You are here: Home » Comment »

Let’s Talk About Values

October 8, 2012 12:52 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

A Murdoch may not be the first person Labour people might turn to in seeking guidance to help revive and rebuild the party, but Rupert’s independent-minded daughter Elizabeth had a few things to say recently that bear thinking about.

Reflecting on the travails of News Corp in her MacTaggart Lecture to the Edinburgh Festival in June this year, Elizabeth Murdoch said one the biggest lessons of a tumultuous year was “the need for any organisation to discuss, affirm and institutionalise a rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose”.

A rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose, for any organisation.

Turn that statement towards the main political parties and you are greeted with something of a void. What are Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems actually for?

During Conference week, we always hear a lot of airy waffle about Labour values, without much if any clarification of what these values are.

This sort of talk normally refers to our desire to help the poor and vulnerable, which is fine as a policy position but is not a value (because it would be redundant if attempts to eliminate poverty were successful, so you would need to create some poor and vulnerable to maintain it). An alternative is a value of favouritism whereby you assign moral value to certain external characteristics. However, this is incompatible with the surely fundamental value of equality and also relegates the importance of ethical behaviour.

So, what are values, and what might a rigorous Labour statement of values (unlike this one) look like?

The source of values

Values come from the basic fact that we care: about different things at different times and in different ways, but we all fundamentally care about what happens.

Caring of course takes many other guises than setting out statements of values. Wishing, willing, greed and compassion are just a few. But if we did not care, there would be no need for values.

What values do is apply an account of ‘the good life’ to that caring, based on our understanding of what is good and bad. We could in fact call our values a version of “fairness” or “justice”, because they imply a set of at least implicit rules about what is fair and unfair, just and unjust. What is fair to one person is unfair to another because of different values – just think of attitudes to welfare benefits.

Values are also about who we are, but not in terms of our external characteristics like gender, skin colour, age, or whatever ‘identity’ we adopt for ourselves. They are about who we are in terms of how we behave, what is meaningful to us and what we believe is right – above and beyond the daily reality of our lives. If we are in a position of power, they inform us in making decisions there, but they are as relevant to one person as any other.

A draft for Labour

So if Labour was to put together a statement of values as Elizabeth Murdoch thinks all institutions should, what might it look like? Here is a version I prepared earlier:

  • Equality – every person is of equal importance and of equal fundamental value; if we ever judge people, it is not on the basis of external factors like race, gender and background but what they do.
  • Democracy – we believe in giving people in our country equal power to elect those who will represent them in positions of power.
  • Freedom – people should be free to do what they want as long as they do not harm others.
  • Honesty and Integrity in the way we conduct our affairs.
  • Openness/Transparency – we are open and transparent about the core decisions we make and are able to justify them.
  • Accountability – we will be held accountable for the decisions we make by others, in the form of democratic voting and in public opinion.
  • Respect for Life – we believe all life is due our respect and our protection where possible.

None of these statements is beyond ambiguity and criticism. But they do set out a basic political position that would help tell the outside world, and not least ourselves, what we are here for – a potential palliative for those of us who go through the occasional existential crisis in our politics.

Without values to bear in mind, refer back to and gather around, our senses of justice and purpose can easily get lost in emotion, mood, self-interest and the comfort of conformity.

None of us are immune from these other factors in the Labour Party as elsewhere in life; bad practices and bad behaviour can result from them (like fixing elections, as Mark Ferguson has dealt with here on several occasions, and as I did here). Asking our people to commit to a set of values would be a powerful reminder about what standards we expect of ourselves, while sending out a message to the wider world that we are principled and ethical in what we do.

Once, on a visit to the school of which I am a governor, I was struck by seeing a whole class’s handprints in paint up on the wall, pledging each of them to good behaviour in school. It was a powerful statement visible to all the children at all times while they were in the classroom. It also made me think Labour could do with something similar, a public showing of commitment to a core set of values and a promise to abide by them when representing the party.

