You are here: Home » Comment »

The Tories have lost their huskies – Labour needs to lead on climate change

September 9, 2012 12:04 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Climate change is an issue that, although important, is far away from the immediate concerns of many voters. David Cameron certainly did not seem to think this when he announced that a Conservative government would be the ‘greenest ever’. Nonetheless, the recent reshuffle suggests that even if Cameron did have a genuine concern for climate change there has been a distinct shift in how the Conservative Party will approach it. For Labour it offers an opportunity to paint the Tories into a corner on a problem that will likely assume growing importance amongst the electorate.

The Prime Minister’s changes make for grim reading. Owen Patterson, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is apparently a climate change sceptic and opposed to wind farms. Patrick McLoughlin is now the new Secretary of State for Transport, in a move seen as opening up the way for a third runway at Heathrow. John Hayes a new Minister of State for Energy at the Department for Energy and Climate Change is an opponent of wind farms. These moves should be seen in the context of a wider rightward shift in Conservative Party. However, the fact that Cameron felt he could do this, after making such noise over his green credentials, demonstrates the extent to which climate change has died off as a priority amongst the electorate and media.

This is completely understandable. People’s lives are being directly affected by the economy and that needs to be the priority for our politicians. Even the Green Party seems to be shifting its focus towards economic issues. In addition, and this is admittedly anecdotal, I’ve noticed a creeping fatalism amongst people I know who consider climate change a major problem. This fatalism is often two-pronged: a belief that there will be no major political effort to tackle climate change issues and that climate change is probably beyond the point of no return. Anthony Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications, argues that the biggest mistake the climate change community has made is to focus on ‘fear appeals’ to motivate people to act. The problem is too much focus on the negative impact of climate change can paralyse us and there needs to be a focus on how to take action to make a difference. He also points out that there are powerful solutions and technologies that if used properly will lessen the danger.

There are a number of indicators which suggest things are getting worse.  For example, Arctic Sea ice was recently at its lowest level since records began in the 1970s – and this was two or three weeks before the melt season was due to end. It is estimated that before 2050 there will be no ice at all. For Cameron this will mean his beloved huskies will have nothing to drag him along on. For humanity the lack of ice is bad news because it reflects heat from the sun back into space. The Arctic is only one of many areas where adjustments in the environment could accelerate climate change. Climatologists have found that extreme weather events are happening every 2 to 3 years rather than every 10 to 20 years and leading scientists are linking this to climate change. Polling in the United States has found that increasing numbers of people are connecting extreme weather events to climate change.  This shift in opinion could easily develop in the UK.

There are probably Tory strategists hoping to use this rightward shift to force Labour to come out against what could be some very bad decisions on the environment. They will hope to paint ‘Red’ Ed Miliband as some sort of tree hugger with the implication being that he cares more about the environment than he does about the economy. There is one important thing to remember though. A majority of the British public (57%) believe climate change is real and manmade (as do almost all climate researchers (97%)) and there is strong support for renewable energy. Trends suggest there will be more climate change, more extreme weather events and that public opinion will start to connect the two. When this happens people will begin to ask where the parties stand. Labour should push the Tories on this issue over the next few years. Labour needs to be seen party with solutions to the climate change issue, not, as Nick Boles would put it, the ‘latter-day luddites’ many Tories seem to be.

Related posts:

  1. Labour should seize the opportunity to make climate change a major election battleground
  2. It’s time for real leadership on climate change
  3. How to win friends and influence people on climate change
  4. More Griffin lies as he claims a majority think man-made climate change is a “complete scam”
  5. Climate change is not just an environmental issue – it’s a matter of social and economic justice too
  • bre616uk

    There is no absolutely no evidence of climate change. The climate in Britain and every other country is exactly the same as a century ago, despite the huge increase in CO2 caused by human activity since then. We have always had extreme weather events, they are (a) just weather (b) grossly unrepresentative of general climatic conditions. As you point out the records on Arctic ice have only been around since the seventies, far too soon to draw any conclusions. Three months or so  ago the ice melt was at the average for this period. It can quickly change due to prevailing weather conditions. The climate change hoax which you are promoting is based entirely on dubious projections on the impact of a trace gas, which is not a pollutant, and which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of life on this planet. So why are you and others so obsessive and alarmist on this subject – this is the big puzzle?

