Labour’s “thick” red lines!

Labour’s “thick” red lines!

Why have the Labour Government trapped themselves with so many Red Lines? We have Reeves’ on the economy and now it seems Starmer and Cooper on the EU’s youth mobility proposals, although more accurately, they are red lines on the issue of the EU. It would seem that Reeves is looking for an escape route, although whether they’ll u-turn on the winter fuel allowance and 2-child benefit cap is another matter, but, on the EU, it seems that despite the obvious loop-hole of redefining students as non-migrants, Cooper and Starmer are not prepared to compromise on a youth mobility scheme with the EU despite having similar agreements with 15 countries already.

Rosie Duffield in her letter resigning the Labour whip ( Sky | mirror )  said, among other things,

… as someone elevated immediately to a shadow cabinet position without following the usual path of honing your political skills on the backbenches, you had very little previous political footprint. It was therefore unclear what your political passions, drive or direction might be as the leader of the Labour Party, a large movement of people united by a desire for social justice and support for those most in need.  … Since you took office as Leader of the Opposition you have used various heavy-handed management tactics but have never shown what most experienced backbenchers would recognise as true or inspiring leadership. … Your promotion of those with no proven political skills and no previous parliamentary experience but who happen to be related to those close to you, or even each other, is frankly embarrassing.

I agree with the comments about a lack of experience of politics and we should note that the majority of his closest advisors equally have no practical political or representative experience. They are faction fighters who when it comes to government, don’t know what they’re doing which is why so many of their decisions are poor or bizarre.

We’ve been here before, in a blog article entitled “Servants”, I review an article by George Eaton, dated 2016, in the New Statesman. I revisited the ‘statesman article two years later, and while the quote about Blair/Brown’s succession plans being populated by servants not masters really struck home, this quote is equally relevant to today’s circumstances.

“I can give you a whole cadre of these people who weren’t the Oxbridge elite, the special advisers and all of the rest of it,” one former MP told me, “but they were politicians and they did have a sense of what voters wanted and they had a way of communicating with voters that these guys [the young MPs and special advisers] never did. Just never did. And as a result, it was a profound misunderstanding of what democratic politics was about. It’s not a seminar.”

or I would add, a caucus room or student union.

They have failed to prepare the politics for government execution, a lack replaced by a vicious triangulation with the UK’s far-right and their Tory entryists with the excuse of bomb proofing the manifesto. Starmer’s mandate is not only limited by the low vote share, but also by what Labour asked permission to do.

Things won’t get better for Labour or the country until a number of these people are shown the door. …

Democracy is about policy too

Democracy is about policy too

 In a meeting last night, of my Union branch, and we were being spoken to by an MP, who argued that he stood on a Manifesto, and that this represented the Party’s view and its contract with the voters. My problem is that the Manifesto, while agreed by the National Policy Forum was not agreed by the Party and there is little doubt that the Party opposes austerity, wants to rejoin the EU and opposes racism in our immigration policy.

It made decide to redouble my efforts in support of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and to this time focus on how we make policy, and how we hold a leadership accountable to it. I mean, mandatory re-selection was meant to be part of this, but the 2019 selections and triggers show this may not be enough.

Today’s problem, is that the PLP is representing the leadership to the members and not the other way round. …

The missing courage of the ICO

The missing courage of the ICO

I note from Jim Killock’s pinned repost of a post by David Erdos on X, that the media and the ICO have issued a report, dated March 2024, on journalistic practices and the Data Protection Act 2018. This was produced as part of response to the Leveson Report, itself, spawned by the Millie Dowler & celebrity phone hacking scandal. Erdos makes the point that the ICO did not make use of its investigatory powers, which he refers to as §17 powers nor that the story was followed by … err! … the Press.

Additionally, over the last week, the ICO announced its report into its investigations into the Labour Party and its compliance with GDPR/DPA. Again, they weren’t asking the big questions and say more about the mitigation actions than the compliance failures. This allows the Guardian to run a headline focusing on the failure to respond to DSARs, in fact the Guardian focuses only on late response, and not on failure and everyone is silent on the refusals.

