Glasgow North East Labour Party

And so, after Crewe and Nantwich, came Glasgow East …. Members from other parties and the collective wisdom of the media know that we had by far the best candidate in Margaret Curran, and that our campaign was well-organised and strong. The work which party staff and volunteers from across Scotland put in was outstanding. In the end, the surprise was not that we lost, but that we came so close to victory. Nevertheless, suffering such a public reverse in our neighbouring constituency and one with demographics so similar to our own must spark a consideration of the lessons we must all learn, to recover in time for 2009/2010.

The first and most important lesson is to sharpen our message of what we stand for. The by-election was no carbon copy of our loss in Dunfermline and West Fife in 2006. We didn’t just lose (badly) in the more affluent communities in Glasgow East – we also lost in some of the core Labour voting areas too. Many traditional working class Labour voters told us they didn’t know what Labour was for any more, and that they preferred the SNP. When we engaged them in discussion about what we hoped to do on the economy and jobs, and contrasted that with Alex Salmond’s record on education, health, and crime, then many were persuadable, and were Labour supporters at heart, if not right now. But how many people in the constituency were we unable to speak to in those three weeks, who shared the same views? Better communication is partly down to organisation in each local Labour party, but also ensuring that we speak up again for people’s concerns, and act to respond to them, such as on the cost of living, the need for renewed job creation in Glasgow, a transformation of education and skills training to leave no-one behind, higher pensions, and public services that meet the hopes of aspirational working and middle class voters who delivered such a strong protest vote against us in communities like Swinton, Baillieston, Mount Vernon and Garrowhill in Glasgow East. To win again in Glasgow East, we need to win back people’s trust, and inspire about what together we can do.

The second lesson, campaign hard on the good things we are doing. Our SNP opponents never cease to claim credit for the smallest changes they claim to make. Yet, thousands of elderly voters have no idea that we plan an increase in winter fuel allowances this year. Thousands of low paid workers may not know that the minimum wage goes up to £5.85 an hour for workers aged 22 and over in just a few weeks time, or that Labour will be campaigning to extend this full rate to 21 year olds in the next Parliament. That’s all because we haven’t communicated as directly as we should. We should put this right quickly.

The third lesson, is to play the ball rather than the man. Voters will not welcome personal attacks on either Alex Salmond’s or David Cameron’s character. Our task must be to debunk SNP and Tory thinking, and offer people a better alternative. There is a huge distance between the lip service paid by the other parties to our goals of a fairer society, with a reduction in the gap between the richest and poorest in our society, and what our opponents do in terms of policy. We have to widen that credibility gap between now and 2010.

The fourth lesson, is to rediscover the sense of inspiration and purpose that we had in 1997, but apply it to the different landscape of 2010. Remember the days of a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to help unemployed youngsters get back to work? In 1997, they seemed like fairly basic pledges – would we still have the same courage to take on powerful vested interests today? The great and painful irony is that at a time when we have never been less popular as a party, the country can finally see the shortcomings of unfettered free markets. There is no victory in a battle of ideas between ourselves, the Tories and the SNP. On the doorsteps in Glasgow East, and in constituencies elsewhere, people are not arguing for government to do less on jobs and living standards, or for unfunded tax cuts that would destroy our social infrastructure. What they are looking for is for the Government to act when the private sector proves unable to do so, or where it will not act in the wider public interest, such as in energy policy. Polly Toynbee and David Walker’s excellent recent book “Unjust Rewards” gives us a powerful jolt to range far wider in tackling poverty in the UK. Policy making must be open to new ideas which challenge the conventional thinking of the last decade, but which serve progressive goals. As in 1992, we would do well to look across the Atlantic for inspiration. If our American cousins in the Democratic Party can win support in a close election year, for a windfall tax on energy companies, and close tax loopholes enjoyed by the wealthiest, to make America fairer, then what is to stop us doing likewise?