    • John_Dore

      I would agree the climate change lobby hasn’t proved at all that this is not just usual changes in weather patterns.

    • robertcp

      Bre, don’t you think that we should try to do something about the huge increase in CO2 caused by human activity?  Not wasting energy is a good idea whatever you think about climate change.

  • AlanGiles

    By appointing Owen Patterson to this role, rather suggests Cameron was not quite compos mentis when he arranged the reshuffle (that he promoted Hunt, allowed Duncan-Smith to do as he liked and re-appointed  David Laws is proof of that). In fact, I should say Patterson’s appointment is frankly raising two fingers to those people who do care about enviromental matters.

    Frankly the “green” component of both red and blue parties sometimes seems more an exercise in box-ticking and gesture, rather than committment. It will be interesting, if and when Ed has a reshuffle (it can’t be delayed much longer) who gets appointed as Patterson’s shadow.

    • DavePostles

       One has to admire Lord Deben (Gummer) for his stand on this issue, so the right does have some protagonists of green energy (I’m never sure of Yeo).

    • aracataca

      Ed has had a reshuffle. It was in May. You may have been focused on the internal affairs of the Green Party at the time.  Caroline Flint is the shadow for energy and climate change and Mary Creagh is shadow at environment – can’t see these being changed any time soon. 

    • aracataca

      Ed has had a reshuffle. It was in May. You may have been focused on the internal affairs of the Green Party at the time.  Caroline Flint is the shadow for energy and climate change and Mary Creagh is shadow at environment – can’t see these being changed any time soon. 

      • AlanGiles

        Love the sarcasm Bill. You must have taken an OU course in it.

        Caroline Flint – the saviour of the Labour Party: the woman who wanted to preclude the unemployed from council housing waiting lists.

        Well Flint and the energy (wind energy perhaps?)- we can all rest safely in our beds, can’t we?

        I am afraid Ms Flint is just not very effective – all talk no action. Try again, Ed

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Given that climate change is a global problem, surely the path of most utility is to concentrate upon those countries doing most to contribute to it?

    According the the UN, the UK contributes 1.73% of world annual greenhouse gases, and as a proportion it is declining year on year by about 0.15%.  China contributes about 25% of global emissions, and that proportion is rising (it has tripled in 10 years).

    In 2010, again according to the UN via the International Energy Agency, the UK emitted 7.9 tonnes of CO2 per person per year (going downwards).  Top of the list was Saudi Arabia, at 18.2 tonnes, and then other countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, Russia and so on.  We are well down the list.  The UK is not the problem.

    Treating climate change as a matter of domestic British politics is stupid.  No matter how much we change and do by policy, how many levies and other taxes we charge the people of this country, it is a tiny drop in the ocean which is being filled up with the Amazon flow of emissions from developing countries and countries such as the US and Canada which have extremely polluting infrastructures.  You would expect the Green Party in the UK to understand this, but a look at their website reveals that their top concerns are about domestic politics (not a single mention of the environment on their front web page, very odd for a Green Party).

    The real question is whether it is too late anyway, not some spastic little Labour / tory argument.  

    The truth is that it is easier for politicians to impose costs on British people at the fuel pumps and in eco-nonsense than to face the reality that nothing Britain could ever do on its’ own would make any difference at all, that Britain has no power to affect the egregious polluters, and that it is probably all too late anyway.  But there are short term votes in the eco business, so it is popular to have a go at the tories on this.

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

      I thought David Miliband’s personal carbon allowance proposals (when environment mininster) were admirable.

      As well as causing people to be mindful of their behaviour and take individual responsibility (why-oh-why do unthinking oafs purchase agricultural vehicles for popping down to the supermarket or for the school run?!) it could have a distributive effect via personal carbon trading, allowing those who leave the smallest carbon footprint – invariably the less well-off – to trade surplus allowance with carbon addicts.

