You are here: Home » Comment »

Becoming the Party of business

June 13, 2012 4:01 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) account for 99% of all enterprise in the UK. There are 4.5m of them across the country. The combined annual turnover of these businesses is £1,500 billion and they employ nearly 14 million people – almost 59% of the entire private sector workforce.

These businesses, as well as the people who work for them, are not the super-rich. They pay taxes like the rest of us, often struggle to make ends meet like the rest of us, and work hard like the rest of us.

In actual fact, they are “us”.

But as well as being the party of business from the centre, we can be the party with business on the ground. As well as encouraging an economy that benefits from the proceeds of strong, growing businesses, we can develop a community where local business people play an active role in improving lives alongside us.

Members are already working around the country alongside local businesses to campaign on issues that matter to the community. From Tameside, where a Town Team of businesses, Party and Council, made a successful bid to the Mary Portas fund, to Derby, where the movement worked with that most unique of local businesses, the football club, to campaign with Bombardier.

I’d like to tell a quick story about another example that has begun to take root in Cardiff.

In total, around 15 members have so far been part of a process that has developed something very intriguing for our politics.

Towards the end of last year, members began going around one ward in central Cardiff, Plasnewydd (plass-nair-with, said quickly, for those not versed in Welsh) asking people what they want to change in the area. We started with residents; knocking doors and spending around 5 minutes discussing the area and the issues, whilst also getting ideas for solutions. And then we moved on to the local businesspeople. We spent 4 sessions, over 4 weeks, going around to local, independent businesses of varying types, asking what it was like to run a business in the area and what one thing they would change to make it easier.

The response was mixed – from “I’ve been waiting 20 years for someone to ask me that”, to “I’m angry about my rates” to the somewhat inevitable, “I’ve not got time for politics.” But the theme was consistent – business people have issues that affect them, that make them angry, and that they want to change.

Of all the businesses we spoke to, around a dozen along the two small streets we worked on said they were willing to act. They liked the idea of working with the local Labour Party to take action on issues. And they wanted to do something about it. As we saw it, our role was to work with the businesses, come up with solutions, actions and plans. In essence, our role was to organise.

There were lots of issues that came up of varying sizes. The big issues were the pertinent ones and the ones we are often tempted to launch into. Unemployment, crime, anti-social behaviour and the cost of public transport all came up. We knew that we didn’t have the sufficient power yet to take on the bigger issues, but that if we built coalitions with the community around smaller ones then in time much more would be possible. So we decided to start small. The Liberal Democrats had said they were going to open up 50 short stay car park spaces in the shopping area. Unsurprisingly, nothing materialised. Parking may not be the most glamorous of issues, but in this case the situation has a damaging effect on the local business community. When potential customers are afraid of getting a parking penalty for popping into a shop for a few minutes, the local economy suffers. Nearly every business we spoke to raised this – the scented candle shop, the green grocer, the café, the Mod clothes shop, the pet shop, the off licence, the hairdresser.

The members then brought some of the local people together and planned their action.

The course of action over the coming weeks will hopefully see the newly-elected Labour council taking action on the concerns. However, maybe more important is the longer term effect. This continuous process of relationship building, joint strategy and action could lead to a strong, on-going partnership between the local business community, the Labour Party and Labour’s elected officials. The power that can be built through this long-term development will, in time, enable us to campaign on bigger issues with a much greater chance of winning.

This is not just a Labour campaign. It is a community campaign with the Labour Party at the centre of it, organising local people and local businesses around an issue that they themselves identified as something that will improve the community.

Central policy will do wonders for our relationship with businesses and we have already begun making positive steps with things like Labour’s Business. But to re-connect in our communities with smaller businesses, we need to engage with them closely; through conversations, through joint strategy, and through collaborative action.

This is how we can be a party with business, as well as a party of business.

Stewart Owadally is a Community Organiser at Movement for Change

Related posts:

  1. A business party must be a better party
  2. Good Business / Bad Business?
  3. The Party of Business
  4. Labour ideas for Business-driven growth
  5. In praise of ‘anti-business snobbery’
  • Daniel Speight

    In actual fact, they are “us”.