So, how about it – the collected handprints of a CLP’s Executive Committee up on the wall of a Constituency office, and those of party staff and the Shadow Cabinet behind reception at HQ?

Why ever not?

Related posts:

  1. The humanist values of community morality are also Labour values
  2. In centralising our politics, have we forgotten our values?
  3. We need to think again about our values and demonstrate that Labour is a learning organisation
  4. A values based Labour Party
  5. What are our ‘values’?
  • charles.ward

    “Democracy – we believe in giving people in our country equal power to elect those who will represent them in positions of power.”

    Wouldn’t this require Labour to support equal constituency sizes?

    • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

      Hi Charles. As I said in the piece, “None of these statements is beyond ambiguity and criticism”.

      You could also make a good argument about PR on those grounds. Myself, I’m more interested in the democratic society as an entity than with the precise form of political system, though our present system does extert anti-democratic pressures. For example I am concerned with the way that First Past the Post encourages people to disengage with the political process by making their votes seem worthless in safe seats. No system is perfect though.

      The boundaries issue is largely one about poorer people being less likely to vote.

    • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

      Hi Charles. As I said in the piece, “None of these statements is beyond ambiguity and criticism”.

      You could also make a good argument about PR on those grounds. Myself, I’m more interested in the democratic society as an entity than with the precise form of political system, though our present system does extert anti-democratic pressures. For example I am concerned with the way that First Past the Post encourages people to disengage with the political process by making their votes seem worthless in safe seats. No system is perfect though.

      The boundaries issue is largely one about poorer people being less likely to vote.

    • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

      Hi Charles. As I said in the piece, “None of these statements is beyond ambiguity and criticism”.

      You could also make a good argument about PR on those grounds. Myself, I’m more interested in the democratic society as an entity than with the precise form of political system, though our present system does extert anti-democratic pressures. For example I am concerned with the way that First Past the Post encourages people to disengage with the political process by making their votes seem worthless in safe seats. No system is perfect though.

      The boundaries issue is largely one about poorer people being less likely to vote.

      • charles.ward

         The problem is that statements of principle need policies to clarify their meaning.  The “Big Society” is a good example of how, without concrete policies, the meaning of the principle becomes lost.

        What Labour need to do is say we believe in X that is why we will be doing Y and Z.  Or we are proposing Y and Z because we believe in X.

        The other question to ask is: could anybody disagree with your principles, I don’t see anything on your list the Conservastives or Liberal Democrats would disagree with.  You might as well be advocating “motherhood and apple pie”.

        • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

          Yes, values are one thing and policies to spring off them are another – as with equality, you can jump off in many different directions from there.

          I do think it’s helpful to start at the beginning though.

          As for anyone not disagreeing with the principles, I disagree! It is probably true that there are people in all parties who wouldn’t have a problem with them, but likewise when it comes down to actually observing them, I think a great many people in all parties would struggle.

          That is one of the main points I wanted to make – that values are about practices and people and what we do much more than they are about political posturing. Political statements are normally about aspirations. Values on the other hand, to have any meaning, have to be about daily reality and setting an example.

    • Alexwilliamz

      I’d agree with equal constituency sizes, it’s just how you count the number of constituents and how you carve the constituencies up that seems to be a problem.

  • Dave Postles

    Michael Rosen, Dignity: Its History and Meaning (2012)

  • Dave Postles

    ‘Freedom – people should be free to do what they want as long as they do not harm others.’

    That principle is classic Mill.  It would be interesting to find particular instances of entirely self-regarding, not other-regarding actions now.

    • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

      Hi Dave, yes indeed, though I confess it’s many years since I read Mill so I am not altogether familiar with the self-regarding and other-regarding actions.

      The way I see it though is that actions that don’t affect another are kind of non-existent in the same way that someone who doesn’t vote might be said to be not participating, or someone who stands by as non-intervening.

      Nevertheless, the idea is a practical principle that I think offers a good guide. We shouldn’t pretend as a party, government or even as individuals that we have a complete understanding of all that is good and bad in the world and how to intervene to make it better. People and society need a space to breathe, and the form of liberalism that recognises this is something I find very attractive.

      • Dave Postles

         O.k., Ben.  Good thoughts and a welcome and refreshing piece.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    The list is OK but it misses out the core elements which distinguish Labour from the other parties – it could be reeled out by almost any main stream political party, there’s nothing about it which is unique to Labour.

    • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

      What would you suggest then?

      I think you would find out if you started to tease my list out, you point would not necessarily be the case (they’d exclude all but particularly ‘Red’ Tories anyway). The point is that these are first principles though, so you can’t be going on about the NHS and organised labour. They have to apply in all circumstances.

      One thing I maybe neglected to put in come to think of it though is ‘A Commitment to Public Service’ or the like.

  • Daniel Speight

    A rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose, for any organisation.

    You have gone ahead and listed values without, it strikes me, tackling the explicit statement of purpose. That’s a shame as what seems to have suffered the most under New Labour is exactly this. What the party is for or why does it exist?

    Explicit statement of purpose could be called the party’s ideology, or to be a bit more modern-speak, the party’s long-term vision of what Britain should become. I along with others across the spectrum have called for  more policies from the leadership, but without having an agreed ideology or long-term vision, policies would just become opportunistic reactions to current events or public opinion. I think Yvette Cooper’s pronouncements on law and order issues reflect this.

    So find a common statement of purpose that would carry the majority of the party and I suspect ‘values’ and ‘policies’ would follow rather easily.

  • Daniel Speight

    A rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose, for any organisation.

    You have gone ahead and listed values without, it strikes me, tackling the explicit statement of purpose. That’s a shame as what seems to have suffered the most under New Labour is exactly this. What the party is for or why does it exist?

    Explicit statement of purpose could be called the party’s ideology, or to be a bit more modern-speak, the party’s long-term vision of what Britain should become. I along with others across the spectrum have called for  more policies from the leadership, but without having an agreed ideology or long-term vision, policies would just become opportunistic reactions to current events or public opinion. I think Yvette Cooper’s pronouncements on law and order issues reflect this.

    So find a common statement of purpose that would carry the majority of the party and I suspect ‘values’ and ‘policies’ would follow rather easily.

    • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

      Hi Daniel, yes very good point. I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that omission, which I made partly because with blog posts you have a very limited amount of words to work with, and this was already a big enough topic to deal with. But you are right that the article is a bit lacking for not dealing with that.

      What would you suggest?

      • Daniel Speight

        Well in a way values and policies should come from the ideology. It’s almost impossible for it to be the other way round. At the same time the ‘s’ words have become almost verboten. Another word that was discouraged according to Hattersley was one that you use as a value, ‘equality’. So let’s take that one and use it in Labour’s statement of purpose.

        So then we could say that the Labour Party fights for a more a equal society in all ways. This would include equality economically, social, sexual, in opportunity and so on. On such we could build the party’s values and policies.

        • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

          Interesting thoughts Daniel. I happen to disagree though.

          I’ve been exploring this topic of values for a while and have concluded that you can’t build values out of visible, measurable reality – because then they are contingent and conditional on what that reality is. If your values change when the facts change, then you shouldn’t be calling them values.

          To approach it from a different angle, if you have this purpose – to build a more ‘equal’ society using all the indicators you suggest – and your values are the ways of achieving that, what happens when you find out there are better ways of doing it? It means your values are suddenly redundant.

          Since you are likely to either not be aware of or ignore or not implement better methods of achieving your object, values on this basis are inherently flawed. Ultimately you can only build values out of human understanding of what it means to be human and the fact that we care about what happens. A distanced, statistics-based approach just doesn’t cut it.

          I’m glad you brought up ‘equality’ though because I find it very interesting as a concept. As you may have picked up here, I don’t look at it in terms of outcomes or opportunity, but as a way of approaching people, as of equal importance and excluding any idea of sameness, either that you want to create or that you are positing on people.