      However, according to the figures I’ve seen, per capita carbon usage in the U.K. is about a third higher than that of China – so it would be us that would have to level down.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        That sounds admirable Dave (the personal carbon trading), but perhaps complex and unworkable?

        The rate of change in the UK and China’s per person emissions per year is interesting:  according to the UN, China at about 6.2 tonnes in 2010 and rising, the UK at 7.9 tonnes in 2010 and falling.  A couple more years and we will be at parity, but don’t forget there’s over a billion of them and only about 70 million of us, and it is only the gross total pumped out that really matters.

        You are correct about the 4×4 vehicles, although my objections to them are more prosaic (you cannot see around them, and the drivers tend to park by bashing into other vehicles, and when they drive, they appear to be idiots), through to the practical (they are death machines when they hit a pedestrian, with too-high bonnets and vertical and angular formation).  But my wife has had them and still does, because in her business she needs to be able to drive into a field or to a stable, put a one tonne horse into a trailer, and take it back to the practice.  You cannot do that in a 1.2 eco-friendly Opel Fiesta.

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

          Complex yes, though a better option than attempting to deal with the avoidable consequences of man-made climate change.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Dave,

            do you really think that a whole load of people trading some nebulous personal carbon credits is going to stop global warming?  I certainly do not, particularly as comfortably over 98% of the world’s people do not have the infrastrucuture, language skills, or money to engage in such a scheme.

            If global warming is indeed real, it stopped being something the human race could affect several decades ago.  Trying to do so now is the fiddling with the deckchairs on the Titanic policy, and especially not fiddling with the deck chairs by means of a global individual trading stock market.  That is not going to do very much at all, except provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to make money.

            We should be looking at our water infrastructure and barrier defences.  Or, for those sceptical of global warming, doing nothing at all.  But fiddling around in the middle with solutions that solve nothing is no answer at all.

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

            In a world of uncertainties, risks proliferate. And for policy makers a question often arises: what risks are worth taking? Translated here as: should we unnecessarily risk our future well-being?

            Doubtlessly a number of measures will be needed though that is no excuse for taking none of them. And there is value in providing a model of responsible governance, particularly when it comes to international table-talk.

            Your attitude reminds me of the person in the street who drops litter, thinking: it’s only a sweet wrapper, what difference can that make?

    • AlanGiles

       ”Treating climate change as a matter of domestic British politics is stupid.”

      That doesn’t mean we should not take a lead in trying to improve things, does it, Jaime?

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        No, but it is senseless to try too hard – and at the risk of impoverishing people – at something that will never have any measurable effect (ie future UK emissions).  Why not try to change the things that will have an effect?

        I can see that it is bad politics to completely ignore domestic UK emissions, but let no one pretend that even if the UK were to become a completely zero carbon emitter, it would have any practical or even measurable effect on global emissions.

        Doing what we are currently doing is the equivalent of carefully sanding down the third coat of paint on your window frame to eliminate any tiny little imperfection while not noticing that the other side of the house has fallen down. The political argument in the UK that is ongoing and stupid is between the two painters arguing about whether to do the sanding in a circular or horizontal motion. There is something rather more fundamental happening elsewhere.

        • rekrab

          Have you ever considered sanding after the first prime? moving on from coal, steam and maybe oil isn’t it time for a new industrial revolution.How do you propose we feed the world and keep the lights on in this current climate? 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Much the same way as before Derek.  Economic revolutions are unlike political ones:  they take decades if not hundreds of years to take place.

            My immediate problem is that I have acquired a dog.  It is a “collie” dog, quite young it seems and not full grown.  Very friendly, and it obeys whistles and instructions very well.  It attached itself to me on a walk yesterday (there was no one else around), and stayed with me for nearly 20 miles back to the train station.  I am walking the “Peddar’s Way” from Suffolk to Norfolk in stages.  At the train station, there was little to do but to either take it or leave it to an uncertain future, so it came along.

            My wife the vet has given it an examination on the kitchen table – it is in good health, but has no micro-chip nor collar.  It needed a good hosing in the back garden as it had matted fur and mud, and it was very hungry.  We have told the police we have this waif dog, but they are not interested.  There are some animal charities my wife knows that will take it, but my mind is more emotional.  If we cannot find the owners (no time limit) by some internet connection or local advertising, the dog has a home for life.  Already, my children have fallen in love with the animal, but the dog seems to be particularly attached to me.  Life is strange sometimes.

          • rekrab

            The last 50 years has witnessed a rapid movement in new technologies the stumbling block always seems to be the will to invest.

            Ode to Joy for your new found friend, sounds as though it might be a stray farm dog.I guessing the dog favoured you.I’m sure it will have a wonderful loving family now.Good luck. Any names been suggested yet. (How about Hamish? there’s a good Scottish name)

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Hamish is my own pet name my father calls me.  Nobody else does, nor would I want them to do so (my wife tried once, and we had an argument).   Not going to give that to a dog!

            My daughter likes “Justin” because she is a teenage girl and likes Justin Bieber.  My son likes “Ben 10″ from the cartoon.  My wife is sceptical and rightly about the chances of the animal remaining with us:  it will have a owner and likely be returned quite shortly.

            Personally, I favour “Dog”.  It takes someone of the discrimination of Peter Barnard to award a dog some form of triple-barelled name (he has a dog that by the name you would assume to be 10th generation tory).

          • rekrab

            As a young lad helping out on a local farm, I’d often witness the young bullocks getting castrated….Ouch!, I liked nothing better than taking Bessy and Shelia out to bring the cows in for milking(Get away by!!!) I’d yell and off then went like troopers,. herding the cows in.I’m a dog man and the pedigree names are quite long and substantial. Any way back to topic, will you suggest that the cows emit to much flatulence.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            The dog has made his home beneath my desk, so I have to do the rewiring of the power blocks to remove them from chewing distance.  But he does put his chin on the top of my feet, and seems to have good hearing if someone is moving around in the house.  He will have to get used to this, as everyone else in the house is here by right and I do not need him to bark if someone goes to the lavatory.

          • TomFairfax

            It might be worth checking if the dog is microchipped just for peace of mind. The cat I was adopted by earlier this year during the cold snap wasn’ t then, but is now.
            As for making climate change a political football. If the only issue is that he is against wind turbines, then I’d suggest the article’s author read some of the feedback from real learned societies such as the Institute of Engineering and Technology instead of making references to an article produced by a stablemate of the USA Today.

          • AlanGiles

             Good for you, Jaime, we may not always agree, but your actions and sentiments are admirable. I am sure you are a supporter of the Dogs Trust already, but if not, or  anyone who can’t take a dog & give it a home, you can sponsor one from the Dogs Trust for just a couple of pounds a month. Sorry to be off-topic Mark.

    • robertcp

      Why should China, the US and Canada listen to us if we are not trying to cut our own emissions?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001102865655 John Ruddy

       How about we take responsibility for the emissions we have put into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, all of which have also contributed to climate change?

      On that basis, the UK is the second biggest polluter in history.

      We should do our bit – and more – on that basis alone.

  • markfergusonuk

    But there IS evidence for claimate change. I am quite happy to have a discussion with anyone who suggests that evidence is wrong (and is willing to explain why) – but to say there is no evidence for climate change is just plain wrong…

    • bre616uk

      Fine. Go ahead and provide the evidence that our climate is changing. All we ever seem to get is doomladen future projections. Just compare the large increase in CO2 emissions during the past century with the very small variation in temperature, which has been far too insignificant to have affected the climate of any country including Britain. The theory that an increase in CO2 would lead to global temperature rise was first postulated in the late Victorian period. This viewpoint  was ignored by scientists for over a century until the late 1980s. In the 1970′s these same scientific “experts” were predicting a new ice age on the grounds that global temperatures  had been cooling since about 1940. Climate alarmists keep pointing to extreme weather events, but we have always had these, and in any case the temperature variation has been far to small to be their cause. I have an open mind on this subject, just provide the evidence (not projections for the future) and we can judge it. But don’t tell us with absolute certainty what is going to happen in 50 years time when the Met Office is incapable of predicting the weather three months from now. Since there has been no change in the climate of any country during the past century I will need some persuading that there will be any climate change 100 years from now.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/FGQIBLTXGYWYWUQWWPHYJCHXNI Bob Smith

        I won’t bother to add more links to summaries or meta-studies while you haven’t yet replied to Mark’s NASA link, but very briefly on your point near the end, “don’t tell us with absolute certainty what is going to happen in 50 years time when the Met Office is incapable of predicting the weather three months from now”.  This is a fairly common cause of suspicion of climate science, but it’s completely unfounded, the truth is that long term climate really is far easier to predict than short term weather. Roughly speaking, this is because the longer time frame you are considering, the more you can treat the Earth as a single global system. In considering climate, you are averaging out the chaotic weather variations. 

        An analogy would be: suppose you have a tank of water which is being shaken around so lots of irregular waves form, and a leaf is floating on the top, and you want to know how high the leaf is from the bottom of the tank. In the short term, that’s incredibly difficult because of all these complex waves. But if you average its position over several minutes, you can get a pretty accurate answer for the average if you know the total volume of water and size of the tank. And if at the bottom of the tank the water is draining at a slow, regular rate, then you can predict in several hours time what the leaf’s average height will then be, even though you still can’t predict it’s short term variations.

        Oh and lastly, “absolute certainty” is never claimed in science, and if you have any examples of climate scientists using this term to the public you could probably demand an apology.

        • bre616uk

          Thank you for this helpful  information. I must confess that I was being a little disingenuous with my comments about about the Met Office. My point on the “ absolute certainty”  is that governments and climate change alarmists are treating the global warming  projections as if they are gospel, when in reality they are highly controversial. For example, a few years ago on Any Questions, David Miliband then Environment Secretary, asserted that the debate on climate change was “over”. It is this kind of arrogance and false certainty which is so objectionable, given that the whole “global warming caused by human activity” claim  is based almost entirely on projections, and not evidence which is what science is supposed to be all about. Given the huge costs involved, both financial and in personal lifestyle, by  attempting to reduce CO2, this is quite shocking.   I have now reponded to Mark Ferguson about the NASA appraisal.

    • TomFairfax

      There is indeed evidence for climate change. So much, that we can the climate is dynamic and constantly changing.
      The sticking point is causal factors. Unfortunately the main backers for it being manmade have made ridiculous claims that undermine their case. For instance the UN’s main document had to be revised because the Himalayan glacier melt predictions were demonstrably rubbish. Likewise Danish studies of the ice coverage in the Arctic during the 1930′s show less ice than last year.
      The biggest problem is the religous-political attitude of the adherents of either side who seem oblivious of the need to use measurement data and models that work for more than a few decades.

  • Monkey_Bach

    Eeek! Somebody has to grasp the nettle and do something even if we have to pay more to pollute with fossil fuels to encourage us to pollute less. If somebody doesn’t start the ball rolling the ice shelves on Greenland and Antarctica melt, sea levels could rise more than 20 feet (6 meters) higher in 2100 than they are today. Extreme heat waves are happening two to four times more often now rising steadily over the last 50 to 100 years, and are projected to be 100 times more likely over the next 40 years: from 1905 to 1930, there were an average of 3.5 hurricanes per year; 5.1 between 1931 and 1994; and 8.4 between 1995 and 2005. In 2005, a record number of tropical storms developed, and in 2007, the worst flooding in 60 years hit Britain. 

    Drought conditions and desertification may increase by 66 percent or more: by 2020, 75 to 250 million Africans may experience water shortages, and the continent’s agricultural output will decrease by 50 percent causing mass migrations from the third world to Europe in particular; more than 150,000 people die from climate change-related sickness each year, everything from heat-related heart and respiratory problems to malaria are on the rise. Inaction in the face of global warming crises could result in a £30 to £40 trillion price tag by 2100.

    Climate change and its consequences such as food and water instability pose threats for war and conflict, suggesting that violence and ecological crises are entangled. Countries suffering from water shortages and crop loss become vulnerable to security trouble, including regional instability, panic and aggression; as many as 30 percent of plant and animal species alive today risk extinction by 2050 if average temperatures rise more than 2 to 11.5 degrees F.

    The effects of climate change on physical and biological systems will mean no part of the world is spared from the impact of changes to land, water and life. Scientists are already observing the bleaching and death of coral reefs due to warming ocean waters, as well as the migration of vulnerable plants and animals to alternate geographic ranges due to rising air and water temperatures and melting ice sheets.

    Forecasts of famine, war and death paint a dire picture of climate change on our planet if humanity fails to act. 

    Eeek.

    Everything is interconnected. 

    If my tree burns today your country burns tomorrow.

    This is an issue concerning survival of the species and is beyond economics or politics.

  • Hamish Dewar

    I confess I am a sceptic about man-made climate change (or if you prefer to use Greek, anthropogenic climate change).
    But I fully accept that we need to reduce our dependence on coal and oil, and develop alternative sources of energy.
    Wood and bio-mass are renewable but the zealots still complain about the CO2 emitted when you burn them.

  • Alexwilliamz

    Troll!  I claim my Labourlist mug for being the first one to spot this one!

    • bre616uk

      Well spotted.

  • robertcp

    I would like to see Labour having a policy of not expanding any of the airports around London.  City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted are more than enough.

  • http://twitter.com/shibleylondon Dr Shibley Rahman

    Extremely well argued article, and discussion thread. 

    On a note related to ‘climate change’ but different to the rest of this page – I have been struck by how all the main corporate law firms in the City love the environment in terms of ‘carbon trading’, because they see this as a huge way of making money. If Ed Miliband were to produce an absolute googlie, and started embracing ‘responsible capitalism’ by having a strong policy pro-City on this, it would be wonderful to see the reaction of the Tories. I only mention this as I once went to a presentation on this hosted by the Young Fabians some time ago, with Rachel Reeves and Luciana Berger presenting, at Linklaters. 

  • markfergusonuk

    I find NASA do a good brief appraisal
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    • bre616uk

      Thank you for this link which I have read with interest. My brief comments on each piece of NASA evidence is as follows. Sea level rise – an expert in this field, Nils Axel Morner, takes a different viewpoint. Global temperature rise – there is no correlation between CO2 increase and variation in temperature during 20th century. Warming oceans – see Nils Axel Morner views on sea level rise. Shrinking ice sheet – in fact Antarctic ice sheet is not shrinking as confirmed by AGU. Declining Arctic sheet ice – already covered in my previous post. Glacial retreat – Mt. Kilimanjaro’s glacial shrinkage is due to deforestation, Himalayan glaciers are expanding. Extreme weather events – these have always occurred. Being extreme, and therefore unrepresentative, they can hardly be used in support of a change to climate. Ocean acidification – this has nothing to do with climate change but is caused directly by an increase in CO2 which is not disputed. I conclude that there is scant evidence that global warming is caused by human activity which increases CO2, or that there has been, or will be, any climate change caused by this activity. The evidence most certainly does not warrant the alarmism such as that demonstrated in the article by John Clarke, or the extreme and costly measures that governments are taking to address a non existent problem.
       

  • AlanGiles

     And Dave, I have to give credit to Zac Goldsmith who has said he will resign his seat at Richmond Surrey if the Conservatives break their word about the third runway at Heathrow.

    Me praising a multi-millionaire will come as something of a shock to a couple of posters who think I “hate” the very wealthy!

  • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

    Quite right John, this is a real opportunity for Labour. More to the point, we need to show that the Tories have been totally cynical in their puported support for the green agenda. People do care about these issues, but they care even more that someone has insulted their intelligence. There are “green Tory” voters who must be hugely disappointed at the carelessness of the reshuffle.

  • bre616uk

    I have no problem with energy conservation. CO2 is required for the maintenance of life, it is not a pollutant as some of the more asinine global warming alarmists assert. We have had huge increase in CO2 caused by human activity during the past century without any perceptible change in the climate. So I am very relaxed about CO2 continuing to increase, and lose no sleep over the supposed global warming threat.

  • Pingback: The Tories have lost their huskies – Labour needs to lead on climate change « John Clarke

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

    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 →