You are here: Home » Comment »

It’s time to get off the fence, Ed

November 28, 2011 11:05 am

Author:

Mark Ferguson

Tags:

Share this Article

It’s less than 48 hours until the biggest strikes in 85 years take place. Schools will close, immigration controls may be manned by the armed forces, hospitals will be without many members of staff. The government have decided to pick a fight with ordinary working people over pensions, forcing them to pick up the tab for those in the financial sector whose recklessness was matched only by their financial rewards.

And yet still Ed Miliband has failed to unequivocally back the strike action. Six months ago, I said that “By attempting clumsy triangulation, but without conviction, Miliband has kept no-one happy.” If that was bad – and thanks to that horror show of an interview, bad is the very best we can call it – this is much much worse.

At least six months ago Miliband could claim that negotiations were still ongoing. He can try to claim that now (and he has), but on a day when Michael Gove is attacking teachers as “militants”, it’s clear that negotiation is over. There certainly won’t be an 11th hour deal. In fact Francis Maude, the minister in charge, isn’t even chasing one. On the eve of strikes he’d rather meet Young Tories than trade unionists. Miliband has at least aknowledged that the government is determined to force a confrontation with the unions, but he’s yet to go the extra, logical step – and take the side of those under attack against the obvious aggressor.

It’s not as if there wasn’t already a deal in place either. The last Labour government agreed a deal that was hailed by then trade and industry secretary Alan Johnson as “quite a breakthrough”. And yet so far there has been an absence of clear unequivocal support for the legitimate concerns of millions of workers from the shadow cabinet or the leadership – many of whom served in a Labour government who struck the original deal. Miliband has since argued that the deal agreed under Labour was “essentially a framework”. That has the unfortunate whiff of moving the goalposts…

That deal, it seems, is now dead. Killed – like so much these days – on the altar of ham-fisted attempts at “deficit reduction”. Bankers have led this country to the brink. They have been backed to the hilt by the City-funded Tory Party. Yet when ordinary working people are forced to clean up the mess and take the pain, the party funded by working people will not stand up for them, for fear of being attacked by the banker supported party, and the Tory supporting media.

It’s time for Ed Miliband, and the party as a whole, to get off the fence. It’s time for Miliband to be brave and bold (it’s when he’s best) and back the strikes on November 30th. If we believe that the strikes are right and the government are wrong, then let us have the courage of our convictions and take that argument to parliament and to the country. There’s a very simple and powerful argument to be made about a fair deal and keeping our promises as a society to those who engage in public service. It fits so clearly with Miliband’s own agenda it’s astonishing that he hasn’t made it openly, boldly and clearly yet.

Clumsy triangulation without conviction didn’t work six months ago – it won’t work now either.

Update: According to this BBC poll, backing the strikes would not only be the right thing for Miliband to do – it’d be popular too…

Anonymous

But what will the elusive ‘middle England’ say after decades of Tory inspired hatred of the unions? Hatred that we didn’t do much to stop when Labour was in power…
- Anonymous
  
  But is not the Middle England voter not the people who are now going on strike, in some cases die hard Tory voters. If labour does not get off the fence it will be the leader who suffers, it will be Miliband who will be asked to step down before he is removed, I doubt they will allow Miliband to not put up a fight at least at the next election, no more Browns I think.
  - Anonymous
    
    Robert, I recall during the marches last year,
    many people came from all over the country to walk alongside
    the public service workers.
    
    They were complaining about significant cuts to community services and jobs,
    as in libraries and youth clubs.
    
    I spoke to one local party member on the phone, who told me what a powerful experience the day had been.
    
    She said she witnessed people like lawyers, business people, vicars, health professionals, even police- walking together, very much in solidarity on the day.
    There has been a real public mood and awareness building.
    
    I think this is all highly symbolic of a wider problem; who is being hit the hardest;
    issues about fairness, social justice and equity.
    
    The last time the teachers demonstrated over a day,
    the country did not gound to a halt.
    
    It was inconveneient, but there was a great deal of public support and sympathy,
    as many of us use these services and are well aquainted with people who run them,
    and understand the issues people are facing.
    
    As Ed M has said before, it’s about the many, not the few.
    
    I can see a connection between these marches and protests; the student demos,
    and action from public service workers; Occupy etc- all within the past year?
    
    A lot of countries are facing difficult circumstances following the global crash,
    but economic measures also have to take into account major societal factors;
    keep essential services running, and supporting the people who have the skills to run them meet the very real needs of the populace.
    
    Jo
    - Anonymous
      
      Yes and I remember Milibands view on knocking on a disabled persons door and obviously knowing the person could work, how because the hard working tax payer next door said so, mind you if you believe that Miliband knocks on doors.
      
      No sorry Miliband is actually New labour he’s yet to realize it.
eamonol

Good call.
Sam

I think this is a bit unfair to EdM. This strike is very difficult to read politically. However much people say they support the strikers now, when those same people are put to great inconvenience who will they blame? My son works in the private sector, two years ago he, and his colleagues, took a voluntary 7% pay cut to protect his job and those of others in his firm. He will have to pay for a days child care for his kids because the school will be closed. He is saving towards a private pension. My daughter works in the public sector. She is suffering a pay freeze, but not a cut, she will receive a good protected pension even under the worst of the changes proposed, much better than my son can hope for. This is the immediate issue that faces siblings and friends across the land – and if he supports my daughter EdM will alienate my son.
- Anonymous
  
  And what do they do during school holidays or the six weeks holiday or inset days, take a day off work, the sad fact is we are seeing the massive rise in upper management with wages way beyond the workers, we needed a Labour party to say something about this what we get is silence.
  
  People already see Labour as a party of the squeezed middle now the squeezed middle are fighting Labour goes missing.
  
  It’s not hard to say I believe these people have a reason to strike, is it that hard, because with the working class not voting if Labour makes the mistake with the middle class, who will labour chase, Immigrants.
- Anonymous
  
  But why didn’t your son fight for his right when your daughter has ( or is by default of the wider union action)? You see what i mean? shouldnt there be a degree of responsibility on the individual in the private sector to fight their corner?
  - charles.ward
    
    “But why didn’t your son fight for his right when your daughter has … ?”
    
    Maybe because he might have been made redundant as a result of the additional costs to the employer. You see, private sector employees have to live in the real world where if your company is not competitive then they can go out of business.
    
    In the public sector as long as your union has given sufficient money to the party in power you can get what you want and the private sector taxpayer has no choice but to pick up the tab.
    - Anonymous
      
      You oversimplify the link between workers’ rights and poor economic performance by their employer. If a workforce in any given company goes on strike or if there is an economic downturn (or both), the management and shareholders can take a hit on their profits instead of passing on the cost ( ie lower wages/pay freeze) onto their workforce. It’s cross party dogma that the profits of the shareholder come before anything else that led us to where even labour politicians are too afraid to speak up. In the ultimate scenario both the workers and the shareholders take a hit and when the times are better they both enjoy the profits, however that is unlikely in the ‘real world ‘ where the opposite is true.
      - Anonymous
        
        You appear to be arguing both ways at once.
        
        On the one hand you appear to fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between cashflow (a lack of which causes bankruptcy) and profit (a purely accounting concept which “falls out” at the end of the year), and appear to think that bosses somehow decide their profits ahead of time.
        
        On the other you appear to suggest we should work towards a position where investors and workers share the up and downside of the cyclical nature of the economy. Do you mean that, for example, when times are good they should enjoy a growth of staff and salaries, and that when times are tough that their pensions arrangements should be pared back, for example?
      - Anonymous
        
        Price mark up on goods and services (not cash flow or net profits) inherently consists of a predetermined level of remuneration that is required by the business’s stakeholders (regardless if the stakeholders are workers themselves or an outside body like an investment firm etc.) There are many factors that go into it. For example market price is one of the key features, number of competitors feeds directly into the latter and so on. However the price charged also reflects the level of return that is demanded by the shareholders. So for instance an investment banker might want to have a 40% mark up that accurately reflects his requirement for returns/profits (based on many factors not least opportunity cost, market competitiveness etc), where as the worker might be happy with a stable salary and the benefits of employment. So if the business at UK level of cost can generate in profits 10GBP per unit of production and if it relocates to Asia for example, it generates 30GBP, then the investor (unlike the worker) will do so without hesitation (Dyson is a good example). Now this is sound economics, follow the money so to speak. However as we are seeing across the globe today, this does not suit 99% of people who don’t own the capital or the assets. The British worker would choose to keep their job EVEN if it means taking a hit on their salary, as in Sam’s example. Furthermore from what he describes about his son’s place of work, I wouldn’t be surprised that the management also took a hit. This is what i mean about level of profit ,they either drive down the costs ( ie sack people) or drive down the revenue ( i.e take less dividends ).
        
        Both private and public bodies are unfortunately subject to market conditions ( BTW a relatively new development in the world). However if we expect the public sector to brace up and face the music together with the rest of the economy shouldn’t we expect the ones who put us there to do the same? However any attack on banker’s bonuses or further regulation and taxation on the city are always met with the same, predictable answer – they will move somewhere else and UK will lose out. However workers can’t move, does it mean that we should take it laying down? Because that’s what is essentially is put forward to the strikers. The management, i.e. The city of London (here I am being quite literal, in economic sense Uk’s money is tied to City of London) are not taking smaller profits or bonuses or returns, those are growing and yet we along with public sector workers are paying for it.
        
        It’s not perfect, by far!!! But if British people didn’t fight against injustice brought upon by the powerful and the rich, we’d all be plebs in a feudal manor today, a western Saudi Arabia.
      - Raydance
        
        When you talk about the rich and powerful are you talking about the professional classes who have hi-jacked and looted the British State for the past 40 years and who are now striking in order to extort still more money out of people poorer than themselves? Just wondering.
      - Anonymous
        
        This is not a movement for achieving greater democracy, and it is preposterous to market it as such: pinning society’s ills on one section of society has any number of historical precedents. I cannot think of any case where it has subsequently been shown to be fair, balanced, or lead to a good outcome.
      - Sam
        
        My son works in a small private company (about 100 employees), it is a good firm to work for. The owner is the MD but he mucks in when necessary. He is liberal minded about allowing staff time off for family emergencies etc. He called his workforce together and explained the facts of life. The company had to reduce costs by about 10%. He put various options before them: they voted unanimously for the pay cut. I am pleased to say the company has been stabilised, pay has not gone back up - but there are no threats of redundancy. My son has adjusted his lifestyle a bit but can still pay his mortage – he is one of the squeezed middle that EdM wants to attract!
      - Anonymous
        
        Your son is lucky that he works for a conscientious employer and I have to say from my personal experience, smaller firms like this tend to be far more in tune with the needs of their employees and by proxy their business. I am sure you would agree that there a lot of others, far bigger in scale who would not take on such an approach.
        
        However I don’t think Ed M needs to make such a choice so as to alienate either of them (your son and daughter). The labour party needs to develop a plan that would see costs fall as well as earnings rise. For instance rent control on the private sector is a potentially explosive issue but which has far reaching benefits and a change in law to allow more cooperatives in business and especially housing to dampen the inherent need for confrontation between shop floor and management. If Labour moves to an economy based on primary values and needs of the people, then we all can benefit.
- Steve Preston
  
  It is difficult. But allowing ourselves to be divided isn’t the answer, nor is pushing people into a race to the bottom. The 99% are all in this together. We have to think and act collectively.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

Sometimes we have to say what is right, not what is popular.
The Government are wrong, and have made the strike inevitable by their intransigence
- Anonymous
  
  I think Miliband is worried he may annoy the bosses or the people at the top, but these people are the people Miliband keeps telling us needs a labour party, hard working middle class tax payers, the same people he keeps telling us are now squeezed, seems not squeezed enough for the Miliband.
  
  He carries on like this is going to be hard to see where his voters are going to come from.
Anonymous

Ask yourselves: What would the Tories prefer Ed to do?

And have an answer to the question: “How to prevent the fallout?” if you think Ed should support the strike.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne
  
  I think they’d like Ed to waffle without having a clear position. Failing that, they’d like him to oppose them and spend a few days being criticised by his own party.
  - Anonymous
    
    I think they’d like Ed to waffle without having a clear position.
    
    You mean : continue on as normal?
http://twitter.com/kulgancrydee Kulgan of Crydee

I am surprised that Ed M hasn’t condemned the strikes. I am quite sure that the Unions that elected Ed M as the party leader are feeling a bit hard done by.

Those taking part in strikes need to start living in the real World. Polls show the majority of people understand why they are striking. That is not the same as the public supporting them. I know noone that supports the strikes then again, with only 25% who actually voted for the strikes, perhaps the silent 75% should have spoken up.

To those who belong to Unions, I hope you are making sure your Union Leaders are losing as day’s pay as well. Perhaps there would be less strikes if that was the case. #ChampagneSocialism
Anonymous

Bankers have led this country to the brink. They have been backed to the hilt by the City-funded Tory Party.

I am sorry but anyone who reads the facts of the last crash will know that Government over-spending and lax regulation bear much of the blame.

Facts which the current Shadow Chancellor denies.. hence his current economic policy which has zero credibility…

Read this and get a reality check..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/8919655/Autumn-Statement-2011-Dont-spare-the-horses-tomorrow-George-Osborne.html
- John Ruddy
  
  How did the last Government over spend, when immediately before the crash, government debt was 7 percentage points lower than the level it inherited in 1997?
  
  Read this and get a reality check…
  
  http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/11/28/was-the-crash-caused-by-people-borrowing-too-much-no/
  - charles.ward
    
    You are comparing the peak debt after the last recession to the debt after over a decade of growth. The last government predicted that debt would peak at 79% of GDP after this recession (37 percentage points higher than the 42% peak after the last recession and almost double what Brown considered to be sustainable according to his own Sustainable Investment Rule).
    
    The bulk of the debt that was repaid was repaid in the first few years of the last government (when they were sticking to Conservative spending plans). After 2001 debt grew as a percentage of GDP every year.
    
    If the Labour government didn’t overspend how come there is no money for a fiscal stimulus?
    - Anonymous
      
      Charles
      
      GDP of course hardly stayed static from 1997 so to compare debt as a % of a changing base is.. well even school children…
      - Anonymous
        
        As an absolute number it looks even worse.Debt as a proportion of GDP is an accepted proxy (even though ironically I agree that it is not necessarily the best one).
  - jaime taurosangastre candelas
    
    Since 2001, the last time the UK ran a structural surplus, the Government (8 years Labour / 1 year tory) has overspent income by a total of £564.7 Billion, not including support to the financial sector (data from Office for National Statistics, downloaded from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data )
    
    Government support to the financial sector takes two forms: real money injections, and credit guarantees which can be drawn upon if needed. At the height of the financial crisis, the figure was £1.162 trillion, of which £132.9 billion was real cash, and the rest guarantees if needed. Currently, the size of Government support is £123.9 Billion (ie around £10 billion has been paid back), and a further £332.4 Billion in guarantees if necessary. See http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/hmt_accounts_2010-2011.aspx#
    
    In total, the real cost of the financial crisis to date is 21.9% of the deficits run up in the last ten years. In the very worst case if the remaining credit guarantees are drawn upon, the figure would be 80.7% of the total cost of the last decade’s deficit.
    
    Proportionately, the largest contributors to the current overall financial crisis (deficit plus global financial crash) are the occupants of No 11 Downing Street, not the bankers.
GuyM

The simple question to ask is who is paying what for public sector pension funds.

And the simple answer is the private sector taxpayer is subsidising public sector pensions to an unfair extent.

I do not want to pay the amount I do for public sector workers, so on Wednesday I’ll walk through any picket line and tell any union member exactly what I think of them – selfish, anti-democratic numpties who most of the people I work with in London are heartily sick to death of.
Martin Yuille

Mark:
The issue you raise goes to the heart of what is the role of a political party?

In my view it is appropriate for a party to support the strikers but not the strike.

The roles of a party are:
1. to create a coherent narrative describing the world,
2. to elaborate policies that are consistent with that narrative and
3. to seek to persuade others that the narrative and the policies are good.
4. to represent or oppose the views of different stakeholders.
A party with hopes of national leadership must be especially careful to keep to these roles.

If it starts to become a “combatant” it is inevitably restricting the reach of its narrative.

Over the last week, Tory ministers have started to become combatants. They are making a big mistake. That is clear from public opinion polls. They risk the Tory Party speaking only for a minority. Maybe you think they already do. But, up until now, large numbers have thought the Tories speak for the nation as a whole. So, the Tories are taking a big risk.

It is not a risk that the Labour Party should take. It needs to stick to doing better on the four things I list above.

By the way, that doesn’t mean that Labour shouldn’t join marches etc. But its aim in such actions is to persuade others of its narrative and policies. To say, for example today: “Labour pensions policy is better”.
Steve Lydon

mike homfray is right, we should be a party of principle, and always be seeking to appease the so called middle ground. The point nationally we are failing to make is nobody wants to strike, it is a desperate measure of last resort. The labour party should be hand in glove with the trade unions and forming a partnership many of us are proud to be part of called the labour movement. As Chair of Stroud CLP and a member of the local Trades I am proud that we are actively supporting the Day of Action, come on national leadership remember your roots.
Pingback: Fact check: does the nation really support the November 30 strikes? – Telegraph Blogs
Sheenaconnor1

EdM should come off the fence and start backing the strike set for Nov 30th..I am a public sector worker and we have been backed into a corner on this. Come April we will have endured a two year pay freeze and for those who do not feel this is a pay cut it really equates to an 11.5% cut…this is on top of other cuts that are being imposed on us….Who is fighting the corner for the workers of this country and at the moment it does not look like the Labour Party are so it is down to the workers to do it themselves with the backing of the Union. It is not right what is happening in the private sector but the answer is not for them to attack those who are trying to stand up to this governments decisions and attacks on the low paid and vulenerable. Pricvate sector workers should be turning their attentions to the government not other workers..We as workers all need to stand together..and not fall for the old tactics of divide and rule….Stand together and come together to organise a fight back…The workers of this country did not cause the problems whilst the Bankers continue unchallenged….stick together on these issues….
Gerrymc13

I agree, Ed has to stop dodging and pussy footing around the issue of does he support the strike or not, time to grow a pair Ed. The trade unions are the backbone of the working class and the Labour movement, it’s pay back time for all the years they supported Labour despite provocation from the likes of Blair etc, so get off the fence and rally to the workers cause, back the strike and do it today. ” THE WORKERS UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED! “
Anonymous

No just you Raydance )))
Anonymous

Mark, this is brilliant.

You’ve encapsulated the issues and feelings well.

I wouldn’t agree entirely with all you imply about Ed M,
but I think it’s very clear he has to do and say much more over this;
to show explicit support for the thousands of ordinary working people
and dedicated professionals, who have felt backed into a corner
over the government’s aggressive stance.

I was amazed by the rhetoric used by M.Gove today;
it just sounded like utter naivete and tribal point scoring.
I can’t believe he is fully in touch with ordinary people’s lives.

They had every chance to rectify this situation, but instead
chose to be confrontational, and blame unions leader and workers
for their faulty policies and wrong assumptions.

They appear to be trying to portray this scenario as some retrograde
stand off aka the 70′s; possibly to discredit the unions?

They can’t just railroad over people like this.

Why should one group of modestly/low paid people carrying out
essential and frontline services be forced to pay such a hefty price
for the mistakes of high paid financiers and casino style gamblers?

Is the burden being shared proportionately across society,
and high pay being tackled?

Also- how is alienating and demoralizing frontline staff going to be of any benefit
to society or quality of service provision in the long term?

They talk of the importance of “infrastructure” in the economy.

What they fail to recognize is the value of public services in underpinning
society, in their blinkered vision of “rolling back the state” as they see it.
That is the other side of the equation.

“Infrastructure” includes schools, hospitals, emergency services, the police,
community/cultural amenities like libraries, sports centres, day centres for the elderly,
youth clubs, parks and green spaces, museums, civic forums, and much more.

They cannot run these services by volunteers and untrained people;
despite any amount of goodwill amongst communities.

For any society to function it needs the underpinning of decent services,
run by skilled people, who are supported and valued.
In turn they are enabled to disseminate good practice
and meet the complex needs of the population.

Someone ought to re educate this lot about the meaning and value of “public service!”

Also the fact it doesn’t equate to a “burden” to the economy
or constant refrain about taxpayers,
(of which we all are- but some things have to be paid for;)

-but provides an essential framework, without which we would all see
a huge drop in the quality of our lives, and safety net.

It’s the ideology that needs nailing-
not just piddling economic arguments,
or using the excuse of the deficit to carry out
long longed for reductions to the “state.”

I think the unions have to remain open, transparent and clear;
do not allow themselves to be forced into confrontational rhetoric.

I do believe many of the public are in sympathy,
but this has to be managed carefully and well.

The emphasis has to be about what’s at stake for the workers,
in black and white; not a propaganda war about “union leaders.”

I think there is an attempt to paint a carriacature;
and it’s more about weakening the political positioning of unions,
than actually addressing the genuine grievances and specific issues
on non partisan, non tribal, pragmatic basis.

And as for the workers having to go it alone without much backing
from political parties; that seems a sad state of affairs, especially
from Labour.

Thankyou, Jo.
Dave Postles

£150k coughed up by the poor consumers. When will you divulge which companies use your services so that we can all avoid them and not incur increased consumer prices to fund your salary?
Anonymous

I agree with every word of this post, alas.
alex williams

Is there not a third way. Try and hammer out a reasonable compromise witht the unions, shove it in front of the tories and when they reject it public opinion would hopefully shift against them. At present the TUs are trapped as the ones refusing an offer, let’s turn that round. Ed might have a platform to do this? Remember blessed are the cheesemakers.
Pingback: Air Purifier » Blog Archive » Your Questions About Air Purifiers Smoke

Latest

Featured
Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

By Jim Knight

If you Google ‘Ed Miliband,’ you quickly get the old stuff about him being a bit of geek. His appearance at Google’s big Tent on Wednesday almost begged the headline “Geek Goes Home”. But that assumes technology is just something for geeks to worry about, and that Ed is a techie. Neither are true. What we saw on Wednesday was a leader with the courage to tell Google straight that it should live up to its founding principles on the [...]
Read more →
Featured
Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

By Mark Ferguson

“We want to start a war” – Woolwich attacker “right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose” - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett Only 24 hours ago, news began to trickle through about a barbarous crime, committed on the streets of our capital city, in broad daylight. It seems that the murderers who attacked and brutally murdered a soldier felt they were acting in a way endorsed by their religious beliefs and their god. But to try and [...]
Read more →
News
Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

By Johanna Baxter

Party Organisation The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success. The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former [...]
Read more →
News
Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

Following yesterday’s attack in Woolwich, Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly Len Duvall AM said: “The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community. “At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to [...]
Read more →
Comment
If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

By Ellie Cumbo

Today End Violence Against Women (EVAW) releases a new report auditing the Government’s progress in acting to prevent violence against women and girls. And with the revelations from Operation Yewtree and group exploitation cases set to roll on for many months , we hope the response from Parliament, policy-makers and the media will be unanimous : that prevention must be at the top of the priority list for any government, of any colour, from now on. On that basis, it’s [...]
Read more →

← previous next →

DOWNLOAD IT NOW: One Nation Labour – Debating the future

Signup to our daily email

Proudly sponsored by

LabourList Videos

Latest Posts

It’s time to get off the fence, Ed

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Latest

Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

Email*
Forename
Surname