This week I have mostly...

...been listening to the Santana Blues Band.


You should have been too. Seriously, this is the first time iTunes has been off 'shuffle' in weeks. I've got a black magic woman, got me so blind I cant see, dum dee dah. They're not all lyrical masterpieces, but that's not the point. It's simply fantastic jazz music.

And hey, even if you end up hating it, just remember Carlos' support for various good causes and thank yourself on a job well done.

Little Miss Deputy contest in the Party of One

So then, I'm blogging again. Not that there's much point from a Labour Party perspective, given that Gordon Brown and the Parliamentary Party and quite happily engaging in "debate" and "renewal" all by themselves.

Sour grapes aside, with the failure of either a far-left or even practical joke challenger to the Iron Chancellor, interest seems to have gathered around the deputy leadership contest. Despite the pretence of a diverse choice, of the six candidatures only two actually seem to have a point: Jon Cruddas (whispering sweet nothings into party activists' ears and talking about feckin' housing) and Hazel Blears (keeping the faith alive in the Year of our Party 2007, After Blair). The others, however nice or charming they are reputed to be, seem like all they want is a bit more time in front of the cameras and an addition to their CV.

Blears or Cruddas are the only two candidates actually interested in the party or campaigning, as opposed to calming down our poor neglected MPs. Unless one of them is elected, the only way the contest will have meant something, anything, is if Harriet "I'm A Woman" Harman announces she is, in fact, a man - or at least admits she was joking about selective education and private health insurance, and only ran for deputy as a dare.

Anyway, while I'm not exactly pleased that no one in the Labour Party or trade unions will be able to vote for the leader and therefore nail the Chancellor down on some policies, it's been nice to go a month without being massively offended by some initiative of the Government, if only thanks to the transition. If having a Labour leader who doesn't revel in pissing off his natural supporters is the only advantage of a Brown premiership (and I sincerely hope it won't be and that we'll have further successes tackling poverty and social injustice etc.) then I will consider that more than adequate.

Good to see the Tory Party has been having a hard time of it, too. Seems like a bloody long time since that last happened.

Cruddas has a different 2020 vision

Rather than the bland, pseudo-participatory sham of a debate that is Milburn's 2020 Vision, Jon Cruddas' campaign have published an open letter from 100 supporters around the country, which I am proud to have signed. Rather than the bleak vision of a 'progressive century' based on the Murdoch press and the super-marginals, Cruddas is pointing out the need for a progressive party, re-built as a vibrant campaign organisation rather than a passive, declining husk of a cheerleading squad. I urge everyone (by which I mean the random oddball who stumbles onto this blog!) who wants a fourth term Labour government to sign the letter and give Jon Cruddas their full support.

Genghis Reid strikes again

John Reid, Michael Howard's more right-wing, secret younger brother, is keeping up the family tradition by cracking down on something (in thise case, illegal immigration) at the Home Office. Instead of climbing into the political cesspool that is John Reid's policy agenda, I merely suggest you read this Independent article from last year, written in the run-up to the glorious 2006 protests in the United States over similarly punitive measures.


In the article, the IPPR suggests, like the T&G, that an amnesty for those immigrants living illegally in Britain, who are "likely to be doing jobs that could be characterised as dirty, difficult and dangerous", is a Good Thing. Indeed, it could be worth £6bn to the economy (or "300 new schools, 12 district hospitals or 200,000 new nurses"), compared to the £4.7bn cost of deporting up to 500,000 people. Gosh, the choice is so difficult; whatever should we do?

Half the population

Every time I read about the next US presidential election, and the Democratic candidates specifically, I realise just how depressing it is to be outshone by such a monumentally unequal society in the diversity of candidates. Picture the two Democratic party frontrunners: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now compare them to Gordon Brown, Michael Meacher and John McDonnell, or the assortment of other white men who have been mentioned as possible Labour leadership contenders. How the smeg did this happen?


Clinton and Obama may be riding to national prominence on the back of big business and millionaire supporters, the same social class on whom their Republican opponents will depend, but their mere presence in the contest as credible candidates - and in a culture dominated by social conservatism - puts we on the UK's progressive left to shame. Yes, Labour leads the way in female MPs, but there aren't enough by far. And the only cabinet-level politician from an ethnic minority I can think of is Baroness Amos; hardly awe-inspiring.

