You are here: Home » Comment »

Should Ed commit to an In/Out referendum on the EU?

July 5, 2012 10:15 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

With Cameron lurching from sceptic to “statesman” on the issue of Europe, struggling to remain relevant on the European stage from an increasingly isolated seat, there is rumour, counter rumour and counter-counter rumour with regards to Labour’s position on the fabled In/Out referendum.

Since Mark Pritchard fired the starting pistol, Cameron has raced into the unenviable position that John Major found himself in during the opening months of 1995: a party heavily divided on the issue of the UK’s relationship with the European Union. Tabloid after tabloid are now falling over themselves to encourage Ed to fill the political gap left by Cameron’s vague statement that was purely designed to dampen the growing internal fire.

This gives Ed a bit of a conundrum: should he commit the party to an In/Out referendum? Europe is not phone-hacking, it isn’t banking reform and it isn’t competition law in the media. Where Ed has led admirably on these issues, Europe is a different kettle of fish quotas. As a movement fundamentally composed of social democrats, the goals (or ‘ends’) of the Labour Party are broadly agreeable to most of its members. This is not to say there isn’t debate within the party, but this debate primarily focuses on our methods (or ‘means’) to deliver them.

With Europe, the debate has moved in such a way that membership of the EU has become an end in itself. This makes it a unique issue. While membership of the EU is still arguably a means to deliver on trade, crime reduction and multilateral cooperation on international issues, UKIP and the Tory backbenchers have also made it an ‘end’. Because members will disagree with the idea that the EU is the right means to deliver on the above issues and more, we may find that we begin to realise that members of the party are aiming for different notional ends.

As we have seen with the Tories, once this happens, the divisions in a party never heal and are kept bubbling just a fraction below a fragile surface.

It is a very difficult position for Ed to be in. It is unlikely that a bad decision here would lead disruptive factions as seen on the other side of the chamber and it is even more unlikely that it would prompt another ‘Gang of Four’ because after all, Ed is not likely to commit to membership or withdrawal from the EU – just to an opportunity for the electorate to decide. The combustible nature of this unique issue means both Cameron and Ed have to tread delicately; albeit Cameron is on a very fine tightrope and Ed has more room to take this issue and run. If Ed truly believes that an In/Out referendum is the right course to take and can muster broad support from the PLP, the membership, no matter how reluctantly, will follow – indeed, there will be some members who actively support this policy. If, however, Ed does not believe in a referendum yet endorses one to politically outflank the right of the Tories, he is taking a big gamble for what would be short term gain. After all to gain from this electorally he will have to keep this issue high on the political agenda up until May 2015. If it is a purely political move that is motivated by Machiavelli’s prince that is an awful long time for the policy – and Ed’s position – to be under scrutiny. With an issue as volatile as membership of the EU, almost three years of defending a policy in which he does not truly believe could create divisions within the party and undermine his leadership.

Douglas Alexander wrote a very eloquent summary of Labour’s position in the Guardian on Sunday evening. He argues that Labour should not commit to a position until the Eurozone crisis has settled. He argues that while there is crisis, the institutions of the EU are likely to evolve. Committing to a referendum now would be opening a debate on an issue that is not entirely clear. This would be a foolhardy strategy on such a politically sensitive issue and further reinforces the idea that Ed should express caution.

It is not for any member to second guess Ed’s position on this, but it must be carefully considered. He needs to believe that it is the right move, not just one that will give him an unsustainable bounce in the opinion polls. As soon as a referendum is committed to, the debate on membership will begin and rumble until the polls close. When we already have a 10 point lead, is a few more percentage points worth prompting an internal debate on this most volatile of issues?

Related posts:

  1. Proposal #10: Commit to building a national high-speed rail network
  2. After today’s report, the government must commit to radical action to address pay inequality
  3. Labour Europhiles should support a referendum on the EU
  4. We should have a referendum on Lisbon, too
  5. Is there a third way for Thursday’s referendum?
  • Will

    Absolutely not. Membership of the EU would be opposed by swathes of the right wing press in the campaign. Winning the argument to stay in would be incredibly difficult. Most of our good social and environmental legislation comes from Europe.  If Labour promise  a referendum it will be the first step to leaving the EU – and  unshackling future Tory governments from those restrictions, releasing them to wreck havoc on the country. 