          Maybe a good example of this is to look at the approach of the classic liberal-lefty do-gooder going to poorer countries or poorer areas and trying to help people. That person will invariably look to do it on their own terms, to ‘raise’ the people they are dealing with up on basis of the status ladder they have for themselves. However the people they are dealing with are often resistant to this sort of approach and find it patronising or are made to feel uncomfortable.

          The value of equality that I have here would have it that we don’t impose what we might call our own personal values on other people, but treat them with an equality of respect, on their own terms. It is ultimately an ethic of involvement, dialogue and participation rather than the sort of top-down one-size-fits all approach that can be done without engaging with anyone. People treated as active participators rather than passive receivers.

          In policy terms this sort of ethic leans towards creating more personal interaction and sharing of good practices in public services, and reducing the top-down ‘we know what is best for you’ sort of approach. SureStart centres are a pretty good example.

          • Daniel Speight

            As you say for values to change means they weren’t values to begin with. In my view these would be policies which could of course change according to circumstances.

            Now past that point I start to feel it gets pretty flaky Ben. Being rather old fashioned my idea is that most important measure of equality is economic, or maybe income would be a better word, as in the Gini coefficient measurement.*

            In as far as that is imposing my ideas on someone else, I guess that’s so in that I would use the tax system to do it. Now if that is considered patronising or liberal-lefty do-gooding I would be surprised.

            So back to values. These to me come from the ideology and would not change anymore than any other faith based set of values. I think even Ed Miliband said that the other day in another way.

            * I suspect an economic base is common to most social democrat or socialist parties and cover the spectrum of  left to right. It seems to me that is what the parties were formed for.

          • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

            You’re jumping ahead of the message there a little. I’m not against redistribution (quite the opposite). My idea of equlity comes down in favour of that because it is about equal respect.

            On values you contradict yourself by agreeing first that they aren’t so if they can change, and then saying that they come from ideology – where they would have to change if you succeeded in your aims. Take the example of Soviet Russia, which achieved its proletarian revolution, and then afterwards its ideology changed into a conservative one (regarding home anyway).

            The idea of equality by outcome requires such extreme manipulation and intervention that you may as well be advocating a Soviet state (and that pretty quickly saw the rising of a political elite just like other societies do in different ways).

            Values are about how we behave here and now just like we would at any other time. They aren’t about ends which justify the means. So oppressing and corralling people for the sake of a future utopia (in which one assumes everyone would suddenly and spontaneously start acting better towards each other) is definitely verboten.

          • Daniel Speight

            Ah let’s throw the soviet state at anyone arguing for economic equality then Ben. How can we use a state like Soviet Russia, which was so obviously unequal, as an example? The ‘extreme manipulation and intervention’ that you say is soviet is nothing more than the social democratic model followed by much of Western Europe up until the seventies. The use of taxation to narrow the income gap was almost universally accepted up until the rise of the Thatcher/Reagan axis of greed.

            Then you lose me – are you talking about values or policies Ben? Why would our ideology change if the party was successful in its long term aims. If we believe in equality would we suddenly then believe in inequality? The ideology is the faith and our values follow from that. It’s not so different from religions where values come about because of faith. Policies on the other hand should always be in a state of flux and capable of being changed.

            Equal respect, I’m really not sure what that is. How do you equalize respect?

          • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

            I think the differences between us is summed up by you offering up the promise of equality and me preferring that we practise it.

            The reason you have to change ideology when you reach your goal of equal wealth is either you do that or you are going to have to devote all your quasi-religious fervour to micromanaging a few pence here and few pence there – hardly an inspiring prospect for the faithful. Also rather absurd if there are some other problems around and about.

          • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

            I think the differences between us is summed up by you offering up the promise of equality and me preferring that we practise it.