I would like to know what measures the Party took to ensure that their IT sub-contractors met their obligations as data processors, what measures the Party took to ensure their DPO was qualified[1] according to Article 37 of the GDPR, why no compensation has been offered/mandated to victims of the breach, what measures Labour took to ensure the completeness of any DSARs, what measures the Labour Party took to ensure that only appropriate staff had access to personal data and what measures the Party took to ensure that democratic rights of members weren’t adversely effected by the breach? It would seem the ICO have not asked these questions; this is exceedingly disappointing.

Regulatory capture is a well-studied phenomenon. However, it’s simpler if one is the government rather than a private business or an NGO. It seems pretty clear that the ICO is frightened of the major political parties which since human rights law is designed to protect citizens from governments, rather spoils the point of having one. NB the GDPR has a lot to say about the importance of the independence of both Data Protection Officers and also the national data protection supervisory authority.

[1] The data protection officer shall be designated on the basis of professional qualities and, in particular, expert knowledge of data protection law and practices … n.b. Data Protection practices require an expertise in cyber security. …

Power, Influence and Policy in the Labour Party

Power, Influence and Policy in the Labour Party

I have been published on Labour Hub. In the article, I reflect on the powerlessness of Labour’s ordinary members, and look at the long term plans of Labour’s right and PLP starting from Evan’s 1999 report proposing the destruction of membership rights and diminishing of the CLP influence. I look at the introduction of all-member meetings and registered supporters and their later repeal together with the reforms enhancing conference power and their repeal. I also look at Labour's failure to use IT platforms for policy, and underinvestment in supporting staff posts. See overleaf or check out the original article... ...

Starmer’s speech on refugees

Starmer’s speech on refugees

A little essay on Natalie Elphick’s defection to Labour and Starmer’s speech in Dover on refugee policy.

Over the last couple of days of the week, the Labour Party stage managed the defection of Natalie Elphicke, the MP for Dover, which allowed Starmer to visit her constituency and make his speech. The speech is reported and analysed in the Guardian, and the full text is posted by Labour List.

I had notice the speech was going to take place, although not the venue, and I and my campaigning colleagues had a fear that the policy would become worse than it currently is. However, the speech reinforced the politics of Labour’s agreed position albeit offering more detail on what an anti-gangs unit would look like.

Labour’s front bench fail to recognise that Refugees are caused by wars and not by people smuggling gangs, the speech also restated that Labour will not be looking to create safe routes for refugees. There are none today.

I summarise the speech and positions as, “No real change as far as I can see, abandon the Rwanda scheme, blame gangs not wars, no safe routes for refugees, and silence on workers and family reunification.”

On a side note, there has been much opposition within the Labour Party and PLP to accepting Elphicke within the Party, and her and Annaliese Dodds statements that there was agreement between her and the Party on immigration and refugee policy is shameful. Elphicke’s statement is also reported by Labour List. …

Brexit, armaments and defence

Brexit, armaments and defence

Reasons that Brexit was a mistake number, well I lost count but the Davis Downside Dossier has the count at 1788. The FT has run an article reporting on the EU’s rejuvenated attempts move towards a defence union. For years now it has been working on common procurement chains and now is seeking to ensure security of supply, which is primarily likely to cause substitution of US weapons with indigenous European weapons but one piece of collateral damage will be the UK’s arms industry ability to supply to EU member states.

The FT article implies that the single market will be extended to defence supply. There are two impacts on this policy. One of them being the exposure of the lack of ambition of Labours plans to ”Fix Brexit”, agriculture, science, touring artists, and a free movement of consultants & professionals won’t be enough and Labour’s plans to trade our defence capability for single market opt-outs will look much less attractive to the European Union.

The second impact will be on BAE’s share price, which has done quite well this year.

The Ukraine War has been good for some businesses.It all goes to show that there’s a need to examine how the UK and Europe defends itself, if there is a sensible role for NATO as opposed to an EU institution or competency and to question whether the global i.e. the non-exclusively European nature of the UK’s warplane procurement plans are actually as effective as we need.

 …

Reading Labour’s tea leaves

Reading Labour’s tea leaves

I wrote about the possibility of a youth mobility proposal from the EU; I’d say it’s now dead and that may be what the Commission was trying to achieve, to stop the UK cherry picking, stop us levying the NHS fee and high [unreasonable] visa fees, although the Commission may not give up. The bad news is that it has enabled those that oppose freedom of movement to reinforce their arguments.

During the discussion I was pointed at the FT’s comments on David Lammy’s Foreign Affairs article extolling “Progressive Realism (in foreign affairs)”.  On the EU, it is my view that Labour will seek to use enhanced security co-operation to further their cakeist approach to the single market. The FT article on Lammy’s speech https://www.ft.com/content/7a8484d5-3348-4df6-810f-81c1b53dd4ad?shareType=nongift makes it clear that using our military budget as a negotiating tool for single marker opt-outs will not be easy and everyone in the UK is ignoring the fact  that justice co-operation requires a common basic law and that the majority of the UK’s recent case losses at the ECtHR have been on issues of justice. Lammy also repeated/published his views in a Guardian piece. Lammy in his article, and in his speech to Labour Party conference 23 has articulated the need the greater cooperation with both the European Union and its member states. He always adds the mantra of the new red lines, but he clearly sees and speaks for the need for greater cooperation over a range of issues.

I have also been pointed at Martin Kettle, in an article, “Starmer can’t dodge the Europe question for ever. In office, the economy will answer it for him”. He reckons, it’ll be Reeves who’ll break first, I don’t agree. She’s remarkably stubborn and well trained by the high priests of QMT in the Bank & Treasury. I wonder if it might be Lammy. While I gave up trying to read the tea leaves from the speeches of Labour’s front bench, Lammy’s speeches read as if he may want to do something else but adds the red lines because he has too. …

UK politicians say “No” to youth mobility

UK politicians say “No” to youth mobility

The FT ((£ | (-)) and Steve Peers on X report late last week that the EU Commission has sent a request to the Council for a mandate to negotiate a “youth mobility” scheme to allow British and EU under 30’s to freely travel, work and study in each other’s countries.

Cynics suggest this is to hold the Union’s position together as the UK Government has already opened or attempted to open bi-lateral talks with several member states; however, the Commission’s initiative has it seems produced a negative public statement from Labour. (And later by the Government, reported here by the BBC which highlights this government’s disrespectful approach to British and European youth’s interests. )

Labour really seem to be taking a foolishly hard line; I think that agreeing this would make their plan to negotiate a new co-operation agreement easier since their goal seems to be to bargain the UK’s defence capability in exchange for opt-outs from the single market.

The FT reports that Sweden has refused because it wants to act in solidarity with all the member states and the Commission if it gets a mandate will have conditions on visa charges and the NHS surcharge; they will also not permit the UK to discriminate against any member state.

Stella Creasy of the Labour Movement for Europe, welcomes the proposal and the scheme,

Luke Cooper, a colleague on the AEIP national committee comments on X, and also places the issue in the context of Lammy’s recent article on security and defence co-operation with the EU, also reported by the FT, which also reflects on the more frigid end of the EU conversation. It would seem that Luke considers the position of the German Government to be important, as well as the “Report of the committee of Franco/German experts” on the medium term direction of the EU which perceives a multi-tiered commitment to and within the EU on which I comment on my wiki, and on my blog, in an article called, “The (EU) reform train is at the platform”. For a further analysis of this debate on that report and its Federalist alternative see my article, “EU Reform”i. Personally, I think the Franco German report has been lost in a cupboard as the sponsoring governments have new priorities,

It’s a shocking opportunity missed and while I am not surprised at the Government’s reaction; I am bitterly disappointed in Labour’s. …