    No, in actual fact they are not “us”. They may be “you” or “me”, but they are not “us”.

    It’s fine when Labour has common cause with small businesses, and because the Tories are usually in hock to the City they could well find less sympathy from that party than from Labour. But Labour is not the party of small business. It never was. The clues in the name. It’s called the Labour Party, not the Progress Party. May be time for you start a new party?

    • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

      The Labour Party should not be about pitching people against each other. You can care about working people and still care about business people.  Just because you support one type of person, doesn’t mean you have to hate another.

      The idea that we are only here to help one kind of person is manifestly absurd.

      • UKAzeri

        ” to drive growth ”
         
        Jonathan, do you think business in general is the best ‘vehicle’ for driving growth , as opposed to other approaches, i.e the state, state enterprise, voluntary sector, NGOs?
         
        If so what are your thoughts on the failure to provide housing, reasonable wages, employment opportunities in general and so on, in the past 20 years? 

        Many thanks

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          I believe in a balanced economy.  Setting up your own business is a fundamental aspect of freedom and it benefits the economy, and a strong public sector is a fundamental aspect of a civil society.  You need both (there is room for a third area where we should be encouraging co-operatives too).

          State jobs are simply not as economically productive, as they are paid for out of the public purse and you only get a reduced amount back in tax revenues and discretionary spending.  State enterprise often ends up in a mess, with heavy losses having to be picked up by the tax payer.  If you could rely on the state to only employ the right amount of people to cover the work needing doing, then there would be more room to allow it, but history shows that in, say, British steel, Government over-employs to keep unemployment figures down but later finds the incurred losses to be immensely unaffordable.

          People understandably say neo-liberalism has failed.  But the answer
          cannot be another economic philosophy that has also failed – socialism.

          ‘Reasonable wages’ is highly subjective.  Housing is more about Government policy  and before the crash we had a period of high employment. 

          • UKAzeri

            “…heavy losses having to be picked up by the tax payer..” I am sure you been following the news since 2008 … :) ))))  
             
             
            Old approach to state enterprise has its draw backs and I doubt many would deny that. However they have never resulted in such catastrophic failures as what we are experiencing at the moment. Combining the elements of enterprise and state intervention would allow the society to progress forward both in terms of affluence and civilization ( things like free healthcare). Our election manifesto will have to show that.
             
             
            “…’Reasonable wages’ is highly subjective..” – not to Scandinavians :) ))
             
             
            It was an explicit Tory and an implicit New Labour policy to leave housing to the market. The market failed in providing what was needed but successeded in maximising their take ( which it is designed for).
             

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            I have been watching the news! Which is why I think the answer to today’s problems cannot be found in ideologies that have caused economic problems in the past (remember when Labour had to beg IMF for a bailout?!)

            If anyone can come up with a modern appraoch to state enterprise that can in some way guarantee the old mistakes wouldn’t be repeated, I’d be more than happy to take a look!

          • PaulHalsall

            Jonathan, you are too young to remember the application for a bailout.  And far to young to recall the destabilisation of almost everything caused by the US abandonment of Bretton Woods and the  Oilshocks following 1973.

            You are also too young to recall that then Labour Government of 2004-1979 had some signal successes.  Social inequality continued to decline: the inequitable grammar school system which threw 2/3rd of students away was abandoned, the nefarious distinction between National Insurance and National Assistance was abolished, and we produced some great pop music.  It was not an awful time.
            The awful times came after – under Thatcher.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            Paul, there are many commentators out their who can’t personally remember certain things from a distant age.  But fortunately the magic that is the ability to read at least allows you to catch up.  If we don’t learn from past mistakes then we are doomed to cyclical failure.

            And of course there are good things and bad things about every government. 

          • AlanGiles

            But it is true Jon, that though you can read about the past, all writers will put their own interpretation on things, and certain stories get repeated so often, even if they are not true they come to be ACCEPTED as true.

            For example, despite the Sun “newspaper” Feb 1979 headline, Jim Callaghan DID NOT say “Crisis, what crisis?”

            And I don’t think Denis actually “begged” the IMF for loan. Obviously certain conditions were stipulated as they always are in these circumstances.

            Sadly a lot of the historians are very young, and so these canards get repeated.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            HI Alan, I completely take the point.  I am not an expert on the politics of the past, and don’t claim to be, but there are certain areas of indisputable fact, and my point remains that without learning from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to cyclical failure.  That counts for all sides of the political debate, because no party is perfect in its ideology or its application of that ideology.  Personally I’m not sure I am rooted in any one ideology, some areas I’m left wing, some maybe a bit more to the right, in most cases I think I’m just in the middle telling it how I see it (I actually think oftentimes people’s ideology can cloud their judgement on the needs of the day.

            I like to see evidence based solutions to our problems – and it is entirely necessary to have a business/entrepeneurship strategy to help drive economic growth as part of a balanced future economy.

          • UKAzeri

            I am keeping an open mind …  lets see what happens in the next 2 years..

          • Peter Barnard

            Jonathan R,

            The IMF “bailout” has passed into mythology as evidence of “economic mismanagement” of the 1974-79 Labour government. What is never remarked is that the figures that prompted the application for IMF funding were, in fact, incorrect and when the correct figures eventually came to light it was apparent that the application was not, in fact, required.

            Much more has passed into mythology about the 1970s.

            Owner-occupation – a generally regarded indicator of economic prosperity – increased at a compound 2.5% per annum between 1971 and 1981 – and that was without selling council houses at knock-down prices. Between 1981 and 1997, owner-occupation – including the effect of council house sales - increased at just 1.8% per annum.

            Private car ownership – another generally accepted indicator of general prosperity – increased at 2.6% per annum between 1970 and 1979 ; between 1979 and 1997, the increase was 2.2% per annum.

            All this was achieved in a period that saw the great economic shock of the OPEC quadrupling of the price of crude oil in late 1973, throwing the mature western democracies into recession and, in the UK, GDP per capita was the same in 1976 Q3 as it was in 1973 Q3. Between 1976 Q3 and 1979 Q2, GDP per capita increased at a compound 3.9% pa, which isn’t too shabby …

            In the US, oil purchases increased from 1.7% of GDP in 1970 to 4.7% in 1979, effectively reducing consumer purchasing power for other goods and services by a corresponding amount. Something similar must have occurred in the United Kingdom.

            The share of national income to labour decreased only slightly between 1970 and 1979 – from 59.5% to 58.8%. This was similar to the average share between 1955 and 1973 – 59.2%. By 1997, the share of national income had significantly declined to 53% and it wasn’t much higher in 2008, although there was a “mini-peak ” of 56.6% in 2001.

            I don’t think it’s coincidence that the lot of the ordinary working person saw an unparallelled material improvement in the “golden age” – wages were increasing at the same rate as national output and the owp was able to share in this output.

            Jonathan, not for the first time you seem all too ready to lean towards capital. You also seem very ready to accept the “conventional wisdom” economic nonsense that has been peddled for the last thirty and more years. I find this disappointing in a member of the Labour party.

            According to reports in the business pages, British business is currently sitting on about £750 million of readies. You should ask them why they aren’t investing …

          • Peter Barnard

            Correction : £750 billion, not million.

          • derek

            Don’t be so narky Jonathan, whether your in a state job or a private job you’ll contribute to the greater good of society and buy and pay for goods creating the continuity of demand. Small and Medium business is important but we mustn’t be frightened to create large scale nationalised business.Jonathan absolute capitalism has failed and austerity alone has failed, Osborne is now frantically trying to stimulate our growth by pumping a stimulus into the banking sector offering low rate cost loans, it’s all a bit late as the welfare reforms have stalled, good lord, those reforms at a time when people needed proper work and help will go down as the most ridiculous idea any political party had the misfortune to implement.Jonathan, labour should have united long ago and yet we remain behind the black ball because several people of ilk seem to be more in tune with conservative failed policy than true labour values, come on! get yourself out of the snooker position by a nice swerve to reconnect with what really matters a party that creates and defends jobs and standards for all our peoples.  

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

          On employment opportunities my first glance on the ONS website (source: 
          http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=BCAJ&dataset=lms&table-id=5) suggests 4M jobs were created between 1990 and 2010, while the proportion of public/private (
          http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=G9C2&dataset=lms&table-id=4) remained broadly steady at 79.5%: implying the private sector created 3.2M jobs in 20 years.

          Does this not suggest that private sector businesses are indeed the most effective driver of growth in employment opportunities?

          Meanwhile the progressive NGO sector (those that don’t exist as quasi-governmental arms) is increasingly converging with business around the “social enterprise” (i.e. business approach with a conscience).

          I have little experience of the wages or housing points to comment there, but I would also offer the view that NGOs (and I say this from experience) aren’t renowned for offering anything other than very low salaries…

          • UKAzeri

            Having grown up in USSR you wont find me advocating top down job allocation/creation.
            However a reasonable balance between state and private sector as opposed market driven focus is the way forward.
             
            Furthermore it would be interesting to see how many of these new jobs were created as a result of either direct state investment or as part of the general government expenditure.
             
            What i find troubling is that current rhetoric form both the left and right in UK solely concentrates on the role of the market to save us from this crisis.

      • Daniel Speight

        All things to all people again.

        Let’s be the party of small business, oh and let’s be the party of the City, hang on don’t forget big business, and while we are at let’s be the party of the aristocracy. It’s that absurd.

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          sigh.  You are rapidly taking Treborc’s place as the most embittered, cynical and relentless negative person on this site.

          If you think there is some moral righteousness in not caring about huge chunks of people than that’s down to your values and conscience.  This country has come along way since the Labour party was founded, but sadly some in Labour haven’t travelled at the same speed and are stuck drowning in long discredited class-based ideology.

          • Daniel Speight

            …but sadly some in Labour haven’t travelled at the same speed and are stuck drowning in long discredited class-based ideology.

            That really is the problem as you see it I guess. You want a party with no ideology at all, whether class-based or based on something else. You want a party which has no principles, instead something that is totally opportunistic. Winning at any cost is all that matters.

            If you could even just hold a teeny bit of an ideology I could be more forgiving. You know, something like wanting to make people more equal, but you don’t even have that. Without it you have no moral compass which is what makes it so easy for the likes of Bozier to move over to the Tories with no stops between. It’s what made it so easy for Blair to become such a greedy man after he left government. It’s what made Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith so quick to cheat on their expenses.

            Just because the carpet-baggers are here doesn’t mean we have to accept they own the party.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            It’s not that I have no ideology, it’s that I don’t believe  the only ideologies are socialism and Thatcherism.  And I find rigid and dogmatic loyalty to one particular brand of politics to be a little bizarre.  It’s why I don’t spend my time hating people with different views as I think all parties have good ideas and all parties have bad ideas, and that those ideas should be discussed on their merit based on detail, not based on rigid observance to ideology.

            For me, I believe that the more ideology you have the further you are away from ordinary people, who themselves have rather little of it. 

            The fact as I see it is that your ideology forces you to hold hatred for a huge bunch of perfectly decent people – and that’s what I don’t want any part of.

          • derek

            Jonathan, if you believe that the NHS has been a good ideology that’s served our people well, then what has any government really done since it’s creation? just playing around with pastel colours only confuses and stagnates the drive to betterment.

          • Mi

            Problem is you could easily be a Tory moderate because you’re not remotely socialist. Labour is a clearly left of centre party but there have been many who are essentially liberal centrists who have opted for us. I think their influence has diluted the party too much and we need to be moving back down distinctly left of centre paths again. There has been too much entryism by people who want to turn us into a centre, non-ideological ‘national’ party

          • Daniel Speight

            And I find rigid and dogmatic loyalty to one particular brand of politics to be a little bizarre.

            Afraid I don’t get it Jonathan. Maybe I’m just too old. So if you have no loyalty why do you even become a member of a political party, or maybe I have that wrong? Why not  join the liberals where you can be as flaky as you want and see the good in everyone, including the Tories?

            It’s not hatred that drives my views. In fact there’s a good chance I’m the only small businessman and entrepreneur on this thread. But I do understand how the world works.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

             Daniel, i didn’t say i had no loyalty. i said it wasn’t to rigid ideology.  My loyalty is to my country.

          • Daniel Speight

            Dear oh dear Jonathan. Hiding behind the skirts of nationalism. This has nothing to do with the labour movement. What does it even mean?

            Do you mean loyalty to the citizens of Britain? Who could argue with that? We all want the best for our fellow citizens, otherwise why would we even be on a political blog, except of course if we were more interested in the best for ourselves?

            Do you meany loyalty to a piece of land? At what point does this loyalty start? Is it loyalty to the piece of dirt your house is on?

            Or is it loyalty to an idea? An idea of what we hope is our Britishness built into our very folk memory? An idea that probably goes back to ancient Britons. An idea that says we are as good as the next man. That even if we have been invaded and have had Celtic, Saxon, Viking or Norman overlords, we are still as good as they are. The idea that gave us Wat Tyler, Jack Straw (no not that one), and John Ball. The idea that gives us legends like Robin Hood or real life episodes like the removal of Charles II’s head. The idea that gave us the Chartist or started this very party, the Labour Party?

            You need to expand just a little bit Jonathan on quite what you are loyal to.

          • Daniel Speight

            Dear oh dear Jonathan. Hiding behind the skirts of nationalism. This has nothing to do with the labour movement. What does it even mean?

            Do you mean loyalty to the citizens of Britain? Who could argue with that? We all want the best for our fellow citizens, otherwise why would we even be on a political blog, except of course if we were more interested in the best for ourselves?

            Do you meany loyalty to a piece of land? At what point does this loyalty start? Is it loyalty to the piece of dirt your house is on?

            Or is it loyalty to an idea? An idea of what we hope is our Britishness built into our very folk memory? An idea that probably goes back to ancient Britons. An idea that says we are as good as the next man. That even if we have been invaded and have had Celtic, Saxon, Viking or Norman overlords, we are still as good as they are. The idea that gave us Wat Tyler, Jack Straw (no not that one), and John Ball. The idea that gives us legends like Robin Hood or real life episodes like the removal of Charles II’s head. The idea that gave us the Chartist or started this very party, the Labour Party?

            You need to expand just a little bit Jonathan on quite what you are loyal to.

    • http://twitter.com/sowadally Stewart Owadally

      Hi Daniel

      Yes we are the Labour Party and a big part of our job is to stand up for workers. But everything that the Labour Party exists for isn’t summed up in our name. I would suggest that our constitution is a better way to define our purpose and when we say “by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone”, that means all people who share our values and our desire to create a better community and world for people.

      If a small business owner shares those values, they I would absolutely say they are “us”.

      • Daniel Speight

        When there is common purpose between businessmen of whatever flavour and the people Labour was set up to protect and represent, then it’s all well and good. There is no need for Labour to be anti-small business as it provides jobs for our citizens. But what is wrong is to stretch this into Labour being a party that represents business is nonsense. The BS of a third way and being all things to all people is one of the reasons why our political class is held in such low esteem.

        • http://twitter.com/sowadally Stewart Owadally

          Hi Daniel

          This has nothing to do with the “political class”. The people out campaigning are Party members who wanted to campaign in a different way along with residents and small business owners who were keen to be involved. 

          I’m afraid I disagree on your point about not being on the side of small business people. I don’t think it’s an either/or.

           

          • Daniel Speight

            Is it that hard to understand that Labour was built to protect and represent the working class. You want it to be something else. Why not go and build a new party that can be all things to all people. Mind you history hasn’t been kind to parties like that.

  • PaulHalsall

    I have worked for lots of SME’s and big businesses in my time.

    On the whole –  there have been exceptions – big businesses are better employers, permit unionisation, and treat employees better than SMEs.

    The LABOUR Party exists to support workers, not to brown-nose the expropriators.

    • http://twitter.com/sowadally Stewart Owadally

      Hi

      • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

        “small businesses … are key to sustaining our communities in that they generate growth.”
        Then a major priority must be to develop the circumstances in which small businesses can thrive. 

        Within my small circle of business associates from a previous life I know of three businesses currently on the verge of shutting down, one has been established for over one hundred years and will close in two weeks time. Another, established over 40 years ago, is trying to hold out though doesn’t expect to last to the end of summer. And one established over 15 years ago is surviving only on hope and previous profits – the owner has difficulty facing the emotional turmoil of throwing in the towel. All of these are in this situation because of the austerity crazed approach of the current government – which has stripped demand from the domestic economy.

        If Labour wants to help small businesses it needs to come up with an alternative to austerity. This most likely will require Labour to break with ideologically driven shrink-the-state economics of the Tories. Will Labour do it?

  • AlanGiles

    I am always a bit surprised when somebody writes an article about “becoming” the party of busines, since it implies that we never have been previously.

    In the 1970s we had the National Enterprise Board, which helped a great number of struggling companies, and I don’t think anybody would deny that the Blair administration were quite close to business – or certainly parts of it.

    Manufacturing was certainly not on Blair’s list of priorities, but this has been true of governments since the 1980s.

    • http://twitter.com/sowadally Stewart Owadally

      Hi Alan

      I agree with you. We have had good success in being the Party of business in the past. Of course a title is largely rhetoric, but I guess what I mean is how we can add to the notion of us being the Party of business.

      Hope that clears it up.

  • UKAzeri

    so you are suggesting that we help a business maximise their profits. where would these profits go?
     
    Better conditions for  staff?
     
    Lower prices for customers?
     
    Or just a bigger check in the bank…
     
     
    The inherent deficiency of private sector business, is that its sole purpose is to maximise profits. Now there will always be people( tiny minority) who consider their role in a community to be more than just that but we haven’t achieved this level of civilization by relying on the goodwill of the few. If it was left up to them we would still be slaves…

    • Chris Cook

      For most small businesses – and there are gazillions of them, all with votes, and all scandalously under-served by politicians of all stamps – the staff and management ARE the owners.

      Are you saying that Labour (quite rightly) does not seek to maximise its own ‘Profit’ aka wages?

      Of course they do, but the balance of power is no longer with them, and the imbalance of market power vs Capital is getting worse by the day.

      • UKAzeri

        “..the staff and management ARE the owners..” i strongly disagree. Certainly the owners will be on the ‘shopfloor’ side by side with their workers ( unlike bigger businesses) however the former will always be better off. Some deservingly, some not. Where a key differential between the two will be access to funds rather than hard work.
         
        Good question on labour. Absolutely… they do, who wouldn’t? But if we look towards other forms of organization, primarily mutual’s and coops, we can see how the inherent conflict between management and labour is done away with, since they are both the same thing!!  In good times they share the spoils, in bad times they all take a hit. In sickness and in health so to speak…
         
        The banks ( i.e. guardians of capital) are simply higher up the food chain than your local shop owner. They strangle him, he passes on the ‘pain’ first to staff then to customers, then closes down… but then still votes for Maggie .. so no sympathy there !

Latest

  • News More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    By Mark Ferguson

    Ed Miliband is addressing Google’s Bug Tent tomorrow, and is expected to attack them over tax avoidance. So the slick Downing Street operation presumably want to get out ahead of that, right? Not quite. Here’s a selection of the headlines from today’s papers: ‘Stop moralising about tax avoidance, PM told’ – Guardian p.23 ‘Tougher tax rules would cost jobs, minister warns’ – Financial Times p.3 ‘Cameron avoids showdown over Google tax row’ – Times p.15 ‘No taxing questions as PM [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    By Harriet Harman

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    By Stefan Stern

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    By Rob Marchant

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →