009, 8:01:22 AM
While Compass has been having its conference Indus delta have been having their own confernece only there's seems to be going on for a week. Yvette Cooper and Teresa May are both there. I've been trying to read the reports of the conference coming in to the Indus delta site but I don't understand most of it. It's like stumbling in to a Masonic Ritual.

FND phase 2 released, may be cancelled by Conservatives
Submitted by Daniel on Tue, 16/06/2009 - 10:37pm
in flexible New Deal event report w2w conference 09

The PQQ for FND phase 2 was released today, with an announcement by new Work and Pensions minister Yvette Cooper at the CESI Welfare to Work conference. Later on at the conference, however, it became rather less clear whether this FND2 round would even lead to a contract award.

Do it now or not at all?
Theresa May, Yvette's shadow counterpart in the Conservatives, was also speaking at the conference. In the Q&A following her own presentation, she stated that if Flexible New Deal isn't awarded by the time of the election (next May at the latest), and the Conservatives get in, then they will let contracts on the basis of their own proposals rather than the existing Labour government ones. The Conservative changes to FND include:

Starting FND at 6 months rather than 12
A stronger emphasis on paying for job outcomes
Payment on 52 week sustainment
Smaller contracts
Countrywide DEL-AME (it's not clear if this would be implemented immediately in FND)
Possibly some kind of differential payments to reward getting more disadvantaged customers into work (it's not clear if this would be implemented immediately in FND)
Theresa also stated that existing FND contracts would gradually be transferred to the Conservative model. In response to further questions on whether the current FND procurement would be cancelled by the Conservatives, she said that they would be able to confirm the Conservative position by the autumn, once they had a better idea of the FND2 timetable.


Posted by lee (highlands)
on 17 June 2009, 1:54:13 AM
Dugsie: That's the thing about New Labour, it's turned this country from a two-party state to a one-party state.
************************************************************
That is so frightening and difficult to understand. In America its not because from its inception, the political system was intended to be a plutocracy...as one of the founding fathers said, the country should be run for and by those who own it. The constitutional conference that set out the constitution was a room full of the wealthiest lawyers, slave-owners, and businessmen in the country; and congress today is identical. Karl Marx described America as having one party with two alternating committees.

But the fact that it has happened in Britain is astounding...even although the right are presently in the ascendancy in Europe, every other country in Europe has a healthy and unapologetic electoral left-wing with traditional roots. Of course the parties of the left have been "reformed" away from stalinist influence, but none has suffered the fate of Labour. There is no other European country in which the liberals constitute the effective parliamentary left-wing, as has happened in Britain. Britain, with its proud workers party traditions, the home of marxism.

******************************************************
Jon: I have always been naive, and somewhat sentimental in my politics. My gruff marxist father was quite candid in his view that I am "politically unreliable" because of my sentiment and proneness to outrage. He would say that the only reason I experience outrage is because I am not sufficiently grounded in my theory. Things I should understand still catch me by surprise. O well, that's me now. I prefer to be the way I am. When my father was particularly upset with me he would accuse me of being a "liberal", his worst condemnation. In his theory, a liberal is someone driven by his personal guilt rather than a sound political education, destined to make error after error. With a father like that, a prototype dogmatist, its no surprise I turned out like I am !
********************************************************
John Temple: Thank you for that interesting post

"Chuka Umunna, Labour candidate for Streatham and Compass “rising star”, defended “the good things the government has done”. The problem, he argued, is presentation “on the doorstep”."

That sentiment is so transparent and insulting. It exposes the fact that Chuka believes politics is simply vacuum-cleaner salesmanship. And it suggests he despises the intelligence of the electorate, which is quite capable, as it has done, of reaching its own conclusions.
Posted by John Temple (Manchester)
on 16 June 2009, 11:59:01 PM
From Socialist Worker:

Has the Labour left lost its Compass?

New Labour’s devastation in the European and county council elections has led some commentators to speculate whether the party is finished as a political force in Britain.

Guardian columnist Martin Kettle wrote, “Labour MPs now know that they are at risk of a terrible wipe-out in the next general election if nothing changes – well under 200 seats, perhaps nearer to 100. That would be an epochal and perhaps terminal defeat for Labour as a governing party.”

This is not the first crisis Labour has gone through in its over 100 years of history, and it has always recovered in the past. Groups within the party are preparing to take advantage of Gordon Brown’s troubles.

A conference took place in London last Saturday that showed there is still some kind of life in parts of the Labour Party.

More than 1,000 people came to “No Turning Back”, this year’s annual get-together of “democratic left pressure group” Compass.

In theory, Compass is a think-tank. In reality, it operates as a Labour Party faction. It claims more than 4,000 members and 25,000 supporters.

Understandably, the prevailing mood at the conference was a feeling of disorientation and confusion. Compass’s leaders tied themselves up in knots as they tried to talk left and prop up the government at the same time.

Chuka Umunna, Labour candidate for Streatham and Compass “rising star”, defended “the good things the government has done”. The problem, he argued, is presentation “on the doorstep”.

Yet when Neal Lawson, Compass’s founder and chair, explained why he hadn’t supported the recent attempts to unseat Brown, he said what was really needed was a “change of direction”.

Green Party leader and MEP Caroline Lucas spoke in the morning and was much quoted for the rest of the day. Lawson admitted that most of Compass’s policies are in the Greens’ manifesto.

Yet he also insisted that Labour is still the only “vehicle for progressive politics”. Members of other parties are not even allowed to join Compass.

Pendulum

For all its false broadness, Compass has a specific project. It does not want to challenge Brown, because it wants to outmanoeuvre the Blairites to “pick up the pieces” when the party’s pendulum swings back to the left, as it believes it will.

Compass hardly even bothers to disguise the fact it is building up Jon Cruddas, one-time deputy leadership candidate, as the next Labour leader.

But Cruddas is not left wing. He voted for the Iraq war. He apologised for his “mistake” – but then went on to vote for 42 days’ detention without charge.

Cruddas made a name for himself campaigning against the fascist BNP in Dagenham. But last week he criticised the protesters who egged BNP leader Nick Griffin. The BNP “have been elected through the democratic process. We should acknowledge that,” he told the Times.

Neal Lawson once said that Compass was “born out of frustration with New Labour on the part of New Labourites”.

It cannot bring itself to stop being self-consciously “modernising” – even when it talks about socialism, it is always “new socialism”. Audience members who talked about Clause Four and public ownership were met with laughter.

The problem is that there is little else in the space Compass is supposedly occupying. This means it attracts some people who are genuinely left wing, or moving that way.

But its odd political programme provides little clarity to those who are looking for answers.

Its pamphlet ‘What is the Democratic Left?’ talks openly about following in the footsteps of the Communist Party’s Marxism Today magazine and its contention that class struggle died with the defeat of the 1984-5 Miners’ Strike.

From this it draws the conclusion that change cannot come from the working class.

The truth is that left-wingers are being used as little but “window dressing” for Lawson and Cruddas’s not-so-secret ambitions.

With the state Labour is in, Compass could win control of it in opposition. But that would not shift Labour much to the left.
Posted by paul (hereford)
on 16 June 2009, 11:39:41 PM
Dear Sir.

As a person who has suffered mental illness for over 30 years, it is a nice to feel that people like me do have support and I personally am grateful for the comments on Welfare Reform posted on the Compass website.

Most websites and agencies I have made comments to or written letters to in the past have either been very negative, hostile or on the defensive to justify their position.

I even registered with INDUS DELTA, they said I could join their discussion provided that I didnot write" I hate provider bile" I replied to their email but left it at that. I now just check the INDUS DELTA website to see how our future is being decided.

Best wishes

Paul

Posted by frances 
on 16 June 2009, 11:21:30 PM
One sad note is that they tried exactly the same agenda in 1999. If you google the reforms they are making now you often get a replica headline from 1999 with Alistair Darling substituted for Purnell. But in 1999 the party and the electorate resisted them. Harriet took the fall for her opening shots at single mothers.

Now ten years on when Purnell wanted to show he was the true heir to Blair he decided to take up their dropped baton and run with it and nobody stopped him.

The sad note is the change in moral instincts to resist in the community in that period of ten years with NewLabour in power. Very, very sad.
Posted by Jon Teunon 
on 16 June 2009, 11:11:37 PM
Lee

Growing up under governments here who have continually eroded the welfare state from 1979 I was not as surprised as you to learn of the systematic harassment of the mentally ill - but I was just as apalled.

And Frances has been remarkably good influence - and her highlighting of what is being done right now by a Labour government is a warning to everyone on the left of what happens when a political creed loses its compassion and ethical foundation.

I've learnt a lot from you and Dugsie over the last couple of years - and now you have been alerted I know will channel that anger in the best way you can - by leaving no stone unturned (you've already supplied the most detailed list of Cruddas' voting record) until you know what you need to furnish your erudite posts.

The right wing media have been orchestrating an anti-claimancy campaign for decades, all the while that those who are poorer have voted less and less. Ultimately this has created a circular conversation between newspapers and readers which reinforces both their suspicions that poor people are lazy and feckless, if only they would just work harder. Once this connection is made then a personal vice greed is given a moral justiifcation no matter how twisted.

If I said to you that the companies that will profit from getting people into work will use staff who are not doctors to decide whether some one who has bipolar disorder or schizophrenia is feckless or compromised by a harrowing condition then as France might say you, you might have thought I was making it up. Now you know I'm not.
Posted by Dugsie (Yorks)
on 16 June 2009, 9:27:28 PM
That's the thing about New Labour, it's turned this country from a two-party state to a one-party state. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Once you get past four years since the last general election, it begins to look as though the government are reluctant to face the electorate.
Posted by frances 
on 16 June 2009, 9:00:15 PM
I'm not instinctively a single issue campaigner. When I started looking at the proposals in the Welfare Reform Act I didn't believe what I was reading. I thought I had it wrong. I still think it must all be a dreadful mistake. As Lee says - this is Britain.

And that is essentially what makes it such a hard campaign to work on because while the electorate all want scroungers mythical or real hunted down they expect that the government who thinks about the sort of vulnerable people they don't want to think about will have made sensible provision to protect the vulnerable. As Lee says - this is Britain. They don't believe that they can have overlooked this through ignorance or fixation on ideological targets.

It's actually much like the Iraq War where they forgot to make a plan for after the invasion and we all assumed thsi had occurred to them.

But going out and campaigning against something that is so callous and misguided being done for no sensible reason that will cost a fortune and won't work and will cause untold misery is actually near to impossible because no one believes you. Truth is always stranger than fiction. You couldn't make it up.

I was explaining to someone today that the government tried to put sanctions on mothers as soon as their child had its first birthday but Teresa May for the Tories insisted on putting it up to school age. He kept getting it the wrong way round. He couldn't hear that the Tories couldn't stomach the Labour proposals and came in with compassion. He couldn't hear it that way round.

Cuckoo.
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 16 June 2009, 8:18:58 PM
Jon: But apart from that I agree with almost everything you're writing in support of the most vulnerable people in our society.
******************************************************
Jon, I am beholden to Frances who day after day has pursued this issue, and has helped emblazen it in my consciousness. Its not as if the media has put it front and center. Our society has become callous towards the aged, infirm, handicapped. They are used as figures of comedy. But while I have known about that, I hadnt prepared myself for the horrific callousness that Frances has drawn to our attention. Whenever I read her accounts, I find myself saying "this isnt Britain ! This cant be a Labour Party that is doing this ! The Labour Party is our ultimate protector. They are there to fight against this moral degeneracy." In the 28 years I spent in the USA, I was accustomed to hearing this social depravity on a daily basis. Married to an African American and thus becoming part of that culture, this was the norm: the hideous mask behind the Murkindreem. But I always believed that it could not happen in Britain. Now I say to myself, it could not happen in Scotland. But I am no longer so sure.

Like Dugsie, I am getting on, and so this affects me personally. My wife is a victim of multiple sclerosis, so I understand personally what this hardship is all about. Like most if not all of you who post here, I too am not wealthy (its never been my goal to be wealthy, so that is partially by choice). Having been raised under apartheid and having experienced at first hand 8 years of George Bush, I really thought I had conquered outrage. But reading some of Frances' accounts and following up on her links, I have fell into outrage more than once. I still cant believe it. And I still cant believe that it doesnt matter to Compass that their lead MP voted for this legislation. I no longer understand what the term "bottom-line" means. Apparently it no longer exists.
Posted by paul (hereford)
on 16 June 2009, 8:08:58 PM
Dear Sir,

I do not know much about Mr Cruddas except that he was Purnells mate and is all for Welfare Reform.

Looking at the evidence provided it seems Mr Cruddas is a cuckoo in the nest of Compass.

The same was said of Tony Blair that he was a cuckoo in the nest of the labour party. Unfortunately there were many cuckoos in the nest as the last 12 years shows.

What new labour has managed to do to me with the Welfare Reform Act and continued pressure from the DWP is send me cuckoo, if you know what I mean.

Best wishes

Paul
Posted by lee (highlands)
on 16 June 2009, 8:00:39 PM
Paul: I just love the snark reference. Thank you; you have enriched my Tuesday (hot, blue, and muggy in the western highlands, we have has hardly any rain for two months, and I am aching for a great storm !!)

The reference brought to mind what nobel prize winner Doris Lessing said of Tony Blair: "He believes in magic. If he says a thing, it's true. I think he's not very bright in some ways".

Blair's magic word was "absolutely"..it was the alchemists touchstone that made his every utterance a reality

Funny how things have gone downhill from Blair, just when you thought the bottom had been reached.
Posted by Jon Teunon 
on 16 June 2009, 7:20:31 PM
'I am sure that very few people, me included, did not know about his voting record in the way I have posted here. But you know what happens. Neal can rush through some new article and the threads that contain the voting record will slip off the front page and vanish into the mists of time.'

No chance Lee those days are gone - because particularly after the expenses swindle the public's antennae has got more sensitive and as the unemployment figures ratchet this will only increase.

But apart from that I agree with almost everything you're writing in support of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Posted by Paul McLean (Leeds)
on 16 June 2009, 6:40:24 PM
Frances: In what way is Cruddas the 'leader of the left' as it keeps saying in the paper.

Rather appropriately, (you may well think,) in the way understood by Lewis Carroll in ‘The Hunting Of The Snark.’ Study of this poem is particularly appropriate to understanding the momentum that is Jon Cruddas. To be going on with, just remember The Rule of the Snark, viz: “If I say something three times it must be true.”

Thinking about it, it is a useful allegory of the present Labour Party, with Bellman Brown holding the Banker by a finger entwined in the Banker’s hair. Make what you will of the Bellman’s map and the reliance placed on it.

Posted by lee (highlands)
on 16 June 2009, 5:27:25 PM
Frances: In what way is Cruddas the 'leader of the left' as it keeps saying in the paper. Who does he lead? Who elected him. Who dooes he justify his voting to.

I think Compass is a great organisation with lots of potential and it is desperately needed and has a lot of crediblity.

By being the only MP associated with Compass it seems to me that Cruddas gains enormous gravitas and importance. But if he wants to walk through the lobby in favour of the most penal and cruel legislation we have ever had in this country when Compass have run a campaign against it which had massive membership support then he should so that as an individual and not claim to be more than that.

*********************************************************
Cruddas is attracted to Compass because both do a lot in the "image management" department, and both improvise and grab opportunities as they arise. Cruddas votes a certain way, probably because he agrees with most Blairite legislation, but also because it keeps him in the antechamber of power. Quite aside from that, and in contradiction to it, as you point out, he has, with help from Compass and the Guardian CIF brigade, cultivated an image of the kind of leftist you dont have to be scared of; someone of and from the working class, with a great number of progressive slogans, who will still protect us from the ravages of McDonnellian socialism. I sense that Cruddas is probably more admired by the bourgeois membership of the broader Compass/Progress movement, than he is in genuine working class circles.

He appears to stick fast to one technique. When Jon Trickett was challenged on his 42 day vote, he entered into dialogue, and eventually found that his credibility was shot. Cruddas doesnt do dialogue with his critics, as is obvious here on this Compass site. They are ignored, and eventually they go away; and as long as the image polishing continues alongside, memories of how he has voted fade away. I am sure that very few people, me included, did not know about his voting record in the way I have posted here. But you know what happens. Neal can rush through some new article and the threads that contain the voting record will slip off the front page and vanish into the mists of time.

So all of you who have aimed questions at Cruddas expecting him to come onto this site to respond and debate with you, dont hold your breath. It will happen only if Neal thinks Cruddas has something to gain from doing so, and its hard to imagine that happening. But Rutherford will pop up again quite soon in his congenial manner for some more chat, and tell us he doesnt represent Cruddas.

1 to 50 of 166

 

Leave a comment

About you










Your comment

Please do not use HTML tags in your comment as they will be displayed as normal text.

We take no responsibility for the content of comments posted on this website, which represent the views of their authors alone.

Please enter the two words in the image below. This is an anti-spam measure designed to prove that you are a human, not a computer.