Given the recent discussion of House of Lords reform, I am inclined to ponder Tony Benn's Commonwealth of Britain Bill, which described a democratically elected second chamber where "half of the members .. shall be women and half shall be men". Perhaps someone could suggest the idea to Jack Straw: it might stop MPs, at least on the Labour backbenches, pissing about on which voting system to use to make a decision. And maybe Gordon Brown's fabled 100 days might, say, include nationwide All-Women Shortlists for selections until the parliamentary party accurately reflects the British population.

If I recall, had women not had the vote, Labour governments would have been elected continuously since 1945. As a result, women are disproportionately vital to the fortunes of the Conservative party; if Labour loses female voters permanently, we are fu---er, well, things are not good. So why isn't Labour's innovation and radicalism directed towards ending gender inequality? For good. Gone. By any means necessary. That kind of thing. Alongside ending poverty, it surely is the great task of the modern left.

That said, I'd settle for a good, female Labour leadership candidate.

So Ming's one of us?

The BBC reports that Ming Campbell has got into a spot of bother over an anonymous (non-existent?) party worker briefing that his spring conference speech was actually about the terms of a Lib-Lab agreement.

I understand that Campbell was one of the two leading Lib Dem MPs pencilled in for cabinet-level positions, had the pre-1997 project between Blair and Ashdown come to fruitition, so I find it believable that he is considering how to develop the idea of a new centre-left pact. Whatever the accuracies of that report, if it were true, one thing that strikes me is that I don't find any of the 'tests' set for a Brown government particularly objectionable. Given that cooperation with the Liberals has always been the affair of the Blairite wing, I found it particularly surprising that I consider most of the ideas (generally) agreeable and not contradicting Labour values.



Campbell's highlighting of the need to "reduce inequality and provide quality public services" would, I imagine, be considered quite mainstream views amongst the Labour party grassroots. Indeed it reminds one of the social democratic image the Lib Dems stole from the government during the last election - as the party prepared to be open (nationally at least!) about their plans for public spending. Considering Brown's vulnerability to allegations of imposing "stealth taxes", it might be nice if the Labour government embraced in Ming's social-liberal leadership a rather obvious ally when it comes to public services and progressive taxation. Meanwhile scrapping ID cards and replacing council tax with a local income tax are two decent policies I would wholeheartedly support if voiced by a Labour MP.

Electoral reform aside, I think on issues ranging from anti-poverty work to the environment, the Labour party and the Liberals under Ming have far more in common than they would care to admit. Enough to avoid a Conservative government if the leadership elections don't rescue Labour from its year-long nosedive? Who knows. If any such agreement appeared like opportunism I think we would see even larger Tory poll leads emerge. And it's worrying to think what would happen to the trade unions and their workplace agenda under a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. They do support binding arbitration, after all.



The real 'deal-breaker' seems to be the call for a reversal of Britain's close partnership with US neoconservatism. Given that Brown has always been one of the leading advocates of the American tendency in the Labour party, I think there is more chance of Ming Campbell actually becoming the next prime minister than joining a Brown-led coalition under those terms.

However, if things don't change for Labour during the next twelve months, perhaps the situation would be worth considering further.

Review of the weekly class struggle

1. Latest, vaguely radical-at-a-distance policy from the LibDems: raise taxes on the rich... (yay!) to redistribute inheritance to the middle class (feck!).

2. Angry parents string up Labour councillors for taking away little Billy's right to the best school. They bought that new in-catchment house fair and square, don'tcha know.

3. The party of the NHS is to give nurses a de facto pay cut. Because we all have to tighten our belts.

People power

Let's talk about ferries. Now if you're using a few moments of your precious time to read this blog entry, you're probably British - which means that you live on an island. Not a proper island, though. A place that can hold over 60 million people is an island in the same way that Australia is: you can walk around its coastline without stopping, but if no one showed you a map you'd probably never notice.


I however, live on an island: the Isle of Wight. A real island; think Father Ted with tourism. An island off the coast of another island. Now, some very naughty people, Red Funnel and Wightlink, allegedly "ferry companies" but in reality "shameless profiteers", charge us extorionate amounts of money just to visit the mainland. And for mental health reasons, we need to leave this island every now and then. Did you know we're called the Isle of Wight because of our ghostly and lifeless nature? No? That's because it isn't true.

Moving on to some things that are true, however:

• Red Jet season ticket prices have increased year on year at 2-3 times the rate of inflation
• There is no government regulation of ferry ticket prices and passengers are vulnerable to further rises imposed
• Since 2004, the cost of a season ticket has increased more than 30%
• Islanders, particularly those travelling on foot, have no alternatives and are at the mercy of the unregulated ferry operators for getting off the island
• In addition, parallel increases in the cost of transport of freight and goods across the Solent can push up up the cost of living on the island

Between those of us who need to visit Southampton or Portsmouth for reasons of sanity, and those commuters who essentially pay another tax just to get to work in the morning, we, the people, are pretty narked. And we'd like a bit of old fashioned solidarity.

The people who bring you these nuggets of truth, in the same spirit of consumer power that is sweeping this country, can be located here at the Competition 4 IOW Ferries blog. Please, take a minute to read what they have to say, and sign the petition.

Ideas for the Happy Office

If headlines are anything to go by, then 'The Right Honourable' has been replaced by 'The Beleaguered' as the new prefix for the Home Secretary. If at all possible, the expressions on Comrade Reid's face may become even more grumpy in the coming days.

Amidst the Home Office's latest myriad of problems, so flawlessly constructed one can only surmise an evil genius is out there plotting against the Labour Party, a pertinent question arises: What the hell happens if John Reid doesn't survive as Home Secretary? Who, in their right mind, would want to replace him? "End my career in six months or less? Oh, yes. Thank you, Prime Minister." You'd need to hold his successor's family hostage, just to get them through the front door.

There is an alternative, of course. The Home Office states that it is "responsible for ensuring we live in a safe, just and tolerant society by putting public protection at the heart of all we do". Given that it is so manifestly crap at doing this, perhaps we should seek a wholly different method of achieving those goals. A good first step would be to abolish the Home Office entirely, and replace it with (drum roll, please) a Happy Office. I already have an official motto lined up: "Like its predecessor, but nicer."

We could use all the money the Home Office currently wastes on failing to keep people locked up in small rooms at public expense, and spend it on more effective (and nicer) ways of protecting us all. Not convinced? Some examples:

1. Each week, give everybody in the country a lovely free ice cream if they haven't been arrested in the last seven days.

2. Employ people to go around scraping chewing gum off the pavements, thereby making everyone feel better about their environment.

3. Create death squads to roam the streets looking for anyone who spits, litters, or doesn't clean up after their dog. (Okay, maybe that isn't 'nice', exactly, but when you're the Happy Secretary you have to make tough decisions.)

4. Issue water pistols filled with red wine to the police force, because while bank robbers (for instance) may not fear prison, they won't want their shirts getting ruined.

Think about it.

UNISON Brown Link, more like

Every now and then, we get magazines, leaflets, and even ballot papers from UNISON through the post. This is curious, as my mother hasn't been a member of UNISON since she worked as a learning support assistant several years ago. How this reflects on UNISON's competence when it comes to keeping up-to-date records, I wouldn't like to guess. A union of some 1.3 million is allowed a certain leniency I suppose, even if it does seem like a waste of members' money.

Being somewhat of an anorak, I happened to flick through the latest batch of these magazines. My excuse? They often include offers that are available to non-members. In the UNISON Labour Link supplement to the latest addition of 'U' magazine, which came through the post yesterday, however, I found something that tickled me. Under the title 'Labour Leadership Contest - Have your Say!' there runs a line of crap pictures: Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman, Peter Hain, Jon Cruddas and Hilary Benn.

This list is notable, obviously, for the absence of the one leadership candidate who actually supports UNISON's positions on, for instance, the Private Finance Initiative or the internal market in the NHS: John McDonnell. Positions, ironically, which are brought up overleaf in 'U'. If UNISON is content to merely softly criticise these policies in perpetuity, this makes sense. Because surely, if they were serious about influencing debate on issues of such vital importance to their members, UNISON might, oh I don't know, consider someone whose candidacy would, at the very least, provoke a debate on things like privatisation or market reforms

Say what you like about McDonnell's views, I hope most people consider it acceptable to at least acknowledge there are genuine disagreements within the Labour Party and that a democratic debate would be a Good Thing. Well, apparently not. I can understand how difficult it must be for the union bureaucracy to justify supporting the architect of PFI, but excluding McDonnell's picture from a sodding in-house article, while boasting about giving members a 'say' on the impending election, is so hilariously petty the only appropriate response is: