You are here: Home » Comment »

So far David Cameron has managed, not led, the Tory party

July 17, 2012 11:00 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

In politics if you are not on the attack then you are on the defence, on the front foot or the back foot. For this reason courage is the friend of political leaders and caution, their enemy.

What Ed Miliband has proved in recent months is that when an opposition party has confidence and self-belief it is far more willing and able to offer a lead, take tough decisions and end up on the right side of the argument.  What Miliband is fast learning is that the British people are often happy and willing to forgive the occasional error and poor decision but they rarely forgive the leader who simply refuses to take a decision because it is too tough. It is for this reason that many of the broadsheet commentators who were keen to write-off Ed’s leadership are beginning to admit that they misjudged him and that he is looking more and more like a Prime Minister in waiting.

In contrast David Cameron’s handling of recent events has exposed him to criticism that he is a shallow, one dimensional leader who talks a good game but fails to deliver the big ideas and the big decisions when needed. Cameron has not had a ‘good’ recession for several reasons. Firstly he has suffered from the perception that both he his party are too closely associated with the City fat cats whose greed triggered this financial meltdown. Secondly, when he became leader of the Tory party he refused to take the opportunity to speak out against the dangers of a poorly regulated City. Thirdly, Cameron and his Chancellor have on almost all the big economic questions been found wanting – plan A simply did not work.

The question many Tories are asking is whether Cameron has the courage necessary to lead, to take the tough decisions? Consider the evidence. He assured the nation that he went through the 2012 budget ‘line by line’ only to be forced into U-turn after U-turn. He says he wants tax cuts and more spending but with the same money. He says he wants to sort out all illegal immigration, but he opposed identity cards, the one thing essential to do it. He says he against academic selection one day but then backs plans to expand it the next.

The events of recent weeks have prompted me to reflect on the words of the former Tory MP Quentin Davies. In his letter to Cameron outlining his reasons for leaving the Conservative party and join Labour, he wrote:

“Under your leadership the Conservative party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda.”

Has the Tory party changed since Cameron became leader? Most of Mr Cameron’s early reforms were primarily cosmetic (a new HQ, a new party logo) and short-lived (the party’s “A” list of candidates). The difficulty for Cameron is that he leads a Tory party that is dominated by members who joined under Thatcher’s leadership, a membership that steadfastly refuses to move to the centre ground of British politics. It almost makes you feel sorry for Cameron – few people can lead a political party which obstinately refuses to be led. The other major problem for Cameron is the fact that too many of his front bench come from privileged, wealthy backgrounds. For many of the Eton educated Tory ‘toffs’ politics, even when in government, is a bit of hobby, something to do in conjunction with few non-executive directorships.

When Cameron and the Tories lose the next election I think it highly likely that the Tory party will end up tearing itself apart and that we will witness the formation of a new centre-right party (led possibly by Cameron or Nick Herbert) leaving the ‘traditional’ Conservatives (led by David Davis) to plough a ‘Thatcherite’ furrow that will eventually lead to electoral oblivion. Too apocalyptic do you think?

A couple of years ago I would have agreed but now I’m not so sure.

Related posts:

  1. David Cameron – Tea Party Tory
  2. David Cameron vs Tory MEPs: Which is the real face of the Conservative Party?
  3. Why has David Cameron isolated his party from European leaders like Sarkozy?
  4. Economist: Tory group is shoddy and shaming…what sort of party does Cameron lead?
  5. David Miliband on Ed, Blair, defeat and the Tory Party
  • http://www.themoronmormon.com/ TheMoronMormon

    Could The Two Party Conservative Coalition, Conservatives Be Split Into Two?? They’ve Got Two Chances.

  • carolekins

    Hope you’re right!

  • aracataca

    ‘When Cameron and the Tories lose the next election I think it highly likely that the Tory party will end up tearing itself apart and that we will witness the formation of a new centre-right party (led possibly by Cameron or Nick Herbert) leaving the ‘traditional’ Conservatives (led by David Davis) to plough a ‘Thatcherite’ furrow that will eventually lead to electoral oblivion. Too apocalyptic do you think?’
    Not at all.  I doubt whether Cameron will be around though – he’ll be on the backbenches, having bagged some sinecure in the City, and will be making the most of opportunities to accidentally leave behind one or more of his children at agreeable pubs in the Cotswolds.

    Clegg will be out by 2014 when Cath Ashton’s EU Commissioner job is up for grabs.  His ability to lie in six languages will be much in demand.  The LibDems will also split, with Danny Alexander and David Laws in the Yellow Tory faction, and the likes of Tim Farron and St Vince in the other.

    • ThePurpleBooker

      My prediction is that it will not happen. When the Conservatives lose the next election, there will be no split in the party but questions will be raised. Cameron will stand down but they will face an agonising leadership election. I reckon if they chose Justine Greening, as a Trojan horse for the Osbornites, then they will be able to detoxify and modernise properly. However, if it is led by George Osborne then there will be a 1980′s style split and the party will continue to sink into oblivion. The Liberal Democrats will move to the centre-right which will attract some Conservatives, and they will work in alliance with some Tories. If the boundary changes go through, David Laws or Ed Davey will lead the party. If the boundary changes are blocked which is likely, then Tim Farron might stand for the leadership or even Lembit Opik, if he makes a return to Parliament in an unexpected safe Lib Dem seat, but both will fail to takeover and it will probably be Ed Davey or David Laws. A modern-day Liberal Unionist alliance led by modernising neoliberals will be the future of the two Coalition parties.

      • Daniel Speight

        …safe Lib Dem seat

        Could that be an oxymoron by the time of the next election?

  • Gabriel Pepper

    I want to put my speech in here,

    The next three years represents the most important years ever in the
    history of the fight for disability rights in UK. Yet we and disabled
    people in the past have fought hard for benefits, DLA, independent
    living, a semblance of equality and transport and now, what is
    happening?
     

    The UK has a
    severe problem, because we have a government that has done its best to
    destroy the welfare state. This government has totally ignored
    everything disabled people have said, but for instance, have just
    ploughed ahead with the appalling Welfare Reform Bill and Legal Aid
    Bill. 

     

    I regard
    these as an act of right wing fascism by a tiny minority of extremely
    rich people, who do not care at all about the misery they will cause.
    It’s all about money to them, and most disappointingly they have used
    the British public against disabled people, influencing the media –
    resulting in propaganda and endless TV and newspapers crammed with bogus
    statistics.

     

    Friends of
    mine, even my father, have been saying that the measures are needed
    because we cost too much, and I have told each one that they have been
    fed a lie.

     

    One thing
    the Tories love to do is to blame the poor for being poor, indeed the
    government have effectively declared war on disabled people. Therefore
    if I can reiterate the words of Winston Churchill – “I have nothing to
    offer you but blood, toil, tears and sweat”, in the same grim spirit of
    defiance.

     

    Let me tell
    you what I foresee, because it needs spelling out. Part of the problem
    is that the government have no clue about being disabled and getting
    benefits.

     

    These people
    may believe that disabled people will find jobs, in a job environment
    where there is none. They have also made it nearly impossible to get
    legal aid, so the awful decisions made by ATOS (the company which throws
    people off benefits) will stand. There will be no appeals. 

     

    At the same
    time as this we have a top to tail reorganisation of the NHS, due to a
    bill forced through, no one was allowed to see the risk register. Let me
    be clear. This bill was detested, every medical professional was
    against it. Its only necessity was money and the ideological need to
    destroy the welfare state.

     

    Let’s not forget the now infamous and hypocritical words of George Osbourne, when referring to the Welfare state –  ’we are all in this together’ – and the empty promises of ring fencing NHS funds.

     

    The
    government have set in motion a care catastrophe, which will mean that
    countless people will suddenly be unsupported in multiple ways. With
    nowhere to turn, without being able to get meds for illnesses, they will
    descend, in critical states, on the NHS A&E unit and the like,
    which will be unable to take this strain.

     

    There will
    be some people who become desperate. Those people will do acts like
    setting fire to themselves in public, and already two people have.
    Everywhere there will be people dying.  All over
    UK there is a fine network of care, everyone knows someone who is
    disabled. We can only hope there will be a tipping point, an outcry from
    this network AND ourselves, after which there will be a huge vote of no
    confidence in the government. We must work with all our allies in this
    sector to lobby for this to happen, pushing home the reality of what is
    coming our way

     

    There are
    many examples of this government’s dangerous ignorance and brutality.
    One is the new PIP, which everyone who gets DLA will have four weeks to
    claim for. If individuals are unable to respond for practical reasons,
    or are distressed by the process itself, then it appears they will be
    cut off from benefit support, something which will particularly hit
    people with mental health issues.

     

    It must be
    said though, that this is if the new computer system which has a
    laughably huge cost to process all this, does work. Signs are that it is
    not expected to.

     

    To rub salt
    into the wound the government have also enforced an awful scheme called
    workfare, where they expect people to be exploited by rich companies
    without being paid, most famously recently with the jubilee stewards.
    Studies have shown there is no evidence that more people will find work,
    it is an attack on the poor and unemployed.

     

    A harsh part
    of this scheme is benefit sanctions, which can be for as long as three
    months. Meanwhile the operators of workfare schemes have been defrauding
    the government for as much as £40 million pounds. I said to my
    disability activist friend the other day, ‘how do they expect us to find
    work, when there is none’. She said, ‘they don’t expect you to find
    work. They expect you to die dear’.  

     

    The
    government has shown several things already. First they have shown an
    extraordinary degree of incompetence, taking UK into an unnecessary
    recession, doing 35 U turns, and repeatedly turning out toxic policies.
    The Tories have become associated with toxic policies, and this will
    eventually destroy them. When the tipping point is reached and the laws
    are revoked, we will at last be able to move forward.

     

    One result
    that these attacks have achieved is that they have brought disabled
    people together. To fight these vicious attacks, Disabled People Against
    Cuts (DPAC) have been organised, and I am a member too. DPAC have been
    joined by the Scottish group, Black Triangle, UK uncut, Boycott Workfare
    and Socialist Worker along with a host of smaller organisations.

     

    The fact
    that disabled people have now become more political has now mobilised
    the Labour party, particularly John Cruddas, who I think will be a key
    figure in the fight to save the Independent Living Fund.

     

    Regular
    demonstrations are being held, the next is on 28th July, when Counter
    Olympics is running a March starting from Mile End. DPAC is
    anti-Olympics because of the Tory ideology connected with the games, and
    their disturbing use of ATOS for sponsorship. Boycott Workfare hold
    regular demonstrations, indeed I took part in one in Walthamstow in
    January 2012, a month in which I was also chained up in Regent Street as
    part of a direct action organised by UK Uncut. To finish, I want to
    paraphrase some lines written by UK uncut:

     

    When
    everything you have is systematically taken away, why not make a stand?
    When your voice is taken away, why not shout from the roof tops? When
    you look over your shoulder at the privileged, protected from this mess
    by their ability to bypass public services through flexing their
    financial muscles, why not get angry?

     

    There’s
    nothing left to lose. Welfare, health, social care, support funding,
    voluntary sector, housing, legal aid… there isn’t anything this
    government won’t dismantle or sell to the lowest bidder.

     

    The deal you
    thought you had with the state has been broken. You were led to believe
    that … money would be used to build a society built on fairness and
    equality. You believed if your circumstances changed, you would be
    supported; and your children, your parents, your friends.

     

    Instead,
    your money funds private moats, duck ponds and an Olympics which will
    break the financial backs of those who are least welcome at it –
    us……”
     

    • treborc

       Yes your 100% right but of course work fare is a New labour program, Gordon Brown wished to end DLA totally .

      The problem is your right about all of it, sadly you would have written the same speech if labour was in power.

      The fact of the matter you may as well sit at home and allow these people to carry on because sadly we have lost our voice, we lost the Labour party many many years ago,  a bloke who went to war on the sick the disabled then went to actual war to make more sick and disabled.

      The real issues is of course what’s the difference between Cameron and Miliband, and the answer is not a lot really, one thing  going to a coal mining community gala another going to see the miners ruined by years down the mine.

      You never know the chap Miliband knocked on the door and knew he could do something may have been a miner, after all he did not ask did he.

      • ThePurpleBooker

        Utterly untrue Treborc. This is what we need with welfare reform. We need as complete overhaul and return to a traditional welfare state founded under Labour whch rejuvenates the social insurance principles in modern times rayjer than having an overbureacratic system which does not have the support of the nation.
        - A Jobs Guarantee so that everyone who has been unemployed for at least a year will be guaranteed a job and if they refuse that job they will lose thier benefits. The money can be raised from a mansion tax levied at 1% on homes worth £2m to pay for it;
        - Free universal childcare so that all families with children of pre-school age can recieve high-quality childcare services free at the point of use at anytime that they need 24/7. This can be paid for by scrapping higher-rate pension tax relief;
        - Reforming pensioner benefits so that wealthy pensioners will be required to pay tax on their Winter Fuel Allowance, free TV licences and their free bus passes just as they do with their pension to pay to reverse the ‘granny tax’;
        - Merging housing benefit and housebuilding budgets and devolving them to local government, but housing benefit will be paid directly to landlords rather than to tenants instead;
        - New rules on housing benefit so that those who commit low level crimes in their communities as well as anti-social behaviour and continue to do so repetitevely will face cuts to their housing benefit or lose it altogether;
        - Using the money from the Youth Contract to pay for £1m funds for local councils targeted at the ares with high rates of youth unemployment to provide training, CV planning, workshops, job skills and apprenticeships for NEETs in partnership with charities, which they will be required to do before they get work in order to recieve their benefits;
        - New specialised employment workshops for parents who are long-term unemployed to provide them with job skills as well as parenting classes which they will be required to do in return for their child tax credits;
        - Creation of a Universal Credit which will not be centralised and under budget but instead under local control with claimants recieving their Universal Credit face-to-face provided by local services not a supercomputer;
        - A new optional ‘Working Week’ scheme where long-term unemployed people will be required to do a week of training, volunteering and skills development which they can choose and they will be accompanied with a personal coach. In return they will  recieve their benefits and the scheme will be funded by the money allocated to the Work Programme. If they refuse to go on the ‘Working Week’, then they could lose out;- A National Salary Insurance scheme for workers instead of Jobseeker’s Allowance;

        • Mike Homfray

          The first mistake is to suppose that the 1948 settlement was about social insurance. It wasn’t. Labour did not set up the Bismarckian social insurance model of Germany; instead, a system which emphasised above all full male employment as a way of ensuring means-tested benefits would not be necessary was set up. Once full employment started to be no longer the norm, and women joined the workforce in earnest, the reliance on the means test became greater and greater.
          The problem with suggestions like the ones you have made is that they will do very little to cruelly create any jobs. Threats and sanctions have been applied for many years and they have been unsuccessful in reducing unemployment. Also in a situationwhere there are not the jobs to go round employers will continue to reject those with poor work records.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            Firstly we did create social insurance, William Beveridge called it so in his report. We need to get back to having that system but just because women have joined the workforce it does not mean we cannot have the insurance-based system we need. The Jobs Gurantee will mean everyone will get a job and will therefore end long-term unemployment. Suggestions on training and apprenticeships will boost job chances but I do not think that welfare alone creates job. I want to see the bonus tax to immeidately create 25,000 new homes but also an extra land use tax on underused land and brownfield sites to create even more homes. That could mean more than 100,000 jobs. Cutting VAT to 17.5% will mean 250,000 new private sector jobs. Creating a National Insurance holiday will also bring in loads more jobs. Bringing forward long-term infrastructure plans, like a capital investment programme for school-building, a new runway or Airport or more rail investment, will lead to more jobs. So there are things that we can do to boost private sector employment. Free childcare also produces a return to the government because of the amount it boosts female employment, just look at Denmark. We need a welfare state which is tough and efficient which protects us from the Five Giants. We need a Protection State which values contribution and social responsibility.

        • Alan Giles

          you frequently talk about the jobs “guarantee” but how can you guarantee something that isn’t there?. You might as well guarantee a cure for the common cold or that there will be no more rain in summer 2012.

          Quite bluntly there will NEVER be full employment again.

          When I think back to when I started work, each morning I got a bus with a driver and a conductor. On my way to work I saw milk, coal and bread delivery carts. As I started work early in the day I rarely saw the many women who worked in the typing pools of the big offices, or the telephonist who would put all the calls through.

          You see my point? Most of these jobs no longer exist. The problem is that computerisation has put paid to the typing pool and switchboard. The majority of people buy their milk and bread at the supermarket. When did you last meet an employed bus conductor?

          Most of these jobs have been lost to computerisation, and unless we become Luddites and ban computers from the workplace they will never exist again. Virtually every business, however profitable, is seeking to shed jobs (even the checkout operators in supermarkets are being challenged by self-service checkouts).

          Your obsession with welfare claimants is more akin to the views of the Conservatives and their friends in the press. Don’t forget either that many jobs, both in Labour’s term of office and now are so low paid they have to be topped up by welfare payments.

          As for Duncan-Smith’s pipedream of a Universal Credit, even the Tory press have to admit this project is over-budget and still shows little sign of being workable. A disaster waiting to happen was how I saw it described recently.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            I am not surprised at all by your response. Full employment may never happen again but hello we are the LABOUR party – the party of work. We started doing a Jobs Guarantee for young people when we were in Government through the Future Jobs Fund. A Jobs Gurantee will end long-term unemployment and will seperate those who truly want to work but have lost their job through no fault of their own from those who cannot be bothered to work but rather shirk their responsibilities.
            On welfare claimants, how is it Tory to want to reinstate constribution and mutuality into the welfare systsem? How is it Tory to ensure that people are getting the skills that they need to get them into the world of work? The Universal Credit is failing under the Coalition because they have not put in the investment and they have not made it on time. This proposal is to make the Universal Credit a service which is done face-to-face with claimants by local services rather than a supercomputer in Whitehall.
            It is ashame that you are not Labour, you are an apologist for unemployment and it is almost as if you do not care if people on the dole rather than in work. Shame on you!

          • Alan Giles

            The simple fact is you CANNOT “guarantee” full employment, because the world  has changed in the last 30/40 years to the point where it is just not possible. I won’t rehearse the argument again, except to say more and more jobs are being offered on a part-time or short term contract basis.

            I don’t like it (and please the ridiculous “shame on you” exclamation mark doesn’t make you look intelligent, merely juvenille and overwrought), but it is best to be honest about these things. It is cruel, as well as dishonest, to offer something we cannot deliver and will most probably never be in a position to offer again.

            That said, I have always maintained that those unfortunate enough to be unemployed ought to be looked after – people like you with your extreme right-wing views seem to think they should be punished by being forced into workfare. If there is any “shame” attached I should say it is in your quasi-Tory views.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            Extreme rightwing views? Quasi-Tory views? If you think I am a rightwing extremist then I think that either you have mental issues or you are a deluded Stalinist. What is Tory about guaranteeing jobs? What is rightwing about wanting people to be in work rather than on benefits. Can I repeat: Labour. It means ‘work’. Now ensuring people can get training and skills to unemployed people to be more employable. The thing is that you want people to be dependant. You support unemployment. You think it is morally acceptable for people who are offered work not to take it. You think any form of social contribution or responsibility is extreme and rightwing. The fact is you can give a Jobs Gurantee. For those who are out of work for at least a year, you can guarantee them a job paid at the living wage for at least six months. Labour did that for young people in Government and unemployment was falling before the Tories came in and ruined it. You are an unintelligent man who supports the dole not the workplace. I hope you are not in the Labour Party.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            What is extreme rightwing or Tory about giving families free childcare? What is rightwing or Tory about regulating landlords? What is rightwing or Tory about bringing in a mansion tax? Can you answer or are you going to chat bullshit for the rest of the joke that you call your life.

          • Alan Giles

            As I have told you before, you are a snivelling little coward to isssue your foul-mouthed, loud-mouthed insults cowering behind an indeterminate screen name. Still being gutless is your role in life. I think you said you were 29?. Time to grow a pair, grow up or shut up.

            The reason I say you are right wing is because you have many times supported the idea of workfare, in other words, demonising people for being unemployed – you didn’t complain about multinationals like Tesco “employing” people and not paying them.

            You like so many politicians seem to think that ordinary people who just happen to be older, or less qualified or disabled should be punished, so you can imagine you are fulfilling your dream of full employment.

            As I have told you before, full employment, like a cure for cancer is desired by everyone, but you should not promise something that cannot be delivered. One of the reasons politicians are held in such contempt (apart from their dishonesty filling in expenses forms) is that they constantly promise things that they know is not feasible.

            Finally, might I suggest you only post on LL when hyou haven’t been drinking, because your insulgts sound like those of somebody not in control of themself

          • ThePurpleBooker

            Calm down, dear. I really hope that you are not in the Labour Party otherwise the quality of our great movement will be dragged down. You didn’t answer my question anyway?
            By the way, using what you call ‘workfare’ is not demonisation, it is training long-term unemployed people to get skills and many unemployed people actually want to get into work. The fact is you do not support work, you want people to be on the dole. I wonder why? Perhaps you know if my proposed reforms make the statute book in a future Labour Government, you would be screwed – no surprises there! I actually don’t drink that often but you clearly cannot spell as well as your deep failure to understand political positions or welfare. The fact you oppose a Jobs Guarantee and say it does not work, when it brought unemployment down when Labour was last in power shows that you are quite clearly an idiot who knows nothing. I suggest that you go to work.

          • ThePurpleBooker

            Answer my question and calm down, you miserable old Bennite. Work experience and optional training is not demonising the unemployed. Are you genuinely thick? How is it demonising someone to help them back into work with skills and training? Jobs Guarantee is possible, we did it in government through the Future Jobs Fund. If you have more pro-growth policies then you will get more jobs as well, so again you are wrong. The reason why you do not like this is because you are pro-unemployment. You do not belong to a tradition based on hard-work and grafters, you believe we should be making it easier for people not to work. That is un-Labour. Also, what is extreme rightwing and Tory about giving free childcare or regulating landlords? Can you answer that or are you just to stupid to bother. By the way, you clearly cannot spell or understand politics. I think it’s back to school for you or maybe back to nursery and they can teach you basic spelling. 

          • Alan Giles

            You really need to go back to your psychiatrist and tell them the tablets are not working.

            Fact: I worked in industry for 50 years I am now retired. I was working hard when you were still soiling your nappies (you probably still are).

            I am not a “Bennite” a term that has been defunct for 30 years anyway

            I do not support the idea that because somebody is unemployed they should be forced to work for a multinational for nothing. You do apparently?.

            It is v ery easy to use words like “idiot” and “mad” and other terms of personal abuse when you don’t have the backbone to put your real name to it. 

            You come over like a mouthy 12 year old girl, with a big mouth and no self control or class.

            Go and find a gutter and have a lie down.

  • Mister Michael

    In response to Mr G Pepper:

    You say  “…………….indeed the government have effectively declared war on disabled people”.

    Don’t forget it was the hateful Tories who instigated DLA in 1992.

    • treborc

      Well give and  make it harder to get, the idea of giving DLA from the old handicapped benefits and the handicapped vehicle  was not to make it better  but to make it harder, the same as they have done now.

      The Tories brought in JSA it was not to make claiming benefits easier, it was in fact to force people off benefits.

      • ThePurpleBooker

        And we should seek to get rid of JSA and replace it with National Salary Insurance. With a Jobs Gurantee, Jobseeker’s Allowance will in effect go within a year. The National Salary Insurance will mean people’s contributions will be unlocked for thier own benefit which will be time-limited so it is cheaper and gets people off benefits.

    • PeterBarnard

      Mister Michael, the Disability Living Allowance replaced the Mobility Allowance ; the Conservatives didn’t actually introduce something brand spanking new.

      In 1991, the MA was a universal £29.80 a week and the new DLA came in three tiers : higher was £43.35 a week, middle was £30.00 a week and lower was £11.95 a week.

      In 1991/92, there were 650,000 MA recipients, costing £1 bn a year ; by 1996/97, there were 1,800,00 DLA recipients costing £5 bn a year (source : DWP).

      Conservatives have recently been talking tough on “welfare.” They forget their own record (as they also do on crime).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    If this did happen, it would be momentous – because the Conservative party has always proved itself to be remarkably durable and has been very successful in terms of maximising its support

  • Flu

    David Davis? Hang on. Davis is currently 64 years of age. Don’t you think he’d be kind of too old post-2015 to rally and lead a Tory splinter group?

    • treborc

       No he could well be the ideal chap to lead a  splinter group, how long he would stay may be ten years then he would step down but would he want to do that i doubt it.

      Problem for labour of course is that people will have a choice between the party who were in power when the depression struck who saw nothing, or the party who are unable to end the depression which one is the most guilty

Latest

  • Comment Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

    Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

    By David Robinson

    In four weeks time the Chancellor will announce the results of the 2015 spending Review. There won’t be many winners but some will have lost more than others. Political commentators and discussion forums will pass judgement and public sector managers will, yet again, pick through the debris, making do and mending from what ever they can salvage. Before we get overtaken by the detail we should reflect on the bigger picture. What ever the chancellor says on June 26th it [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment A call for action at the G8

    A call for action at the G8

    By Ivan Lewis

    In less than a month’s time, the UK hosts the G8 Summit. With hunger, tax, trade and transparency all on the agenda, the UK has a unique opportunity to show global leadership on these issues. The scale of hunger is devastating. There is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry. 2.3 million children every year die from malnutrition – to put that in perspective, that is around 16,000 children every day. Or one [...]

    Read more →
  • News TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 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. TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run “The TUC along with its international equivalent – the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – is calling on UEFA to address the appalling treatment of workers and players in Qatar and [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    By Mark Ferguson

    The Labour Party spends a great deal of time beating itself up over its performance in Southern England. We know it simply isn’t good enough, but we can’t seem to put our finger on why exactly that’s the case. Is it demographics? No. Culture? Perhaps. Lack of basic party organisation in some areas? It’s certainly a factor. But whilst we’re flagellating ourselves over our inability to perform south of the Watford gap (outside of London), we should remember that the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Why we love Woolwich

    Why we love Woolwich

    By Jon Wilson

    Woolwich is an amazing place. It’s where the Labour party was founded as a mass membership organization. The Woolwich Provident was one of Britain’s first building societies. The Royal Arsenal Coop one of our first cooperative societies. Woolwich had the second Polytechnic in the country, created with the aim of providing education for working adults. Woolwich is my nearest big town centre, where I shop and go to meet friends. In the last few days, for many people, its name [...]

    Read more →