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

      If our only defence against the Tories wreaking havoc on the UK is membership of the EU then we may as well throw the towel in.  An end to top down politics (within Labour) would be a useful first step in strengthening progressive politics and Ed is making progress with this.

      There is no reason why the advantages you associate with EU membership shouldn’t be prominently supported on our home turf. It’s just a matter of making them a priority instead of snuggling up to the City of London.

      I am in favour of continued EU membership (with more democracy) but to expect the EU to do what we’re also capable of doing ourselves would be to get the ‘stay in’ campaign off to a very poor start.

      • treborc

        Do you not see this a bit like when labour and the Tories had that silly battle over single mothers. Labour single mothers must return to work when the child is twelve, Tories ten, labour eight, Tories five, labour a year.

        The Tories come out with a referendum maybe, and poor old Miliband is thinking people will not vote for me, so we will have one as well, it’s that silly bandwagon again.

        And I do see Wales Scotland and Ireland who have Assemblies with Law making powers asking if they can refuse this referendum, we have to much to lose.  Then it would be an English referendum

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

          Well, I think Labour has to have an EU policy and the most unproblematic stop-gap option is a policy of more democracy and less gravy train – I don’t see why Labour can’t commit to that as a default position straight away – subject to conference approval (though the top-table brigade may want to hop on the EU gravy train).

          Perhaps if England does want to leave Wales (led by your good self) will declare UDI and negotiate renewed membership…

    • Diane San

      Are you out of your tiny mind?….Winning the argument to stay in would be incredibly difficult!?? exactly! THERE IS NO CREDIBLE ARGUMENT TO STAYING IN!- Thats the whole point!….and Thats the problem with Labour voters….you do not understand economics and how a country functions….all you advocate is: tax the rich and spend money – its immaterial who’s paying….

    • Hugh

       ”Winning the argument to stay in would be incredibly difficult.”

      Why? The Guardian, Mirror, Independent and FT would all be in favour; the BBC and Channel 4 are also unlikely to give you a hard time. All three political parties, probably, would be campaigning to stay in. If the benefits really do so clearly outweigh the costs, I don’t see any reason to suppose you couldn’t win the argument.

      • Brumanuensis

        You’re being disengenuous. The circulation figures of those four newspapers are a combined total of 1,689,814. The Sun alone has a circulation of 2,611,838. Combined with the other Eurosceptic papers (Telegraph, Express, Daily Mail, Daily Star), the combined circulation is 6,322,631, about four times what the ‘Pro-EU’ papers can muster. And that assumes the Mirror will be reliably pro-EU, which is a stretch. 

        All three political parties will campaign to stay in? I doubt it. The Tories, to avoid a split, will probably make it a matter of individual preference, like Labour in 1975. Labour will probably do something akin to what they did over AV and only the Liberals will be wholeheartedly in favour, which is hardly the kiss of life for the campaign to stay in. 

        • Hugh

          It’s not disingenuous at all: I can’t help the fact no one wants to read the Guardian and Independent, but it’s plainly not the case that the pro-Euro camp has no voice. In any case, the majority of the public barely glance at a paper, let alone follow coverage of EU issues.

          Furthermore, pointing to the right-wing press is a poor excuse given that having almost all the politicians and press onside at various points when the Irish have had to vote on European matters hasn’t seemed to have guaranteed them success. If the greater number of papers sold are sceptical of the EU it’s because the public are, not the other way around.

          • Brumanuensis

            But Will didn’t say the pro-EU camp had no voice; he said it would be incredibly difficult, which is a fair assessment given that the bulk of the press are anti-EU. The public may not follow the EU carefully, but that’s not a strength for the pro-EU argument because the public broadly have a negative perception of the EU and when it does come to the public’s attention, it’s almost always along the lines of ‘EU demands that we surrender to Germans’, etc.

            I don’t think it’s entirely credible to say that the press are simply following public opinion. Dacre and Murdoch have – or in the latter case had – a lot of influence over the editorial lines of their papers (bar, perhaps, the Times) and given their known anti-EU views, I doubt they just passively articulated what their readers thought. Richard Desmond is much the same. 

          • Hugh

            And yet, strangely, the Irish have shown that having a pro EU press doesn’t guarantee victory. Furthermore, does it never strike you as curious that Murdoch’s papers seem to switch political allegiance after, not before the polls have begun to swing? The ability of the press to lead opinion is massively overstated – usually by those who happen to find the majority of  public opinion against them.

            And since you bring Dacre into it, the Mail is against withdrawal, incidentally. So too, I reckon would be the Times. The Sun I would bet my right arm would also be more cautious than you seem to assume – at least until it was very clear who was going to win the referendum.

          • http://twitter.com/ElliotBidgood Elliot Bidgood

            Two potentially false assumptions in this argument. Only the Express is openly pro-withdrawal, as I’ve pointed out above- the Mail has stated in the past that it’s editorial line is in favour of staying in, and I think the Telegraph might be too. As for the Murdoch press- who knows, but Murdoch’s business interests might lead to them taking an anti-withdrawal line. The Times isn’t very sensationalist anyway. There’s a difference between “re-negotiation” soft Euroscepticism, which is both the mood of Britian and the right-wing tabloids, and being outright willing to withdraw.

            Second, the Irish example doesn’t neccesarily work in terms of media influence. Without one solitary doubt I agree that Brits would vote down a specific proposal for greater integration even if the entire “establishment” and the press campaigned the other way, hence Labour’s reluctance on the Euro, the Constitution and Lisbon. But the dynamics of an in/out referendum over the status quo are different, as 1975 proved.

          • Hugh

            You first point rather seems to be restating my second paragraph, so I’m not sure what false assumption you feel I’ve made.

            Given that I’m not entirely sure what your second point is. My point is simply that the press are far from being a deciding factor, which I think Ireland plainly does show.

          • http://twitter.com/ElliotBidgood Elliot Bidgood

            Sorry, got mixed up. I meant to address the first point to Brumanuensis. Yes, I agree with you about how the Times & Mail will react to an actual referendum, maybe the Sun too.

            On the overall level of media influence, I think it would prove to be a fairly key factor. You’re right that Ireland shows the limits of media power when it’s a further-integration referendum like Lisbon, as I think would be the same in UK in a similar vote. But this would be an in/out vote- I’ve heard accounts that in 1975, scare-mongering media reports about the risks of withdrawal from much of the press at the time were part of what turned early polls showing a 2-1 no vote into a 2-1 yes vote in the end. It’s not the only factor, I agree, but in another in/out referendum like that one, I think it would could bring about a status quo instinct again if even the most Eurosceptic papers were anti-withdrawal when push came to shove.

          • Brumanuensis

            I think you underestimate the power of the press to shape public opinion, particularly in terms of how institutions are perceived. Are you denying that the deluge of stories like ‘hair-dressers to be banned from wearing heels by EU’ have contributed to negative public opinion? 

            I’m willing to bet my right arm that if the referendum question was a straight-forward ‘in-out’ one, the Mail and the Sun would line up behind the ‘out’ campaign. If there was a third option, they might hedge their bets.

  • Mike Homfray

    On a practical level there needs to be an alternative on offer and I haven’t heard one yet

    • John Dore

      Hello Mr EU,

      UK here, terribly sorry but we don’t like your undemocratic little club, nothing personal it’s just the ineptitude and inability to react to the needs of individual member states we don’t like. Please don’t call us little Englanders, for we are a pragmatic bunch. Now then, as you’re moving forward with the new integrated superstate, on the basis that we import far more from you folks than we export and we still want to be friends, how do you fancy a free trade relationship exactly as if we were members. It’ll be great, we’ll keep buying your stuff and you buy ours.

      There there, didn’t hurt to ask did it? As if they’re going to say we’ll screw ourselves by doing anything else. Pathetic argument.

      • Brumanuensis

        You do realise the EU will piss themselves laughing and promptly screw us over during the negotiations for that deal? Do you seriously think they aren’t going to take this glorious opportunity to stick it to us and, well, stick it to us? Trust me, I’ve lived on the continent. The EU isn’t composed of mild-mannered shrinking violets and given how thoroughly Cameron has antagonised our neighbours, they won’t be queuing up to do us favours.

        I mean, it was hardly the height of logic for De Gaulle to veto our membership back in ’67, but he did it. 

      • Brumanuensis

        You do realise the EU will piss themselves laughing and promptly screw us over during the negotiations for that deal? Do you seriously think they aren’t going to take this glorious opportunity to stick it to us and, well, stick it to us? Trust me, I’ve lived on the continent. The EU isn’t composed of mild-mannered shrinking violets and given how thoroughly Cameron has antagonised our neighbours, they won’t be queuing up to do us favours.

        I mean, it was hardly the height of logic for De Gaulle to veto our membership back in ’67, but he did it. 

      • Brumanuensis

        You do realise the EU will piss themselves laughing and promptly screw us over during the negotiations for that deal? Do you seriously think they aren’t going to take this glorious opportunity to stick it to us and, well, stick it to us? Trust me, I’ve lived on the continent. The EU isn’t composed of mild-mannered shrinking violets and given how thoroughly Cameron has antagonised our neighbours, they won’t be queuing up to do us favours.

        I mean, it was hardly the height of logic for De Gaulle to veto our membership back in ’67, but he did it. 

      • Brumanuensis

        You do realise the EU will piss themselves laughing and promptly screw us over during the negotiations for that deal? Do you seriously think they aren’t going to take this glorious opportunity to stick it to us and, well, stick it to us? Trust me, I’ve lived on the continent. The EU isn’t composed of mild-mannered shrinking violets and given how thoroughly Cameron has antagonised our neighbours, they won’t be queuing up to do us favours.

        I mean, it was hardly the height of logic for De Gaulle to veto our membership back in ’67, but he did it. 

      • Brumanuensis

        You do realise the EU will piss themselves laughing and promptly screw us over during the negotiations for that deal? Do you seriously think they aren’t going to take this glorious opportunity to stick it to us and, well, stick it to us? Trust me, I’ve lived on the continent. The EU isn’t composed of mild-mannered shrinking violets and given how thoroughly Cameron has antagonised our neighbours, they won’t be queuing up to do us favours.

        I mean, it was hardly the height of logic for De Gaulle to veto our membership back in ’67, but he did it. 

  • http://twitter.com/ElliotBidgood Elliot Bidgood

    I’m supportive of us calling for it, but Denis McShane pointed out the other day there’s perhaps not much tactical benefit to commiting to a referendum, or Cameron would have to follow suit, while we would have to if he does it first. That said, there’s maybe still a marginal benefit in Ed being ballsy and doing it first, and making Cameron look like a follower, I suppose.

    Politics aside, it’s the right thing to do, at least once things have settled. Refusing to ask people the question, on the open proviso that we don’t trust them not to vote no, causes disaffection with both the EU and politics in general. I’m also more hopeful about the prospect of us winning a referendum than most. Yes, the polls are heavily negative, but historical evidence is that they were before the 1975 referendum as well (2-1 against), and that ended in a 2-1 vote in favour. Instrumental in that was that the leadership of all main parties campaigned for Yes (as they would today, even the soft-Eurosceptic Cameron) and also the media of the day, which is again more likely today that we’d acknowledge- even the Mail and Telegraph aren’t in favour of outright withdrawal (along with the Morning Star on the far-left). Despite all the Eurosceptic boilerplate, a Mail editorial last year said ”this paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe — and particularly not at a time like this, when withdrawal would add immeasurably to the uncertainties threatening our recovery and rocking the confidence of the markets.” Big business also backed the Yes side in 1975, as it again likely would today. Although perhaps a less salient example, people were also initially supportive of AV in the polls, in theory, but voted 7-3 against in the end when they concluded it would be a change for the worse. And the reason the Lib Dems don’t want a Lords referendum is they fear that despite broad public support for that, they worry people could be persuaded against. No one likes Europe, but a combination of mainstream backing and ”better the devil you know” could well win out. I was against a referendum last year, as it would have thrown fuel on the fire and wouldn’t have been a representative decision under the circumstances, but once we know what the new EU looks like, it would be good to finally trust people with this.

    • treborc

      The risk of course is that the vote is then lost, and Wales then ends up losing a hell of a lot of EU jobs, I think the risk is very  high and is way to dangerous just to be vanity on who says it first

  • Amber Star

    I really like the emphasis in this article: Ed Miliband & his key ministers must really believe in a referendum, if they are going to offer one. My opinion is: Labour cannot say we’ll have an in/out referendum but Labour will be campaigning to stay in.

     Ed’s Labour is supposed to be the Party of change: You can’t have a referendum on an issue as big & divisive as this - & which the Tories & UKIP would be all over like a rash – & then campaign about it as defenders of the status quo.

     Ed’s Labour is supposed to be the Party of unity: This issue could divide the Labour Party.

     Ed’s Labour is supposed to be the Listening Party: Saying there’ll be a referendum, then second guessing the public by saying Labour will campaign to stay in goes against the grain of the ‘listening’ claim.

     Ed’s Labour is supposed to be about localism & community: It’s hard to sell that the EU is a local/ community issue in any meaningful way. Many people’s thoughts about that seem to drift off down the ‘flocking’ road. The EU is a ‘you have to see the big picture’ issue & that simply doesn’t chime with the over-all direction which the Party claims to be going in.

     Therefore, don’t offer an in/out referendum unless there is a very real commitment to a referendum AND Labour will engage with the debate but won’t campaign for one side or the other (which is bl**dy difficult, without being divisive - pace the AV referendum) AND Labour is committed to being bound by the public’s decision. My personal opinion is: Let the Conservatives & UKIP have this issue; Labour should resist playing politics with it.

     So, when Dave throws the allegation across the despatch box that Labour don’t have a policy on the EU, what should Labour’s answer be? That’s a bit above my pay grade but I think Labour should simply answer: Well the Coalition, in fact the Tories themselves, have two positions depending on whether you ask the front or the back benches. And when it’s being dicussed in a more serious way, Douglas Alexander seems to be in the right place on the EU for now.

    • Hugh

       ”when Dave throws the allegation across the despatch box that Labour
      don’t have a policy on the EU, what should Labour’s answer be?”

      How about, “We don’t have a policy on anything else; why single out the EU?”

  • Hugh

    “Douglas Alexander wrote a very eloquent summary of Labour’s position in
    the Guardian on Sunday evening. He argues that Labour should not commit
    to a position”

    Yes, that sounds like a fairly accurate summary of the Miliband approach to policy.

    • Brumanuensis

      Better than changing policy evey fortnight I suppose, which is what Cameron seems to prefer.

      • Hugh

         Well, it’s a fair point, but no, I’m not sure it is better.

    • Robertcp

      “….until the Eurozone crisis has settled.”

      A little bit of selective quoting.  I do not have a problem with an in/out referendum but it does need to wait until we know what is happening with the Euro.  Of course, Miliband does not need to decide anything until 2015, so he would be stupid to make a decision on this issue now.  Cameron is supposed to be running the country and does need to make deciions now!

      • Robertcp

        What happened to the “Edit” option?  I have just seen a spelling mistake!

  • http://twitter.com/carlgardner Carl Gardner

    The in-out referendum idea is a crazy policy, and Ed needs to make clear he’s not flirting with it. It’s crazy tactics, too.

    It makes sense to have this referendum, if you want to leave the EU. Such a big change of foreign and trade policy would I think need the assent of the voters.

    It makes no sense at all if you want to stay in. All it would do would be hand the Conservative right their biggest prize, just after they’d lost an election. They’d have a good chance of winning, and if they did, Ed’s foreign and trade policy would be blown out of the water, and his government’s term would be dominated by the big job of negotiation and legislation required by leaving. He’d be humiliated, and his government would be seriously damaged right from the off. A disaster.

    On the upside, if he won a yes vote, the issue wouldn’t be killed off at all. Unless the result were overwhelming, Eurosceptics would still be agitating for another referendum not long after, or for regular referendums every ten years. Remember, even after the 1975 referendum, which did result in a very clear Yes, it only took a few years for Labour to be committed to leaving without asking the voters. It’d settle nothing.

    Tactically it’s silly. Euroscepticism and the call for a referendum looks on the surface to be a populist policy – but it’s also a bit suspect in voters’ minds when it comes to serious decisions about the future. I think many voters, even if they dislike the EU, rightly diagnose many Eurosceptics as obsessives and weird. And it’s worth noting that taking history broadly since 1972, the more Eurosceptic party has never won a general election. The turn in politics in about 1992-3 followed a Tory disaster in European policy, and reflected the way the Tories had recently become more Eurosceptic than Labour. Europe is a minefield issue for Conservatives. Tactically, Labour should let them negotiate their way through it – not offer to clear it for them.

    Finally, Labour should not reopen its own wounds on this. Many forget how important Europe was as an issue for SDP people. It may sound far-fetched but Europe still has potential to destabilise Labour, if Ed lets it. Labour’s been left with a settled and realistic position since Kinnock changed it, and should stick to it.

    Ed should forget this nonsense. Labour’s policy should be to stay in. If Conservatives want a referendum to endorse a policy of leaving – let them try getting a mandate for it.

    • http://twitter.com/ElliotBidgood Elliot Bidgood

      “On the upside, if he won a yes vote, the issue wouldn’t be killed off at all. Unless the result were overwhelming, Eurosceptics would still be agitating for another referendum not long after, or for regular referendums every ten years. Remember, even after the 1975 referendum, which did result in a very clear Yes, it only took a few years for Labour to be committed to leaving without asking the voters. It’d settle nothing.”
      There are some Eurosceptics who urge caution about a vote for precisely this reason. They won’t walk it as easily as the expect they will, with all three parties, business and more of the media than is generally recognised against withdrawal, same as in 1975. They also know they would have to shut up for long time afterwards if they lost a vote. As for the Labour example, that was essentially because Foot, Benn and the far-lefties who’d campaigned unsuccessfully against in 1975 took over the party after 1979, and it was part of what made Labour look so out of the mainstream in the early 80s. There’s no threat of the anti-EU fringe in Labour today taking over the party, although admittedly, it’s a bit more possible in the Conservatives.

      As for the what people want regarding a referendum, we can’t kid ourselves. They want one, and they also know the only reason they haven’t had one is that the political class fear letting them have a say, which (rightfully) angers them. There’s still a debate to be had about reasonable timing, but we need to have a referendum sooner or later.

    • John Dore

      Nope the only thing thats crazy is your post. We absolutely are flirting with it as it will fast become the only option. Should full scale integration occur we will have no choice but to exit as joining is an electoral impossibility. 

      It makes sense to have this referendum, if you want to show the electorate that you listen. What is sad is that the stay in mob have no courage. They dont have the courage to fight it out, present the arguments and trust the people of this land to make the right decision. 

      Painting a referendum as silly is just a tactic of the Europhiles. Ignore it.

      I dont think Labour have any wounds, make it a free vote and live with the democratic outcome. That would show us as taking the democratic high ground; as opposed to listening to your baseless arguments and name calling. 

      We should ignore your nonsense, you present no argument. I am very happy with our current position on this subject.

  • Brumanuensis

    Remember what Atlee said about referenda, folks: ‘the device of demagogues and dictators’. Didn’t the AV referendum illustrate that whatever other merits they have, encouraging a serious discussion of the issues, isn’t among them.

    And Ed is a fool to propose a referendum on Lords reform too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

    Miliband has to. Cameron will be forced to and so the other parties will follow – best take the lead now and look bold. I don’t share Jackie Ashley’s assertion that the public will wince at leaving the EU and vote to stay but if we leave so what? I’ve generally thought of myself as pro EU over the years but I’m getting tired of this bollocks argument that leaving would be a disaster when Norway and Switzerland don’t seem to have any problems.

    • John Dore

      Matthew, great points.

      • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

        Thanks, I just wish the leadership would take note.

Latest

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

    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

    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

    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

    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 →