The final lesson, is unity. Parties which fight among themselves cannot fight their opponents with credibility. We must remember that we are fighting not each other, or for ourselves, but for the millions of people who share the progressive dream of a decent, tolerant, open, dynamic, and more equal, stronger society.

William T. Bain

As a party we face tough times, but must meet them with unity and clarity of purpose. Our poll ratings are at 70 year lows, and our performance in the English and Welsh local government elections, and to a lesser extent in the London Assembly and Mayoralty elections, were the worst for 40 years. The result in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election simply confirmed that trend, and Glasgow East brought it as close to home as possible.

After eleven years of Labour Government, a new generation of voters has no memory of the unemployment, greed, and decimation of public services that comes with Tory administrations, and the UK general election campaign of 2010 will be an uphill battle. Boundary changes reduce Gordon Brown’s notional majority in the redrawn Commons to 47, and it will be a formidable task to hold onto those seats, particularly but not exclusively in the south of England, that will make the difference between a fourth Labour victory, or the return of the Tories. So, is it a foregone conclusion already, or do we have a chance to win again? To borrow a phrase – Yes We Can.

But we can only win if we recognise how serious the situation is, develop the new policies and political narrative that meet voters new aspirations, unite behind our leadership, and out-campaign the Tories and the SNP on the ground. Our greatest ally at this point may be the complacency of the Tories. Post-Crewe, the Tory modernisation project has stalled, saving the environment and international development are out of the window, the right-wingers are in full cry, and voters are told the election has already been decided. Really? When we were in opposition we undertook the hard work to ensure that our policies on the minimum wage, New Deal, support for pensioners and families, and on constitutional reform were ready to be implemented from day one. People knew what we stood for, and what we would deliver. Can anyone say the same about today’s Tories? On the economy, they say they want lower borrowing, lower taxes, yet higher spending on health. On the 10p tax rate, they were against it on its introduction, in favour of it only when it was being abolished, and went back on promises to restore it. It may have won them a by-election, but such opportunism may yet cost them a greater prize. Low paid workers, working families, and pensioners know the Tories cannot be trusted.

If the SNP want to draw a new boundary around problems or create conflict with Westminster rather than tackle them, the Tories believe you can solve problems by lecturing people, cutting budgets, or rejigging the stats – rather than join Labour in tackling child poverty, they would tell 1.7million needy children that they were not in poverty, and would not act to alleviate it. The Tories believe that Government is always the problem, so spending less, doing less but hectoring more is the answer, and that communities and the voluntary sector can take up the slack. We believe that for the great challenges of our time – increasing people’s living standards, housing, education, and tackling poverty and climate change – that progressive Government must be part of the solution, but involving communities more in the delivery of public services. The Tories may believe there is such a thing as society now, but they do not share the vision of a decent society that drives democratic socialists on.

Greater scrutiny of our opponents will come in time – but what should we do now, to reconnect with people, and to ask them to listen to us again? Move left to refocus on the “core vote”, or move right to take on the Tories in the Southern and Midlands battleground seats? The answer is neither. We need a narrative for the next election, which appeals to voters in the south worried about the cost of living, crime, and housing, and to voters in Wales, Scotland and the north of England, who are frustrated by our rate of progress in building a fairer country. What the recent elections show is that the age of dog whistle politics or triangulation is over.

Voters are looking for new policies which deal with their hopes and aspirations, and a clearer idea of what Labour stands for 11 years into Government – so we can find and increase the £3bn a year necessary to substantially increase child benefit (particularly for larger families where poverty rates are higher), and the child tax credit, to end child poverty in our generation, we can create apprenticeships and jobs in new industries which cannot be outsourced to low-wage economies overseas, we can make skills improvements and further education accessible to everyone, we can tackle the problems which younger people experience in finding a home, and we can improve people’s living standards with a higher minimum wage, action to tackle the abuses of some of the electricity and gas companies by better regulation of the markets, and simplified, more generous tax credits, and change in the tax system, helping hard-pressed families feeling the pinch at the lower end of the income scale by ending the loopholes exploited by the super-rich, recently exposed by the TUC.

Replaying Labour’s greatest hits since 1997 won’t win us a change election, but neither should we slump into despondency by believing that the Tories have already won the battle of ideas. The same coalition for time for a change which existed prior to change elections in 1945, 1979 or 1997 has not been built. People can yet be persuaded that change in government is better than a change of government. We have two years to put right our mistakes, strengthen the economy, and to set out a new progressive agenda on jobs, housing, and family incomes. The Tories can only win if the country is increasingly negative or cynical enough about what any Government can do, to throw Labour out regardless of the consequences. We have to raise the sights of the country as to what we can achieve together.

William T. Bain

We await next week’s Budget with the hope of further steps to tackle poverty in all its forms, particularly child poverty, and fuel poverty. Although public borrowing has gone up, partly to meet our responsibilities to secure the stability of the banking system following the troubles at Northern Rock, and there is greater concern about the strength of the world economy, we know we must act to improve the education, training, job opportunities, and living standards, of those who would suffer the most in any global economic slowdown.

In our own CLP, unemployment continues to fall, to 7.9% of the working age population this January, but male unemployment remains 2% higher than any other Scottish constituency, and compared with our neighbours, the decline in joblessness in Glasgow North East in the last twelve months was only the same as that in the more affluent Glasgow South and Glasgow North constituencies. The levels of children in the constituency living in poor households on out of work benefits have similarly fallen, but remain at a disturbing 47% according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation - the highest in Scotland, and the sixth highest in terms of child poverty throughout the UK. No child should have to go without new shoes or a winter coat, or be unable to go on school trips with their classmates, because of a lack of money. In Britain, in 2008, we should act now to heal this scar on our society.

And there is a clear sense of what still needs to be done after almost eleven years of progress on tackling poverty. Working with public agencies and the private and voluntary sectors to create jobs in places like Ruchazie, or Milton. Working with trade unions and industry to adopt a new strategy for British manufacturing, where we invest in the equipment, training and skills to create and sustain jobs which cannot be outsourced abroad, and where we improve education at every level, from nurseries for two year olds to part-time courses for adult workers. Labour now must meet the challenge not just to build a full employment society, but a fulfilling employment society.

We must also act to deal with the emerging problem of the working poor in Britain – families who have one wage earner, working full-time, but who still fall into the poverty trap. The Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research estimates in a recent report entitled “Working out of poverty” that 23% of British workers were paid less than the equivalent of £12,000 a year for a 35 hour working week, with women accounting for two-thirds of low paid workers, with over 40% being women working part-time. New legislation to deal with employers refusing to meet their obligations after more than three decades of the Equal Pay Act is essential. The IPPR recommends increasing the value of the working Tax Credit for couple families by a third, to take a further 200,000 children out of poverty, and by creating a personal tax credit allowance that would provide real incentives for a second wage earner in couple families to take on part-time work, earning £100 a week before any in-work benefits or entitlements were tapered off or withdrawn. Targeted on the lowest-income families, this would raise their living standards, and offers a long-term route out of poverty. 

Finally, we must campaign for these policies with enthusiasm and new energy. Harold Wilson, our former Prime Minister, said four decades ago that the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing. Now we must find a renewed moral purpose for the battle against poverty and lack of opportunity - to change the lives of the thousands of children and families who need a Labour Party which exists to be their champion, and their voice in the community and in the corridors of power.

As the European Union (Amendment) Bill continues its progress through Westminster this week, let’s consider where Labour stands on Europe’s future against the other main parties.

We believe that the Treaty of Lisbon is necessary to improve the EU’s decision making, its policies on the environment, jobs, and security, and its influence in the world. It jettisons the constitutional concept which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in their 2005 referendums, and involves no substantial new transfer of competences between the member states and the EU.

The Tories have adopted their most extreme version of Euro-phobia yet, calling for a referendum on the Treaty, and being badly split on whether to respect the will of Parliament should the ratification bill be passed, with many Tories calling for a post-ratification poll to repudiate the Treaty.

The SNP eventually overcame their internal divisions to reach a similarly sceptical stance, and the Liberal Democrats oppose a referendum on the Treaty, but want a vote on whether to stay in Europe. They are putting the interests of their core activists first – only Labour is putting the national interest first, by improving our engagement with a more effectively run set of EU institutions.

What does the Treaty do? It gives the European Council a full-time president with a (renewable) two and a half year term, instead of the current arrangements with a rotating presidency between large and small states every six months. This will mean that the Council has clearer leadership, and is better placed to follow up the decisions taken there by heads of government. It makes voting in the Council of Ministers fairer, by giving more weight to the most populous member states. It makes the Commission more efficient by limiting its size. It gives the EU a unified foreign policy representative on those areas where member states agree, to give the EU a single voice where there is unanimity. As far as the UK is concerned, we have agreed to make justice and home affairs part of the normal EU system, but have a position whereby Britain can choose to opt in to individual policies in this area on terrorism, asylum and immigration, and cross-border crime, and whether to accept the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in these areas. There is also a stronger say for national parliaments under the Lisbon Treaty under a new procedure whereby if half of national Parliaments are opposed to an EU measure, either a majority of member state governments or MEPs can insist that the measure is dropped completely. We believe that these changes will help the EU prepare for its future enlargement which we support, should the Balkan states and Turkey successfully complete their negotiations with the EU and meet the entry criteria on the economy, and human rights. They will help the EU agree more effective strategies on migration, crime, security, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, and most importantly, on better skills training and creating sustainable jobs where we face global competition.

The SNP, who have been through phases of Euro-scepticism in their history, currently oppose the Treaty because fishery conservation policy would be made an exclusive EU competence, and have a wider objection to the Common Fisheries Policy. Perhaps we should remind them that fish don’t need passports or visas to swim within the different territorial waters of EU member states, and having a collective approach to preserving fish stocks is a good idea. They dodge the fundamental issue, that leaving Britain makes being a leading member of the EU harder. As most international law experts tell us, a Scotland-free UK would be the successor state to the UK, so Scotland would have to reapply for entry, on the terms of accepting all the EU Treaties, including Lisbon.

The Tories would struggle to get friends in Europe on Facebook. Allied with fringe parties on the extreme right, many Tories openly call for withdrawal from the EU, so that Britain can join Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein in a free-trade arrangement outside the EU.  These countries are part of a single market with the EU – the European Economic Area – and are bound by its laws, although they have no influence in shaping them. Cameron and Hague’s negotiating position would be: give us what we want or we will leave. The Treaty of Lisbon allows countries who wish to leave to go voluntarily. Let us be under no illusion as to who would be the losers – the British people.  

William T. Bain

Alex Salmond’s Scottish Government continues to lengthen the growing list of dumped manifesto commitments following the passing of the Holyrood spending proposals until 2010.

Moreover, the SNP Government has shamefully refused to meet Scotland’s training and skills challenge by failing to commit to Labour’s target of creating 15,000 new apprenticeships and raising the number of modern apprenticeships created since 1999 to 1,000 per constituency. Trades unions, Labour MSPs and CLPs are backing Mid-Scotland and Fife Labour MSP John Park’s Skills and Apprenticeships Bill to permit the creation of more apprenticeships for young people. A recent telephone survey of voters in Glasgow North East found strong support by the public for Labour’s policy, as Labour voters recognise that one of the best ways in which the Scottish Parliament can cut the poverty and opportunity gaps in Scotland is to give our young people the chances they need to succeed in the future.

Salmond’s spending commitments fail to guarantee nursery places for vulnerable two year olds, and  through their freeze in council tax, means spending cuts will be implemented by many councils throughout Scotland. Salmond told voters he would abolish the council tax in this Parliament, but despite having Liberal Democrat support for introducing a local income tax, now says the earliest he would be able to do this would be 2011. While the SNP have published a consultation document on Scottish independence supported by less than one in three people, and responded to by only fifty letter writers, they have constantly delayed giving details of their proposed new local income tax.

Labour welcomes that voters will be able to have their say on the SNP’s new tax increase for working families in the next Holyrood election campaign. Our objection to it is twofold—firstly, it will take powers away from local government over raising its own finance, which is against Labour’s values of decentralising powers to communities, and secondly, working families will pay more, but the wealthiest able to minimise their contribution through loopholes and accountancy ruses.

The SNP’s energy policy is also running into trouble. Shortly after becoming First Minister, Salmond visited Longannet coal mine in Fife, and boasted about investing in clean coal technology, as a major element in SNP energy and climate change policies. In fact, this is still at research stage, and is highly unlikely to be operational for any coal fired power stations in the next four years. Having ruled out giving planning permission for any new nuclear energy plants in Scotland, and having made ambitious targets on renewable energy which the SNP Government and its local councils have fudged, with their obfuscation over major wind energy projects, Scotland would face the prospect of moving from being a net exporter of energy south of the border, to being a net importer. While Labour favours ties with the rest of the UK, we are not sure this is quite what the SNP had in mind. Scotland should not shirk its responsibility to reduce damaging greenhouse gas emissions, which would affect the poorest areas of Britain, Europe and Africa the worst. Scottish Labour won’t fail that challenge, even if the SNP do. 

 William T. Bain

 As we draw towards the end of a hugely eventful year, it is useful to evaluate what has gone right  (and badly wrong) in 2007, and what we need to improve upon in 2008. Aside from the Australian Labor Party’s stunning “Ruddslide” recent victory over John Howard’s Conservative coalition in Australia after eleven years in opposition, this has been a disappointing year in terms of electoral success for the left and centre-left across the world, with defeats for the Socialists in the French Presidential and National Assembly elections, victories by centre-right coalitions in Denmark, Poland, and Greece, and a weakening of the centre-left in Belgium and Switzerland.

Our defeat in May in the Scottish elections can be seen in the wider context of the centre-left’s relatively poor electoral fortunes globally in 2007. We now know what happens in constituencies where campaigning happens rarely between elections, and Labour is seen to become distant from local communities. We also know Scottish Labour has to be seen to change and reconnect to win in 2011.

Locally, we worked harder than ever before in our election campaign with both of our constituency MSPs re-elected in Springburn and Maryhill, and ten of eleven of our council candidates across the CLP elected in the first STV local government elections. We have just over eighteen months to prepare for the European Parliament elections in June 2009, a UK General Election by June 2010, the General Election for the Scottish Parliament in May 2011, and possibly local government elections in Spring 2012 - a daunting schedule, which demands constant dialogue and contact with local people, using the new campaigning software we have from the end of next January.

We must acknowledge that public trust in politics has been damaged by the events of the last few weeks. Individuals will be accountable for their own actions, but where improper loans or donations have been discovered, Labour has always returned them—a lesson the Tories and Liberal Democrats would do well to take on board, given their history. It is vital that we end the perception of the influence of wealthy individual donors on our politics, and the impact of big money in skewing campaigns in individual constituencies, as the Tories did with Lord Ashcroft’s millions in 2005, and are doing again for 2009/10.

The principle of state funding is already established in our system through support for research and policy development for opposition Parliamentary parties at Westminster (“Short” money), and at Holyrood. It could form part of the solution, as it has in many other countries. We have to end the arms race of increasing general election spending at national level, if we are to make the case for increased state support for politics, and also encourage more individuals to give small amounts to their preferred party, supported by the tax system. And with some modifications, there is no reason why individual political levy payers in trades unions should not continue to support political parties including Labour through their own transparent and democratic choice. 

In 2008, the Socialist Government in Spain will face a battle for re-election against the centre right, but it is without doubt a year in which all eyes will turn stateside for the most unpredictable US Presidential election for eighty years with no incumbent President nor Vice-President heading the general election ticket for either the Democrats or Republicans. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee for President – Clinton, Obama or Edwards - they will carry the hopes of progressives not only in the US, but in the UK, and around the world too, that after the nightmare of the Bush and neo-con reign since 2001, the US is willing to re-engage with the world on seriously tackling climate change, fair trade, poverty, and a more stable, peaceful, Middle East. This election will matter to all of us – key Republican candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain appear as hawkish as Bush, Cheney and Rice – so if we want a change in America’s foreign and environmental policies, we need a change of administration. A victory for the Democrats would offer Labour much-needed encouragement that a positive, new platform of progressive change, can have electoral appeal in difficult circumstances, just as Bill Clinton’s victories in 1992 and 1996, did. 

The key lesson of the Australian elections is that the argument of time for a change is a powerful one against an incumbent government, even in times of economic growth. Alex Salmond and the SNP used it successfully against Scottish Labour this year. David Cameron will seek to use it relentlessly in the run up to the next UK General Election. How should Labour respond? How do we show we still have momentum and idealism, and are not out of steam as our opponents claim? By sidelining change and focusing on competence or experience? These will be vital factors certainly, but unlike the US Democratic campaign of 2000, Labour in 2009/10 will not seek to airbrush the last ten years out of history, and declare 2007 as a year zero. We are proud of our achievements under Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown. We are also aware of our mistakes, but we must do more on social justice and to extend economic opportunities to those communities where unemployment, poor life chances, and deprivation remain unacceptably high.

Labour’s focus should be on the future, and our case, and campaigning, should be updated to reflect this. To ride the mood for change in 2009/10, we must offer an inspiring programme of progressive change, on housing, jobs, public services, the environment, pensions, rebuilding trust in politics through political and constitutional reform, and above all on child and family poverty. Labour or swing voters will not respond to a relentlessly negative campaign. That may work for the right, but never for the centre-left in Britain. The election should be one not about change versus the status quo, but what kind of change Britain wants – a Conservative revolution of low taxes, public sector cuts, and deregulation under Cameron, or Labour’s progressive change, with more jobs, more affordable housing, and a greater priority on investing in the biggest asset any country has – its people – with Gordon Brown.

In Scotland, we can already see that after seven months in office the SNP administration is short-termist, inegalitarian, untrustworthy, and arrogant. The sum total of their policies and spending priorities are to make Scotland a more unequal and divided society than that they inherited in May. How do their spending announcements bridge or close the gap in health, education and housing between the poorest in our society, and those in middle-income groups - as would be the purpose of Labour in Government? By ignoring it. How do their proposals create additional modern apprenticeships or college or university places above those plans bequeathed to them by Scottish Labour to give our young people the life chances they need in a global knowledge economy? By ignoring them - cutting investment in higher education next year, and in nursery education for the most vulnerable two year children with special needs. Do their spending plans meet their key election pledges on 1,000 additional police officers recruited, or on student funding? They answer only with bluster and smugness. But their evasions can only have a limited shelf-life, and Labour must consult widely, and listen to the people, so that when they do turn away from the SNP, that we can make the case for a fairer, and stronger Scotland in positive terms that resonate in urban and rural communities alike to rebuild trust in politics and progressive change in Scotland. 

We must never be distracted or discouraged from this work by passing events or transient difficulties. We must always learn from our errors, hold to the highest standards in public life, and clean up the political system. We will have our attention fixed firmly in 2008 to listening to the public, governing at Westminster to cut poverty and increase the standard of living for the majority of families, speaking up for equality and the national interest and against short-termism and cynicism from the SNP at Holyrood, and delivering quality services at the frontline in local government. May I wish all of you, your friends, and families, a good festive season, and a successful 2008.

Spare a thought for David Cameron’s Conservatives this week.

No, it’s not as daft as it sounds. But think how much the political landscape has been reshaped in the last two months. In early June, the Tories were basking in their local election gains in England and nine points ahead in the polls for the next UK General Election. Now with Gordon Brown as Labour’s new Prime Minister, they are behind in every poll, by perhaps as much as nine to ten points, and see their support falling in every part of Britain, even in the South, the only region where they narrowly lead us. Cameron expected to be Prime Minister in 2009—he may be yet another ex-Leader of the Opposition by Christmas.

Cameron’s floundering leadership and his reversion to type with his recent rightwards leap shows what can go wrong for political parties when they engage in a superficial as opposed to a real renewal. Where Cameron’s Tory revisionism has been shallow and rootless, shared by only his small band of Notting Hill neophytes, based on temporary favourable coverage in the media rather than permanent engagement with modern Britain, our renewal under Gordon Brown and Wendy Alexander will be broad and deep, rooted in the values of our movement, and connecting with the aspirations of today’s society.

The Tories have finally caught up with 1997 – but ten years too late. Cameron’s Conservatives sought to be achingly hip – and within a few weeks or months, after the next UK General Election, it could all have ended in tears for them. Then there really will be anarchy—if only in the Conservative Party.

Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the Tory challenge. Even in their dog days, they have still been able to muster just under a third of the UK votes, and should their support rise in the southern marginal constituencies, that alone could deprive Labour of its majority in the Commons.

Our strategy is to set out a clear expression of how our policies meet the challenges that communities, families and individuals face within society today, to show that a more equal and fairer society will be a stronger society for everyone, and to leave our world in a good state for future generations, by taking responsible measures to reduce global warming, rebuild our reputation for effective diplomacy, and promote better health care, education and economic progress for the developing world.

A recent book by the psychologist Drew Westen (“The Political Brain”] indicates that voters (at least in the US) are motivated firstly by political parties’ basic values, then by the candidates, and only latterly, by policy details. This side of the Atlantic, there is good evidence from elections and polling that the centre of gravity of British politics has been moved by Labour councils and Governments in a more progressive direction.

We get it, but the Tories still don’t. There’ll be no going back to workers having no paid holidays or being told to be grateful for jobs paying less than a £1 an hour. The answer is not to seek to make John Redwood or Iain Duncan-Smith media friendly, but to show exactly how unpalatable the real Tories’ small government, big risk conservatism is to modern Britain.

So what makes 2007 different from 1997? More people are in work than has been the case for 30 years, although there is still a great deal of work to be done in constituencies like ours, and poverty rates are slowly beginning to fall, both relatively as well as in absolute terms. But now, we have to address not only income inequality, but inequality of assets and capital.

A Britain where low income communities do not have access to savings and assets to help them improve their life chances, will not be a fair one. A huge area is the development of adult education and skills improvements, which give people the incentives to make their work more satisfying, increase their pay,  and improve social mobility, which should be the aim of Labour in government. We need to do more to ensure equal pay in the workplace, and the right to flexibility in working hours for employees. We need to develop a wider range of housing options for people from socially rented to shared ownership to meet the new levels of demand and aspiration in our communities. We need to provide more support to expectant and new mothers to deal with root causes of child poverty, and to expand our childcare and nursery provision. We need to invest in renewable energy sources within a balanced energy policy as government takes the lead in tackling climate change.

We need to restore trust in politics by breaking the link between patronage and membership of Parliament through a democratic second chamber, accountable government, and the further devolution of power. We need to work multilaterally to negotiate a fairer deal for poorer countries trying to trade with the developed world, facilitate peaceful solutions where we can in troubled areas of the world, and collectively negotiate a stronger successor treaty to Kyoto, including China and India, to cut our carbon emissions and safeguard our planet for the future.

On all of these issues, Labour leads, the Tories follow. On the environment, the Tories have gone green, gone blue, and now gone cold. On incomes and taxes, they’d make the rich richer and the poor poorer. We can look ahead with confidence to a UK General Election in the coming weeks and/or months that can further embed justice and equality in Britain.

William T. Bain