            The reason you have to change ideology when you reach your goal of equal wealth is either you do that or you are going to have to devote all your quasi-religious fervour to micromanaging a few pence here and few pence there – hardly an inspiring prospect for the faithful. Also rather absurd if there are some other problems around and about.

          • Daniel Speight

            I’m not really sure what our differences are Ben because to be honest I understand very little of what you are saying. So just to help me with my obvious lack of education could you just tell me the following and I will ponder on your answers?

            What do you think should be Labour’s explicit statement of purpose?

            What in your view is the difference between values and policies?

             How do you practice equality?

            What is ‘equal respect’ and how does it work?

            You never know, I may in fact agree with you if I knew what it was you were saying.

          • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

             Hi Daniel. No worries. Yeah I appreciate what I am saying
            is not run of the mill, but (I think, and hope) it is quite simple once you get
            it. In this limited space I won’t address all your questions, but hopefully I can help to clarify.

            Basically, the difference between policies and values is that policies are
            held by institutions alone (in that it is only institutions that can enact
            them) and are contingent on circumstances, while values are universal and can
            be held by individuals and institutions alike. Values, which are about what is
            good in life, guide policy. But they still endure whatever the circumstances in
            the hearts and minds of people. They do not die if institutions choose not to
            abide by them.

             

            As for an explicit statement of purpose, I would advocate
            for the Labour Party something along the lines of: “We exist to help make Britain,
            and the world, a better place for everyone.”

             

            So what you would have is: a belief that the institution
            exists to make things better for people, the values telling you what you mean
            by ‘good’ (and therefore ‘better’), and then policies explaining the practical
            process of trying to achieve that in the real situation in which the
            institution finds itself.

             

            The values have a greater purpose though in signalling to
            yourselves and the wider world what you are all about, and helping to gather
            people around it – the democratic element if you like. It is a form of power,
            influencing and propagating, remaining constant to a great extent and therefore
            ideally building trust and solidarity. That in itself is a pracice of equality, but to explain that fully would require another article I think.

          • Daniel Speight

            Ben I will ponder on your answer. I worry that, using my previous term, it is too flaky, but then again it may well be me at fault for not seeing it.

            Still I think we agree on values. We hold personal values which we hope to see in similar values in the party we support.

            Then again even for the atheist like me there is a similarity to values held by some religious people. This is probably down to the cultural upbringing we have, in my case in a largely Christian post-war Britain. Today we may be looking at something different based more on TV or other media influences.

  • Daniel Speight

    A rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose, for any organisation.

    You have gone ahead and listed values without, it strikes me, tackling the explicit statement of purpose. That’s a shame as what seems to have suffered the most under New Labour is exactly this. What the party is for or why does it exist?

    Explicit statement of purpose could be called the party’s ideology, or to be a bit more modern-speak, the party’s long-term vision of what Britain should become. I along with others across the spectrum have called for  more policies from the leadership, but without having an agreed ideology or long-term vision, policies would just become opportunistic reactions to current events or public opinion. I think Yvette Cooper’s pronouncements on law and order issues reflect this.

    So find a common statement of purpose that would carry the majority of the party and I suspect ‘values’ and ‘policies’ would follow rather easily.

  • Daniel Speight

    A rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose, for any organisation.

    You have gone ahead and listed values without, it strikes me, tackling the explicit statement of purpose. That’s a shame as what seems to have suffered the most under New Labour is exactly this. What the party is for or why does it exist?

    Explicit statement of purpose could be called the party’s ideology, or to be a bit more modern-speak, the party’s long-term vision of what Britain should become. I along with others across the spectrum have called for  more policies from the leadership, but without having an agreed ideology or long-term vision, policies would just become opportunistic reactions to current events or public opinion. I think Yvette Cooper’s pronouncements on law and order issues reflect this.

    So find a common statement of purpose that would carry the majority of the party and I suspect ‘values’ and ‘policies’ would follow rather easily.

  • postageincluded

    To me this is entirely the wrong approach. If you want to spend your time being self righteous about your “values and “”principles” or moralising about everybody else’s lack of same, I’d suggest joining the Liberal Democrats.  The unique quality of  the Labour party is that it exists to represent working people.  That is quite enough to be doing for now.
    _______________________________________________________________

    “We all live in the protection of certain cowardices which we call our principles”.
    Mark Twain.

  • postageincluded

    To me this is entirely the wrong approach. If you want to spend your time being self righteous about your “values and “”principles” or moralising about everybody else’s lack of same, I’d suggest joining the Liberal Democrats.  The unique quality of  the Labour party is that it exists to represent working people.  That is quite enough to be doing for now.
    _______________________________________________________________

    “We all live in the protection of certain cowardices which we call our principles”.
    Mark Twain.

  • postageincluded

    To me this is entirely the wrong approach. If you want to spend your time being self righteous about your “values and “”principles” or moralising about everybody else’s lack of same, I’d suggest joining the Liberal Democrats.  The unique quality of  the Labour party is that it exists to represent working people.  That is quite enough to be doing for now.
    _______________________________________________________________

    “We all live in the protection of certain cowardices which we call our principles”.
    Mark Twain.

  • postageincluded

    To me this is entirely the wrong approach. If you want to spend your time being self righteous about your “values and “”principles” or moralising about everybody else’s lack of same, I’d suggest joining the Liberal Democrats.  The unique quality of  the Labour party is that it exists to represent working people.  That is quite enough to be doing for now.
    _______________________________________________________________

    “We all live in the protection of certain cowardices which we call our principles”.
    Mark Twain.

    • http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

      But represent working people how? On what basis? And what do you mean by ‘working people’ anyway? This is just a simple politics of favouritism really, and it’s so vague that it could mean anything you wanted to mean.

      I’d like to hear a bit more about what Mark Twain meant with that quotation though. I’m guessing it isn’t quite what you are using it for.

      • postageincluded

        Apologies for not responding – real life is a pain sometimes.

        I really don’t think the definitions of “represent”, “working”, and “people” are open to dispute, do you? Maybe we’ll discuss this some time. As for Twain, I’m pretty sure he’s pointing out how easy it is to find reasons for not doing things “on principle”, things like representing working people, for example.

  • AlanGiles

    No disrespect to Ben’s article, but it is the LACK of values exhibited by Labour than really concerns me.

    48 hours ago, spoilt brat George Osborne – and even his business leader friends doubt the viability of his “shares for losing rights” idea (see City A.M. 9th October) – proposed a further £10 billion cuts in the welfare budget, which will most greatly impact on the very poorest in society, after 2015.

    Despite this, it has been left to some of us on LL and elsewhere to talk about this – where is Miliband?, where is Balls? – and – most crucially of all – where is Byrne – the shadow minister who is allegedly most concerned?. Perhaps the latter is busy seeing if another city wants a Mayor so he can run away from Westminster.

    If the leadership is going to be sanguine about such a crackpot proposal, that will hit those who have already been hit the hardest, through circumstance – where ARE Labour’s values?.

    I suppose some of the apologists would say that this proposal won’t go ahead if the Conservatives lose the next election, which is currently expected, but the point is, of course, they might not – you can already see the Conservatives trying to rile the LibDems, and my guess is, at the next election, the right wing of the Conservative party will “rally round” (one of their favourite terms) forget their flirtation with UKIP, present a united front and win a majority – Cameron and co will suggest they have been held back from their right-wing Utopia by the coalition with the LibDems.

    I can actually see the Conservatives winning a small majority – their love of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Christopher Grayling etc  is indicative of the way their party is going.

    But surely the whole of the front bench should be responding to the cruelty of Osborne’s suggestion – the silence is deafening – such acquiescence would have been unthinkable pre-1994.

Latest

  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    By Stefan Stern

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

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

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

    By Rob Marchant

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

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

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

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

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is party politics dying out?

    Is party politics dying out?

    By Mark Ferguson

    This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →