politicscouk--2020-11-05--How Black October revealed the lie of One Nation Boris

`` Everyone knows Republicans love this country - they just hate half the people in it '' .
So said the US comedian Jon Stewart in the dying days of the George W Bush presidency , after nearly a decade of the GOP getting dewy-eyed at the flag while lashing out at anyone who did n't fit the strictures of Leviticus .
There have long been parallels with leading Brexiters , of course - talking up 'the British ' while castigating those deemed not British enough , be they immigrants , 'metropolitan liberals ' or just any passing Remainer criticising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Boris Johnson fought an election on bringing Britain together , the Tories ' wretched October has exposed the reality .
A month that saw the party trying to fend off Marcus Rashford 's free school meals campaign and fighting megaphone wars with Greater Manchester did not simply leave the Conservatives staggering around like a drunkard bellowing for a fight - it revealed their One Nation rhetoric for what it is : an increasingly empty sales pitch .
One Nation is a mantle claimed at various times , implicitly or explicitly , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except Margaret Thatcher , who defined herself against it .
It was formulated - though not coined - by Benjamin Disraeli as a basis for improving the lot of the Victorian poor while safeguarding the upper classes .
The perceived harshness of the Thatcher era led her successors to revive One Nation as an attempt at detoxifying the Tory brand .
The honesty of these assertions was generally limited .
Iain Duncan Smith talked up his Road to Damascus moment in a Glasgow housing estate while his policies sent the poor to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversaw these harsh benefit cuts was David Cameron , who used the One Nation-esque 'Big Society ' as an ideological fig leaf for savage austerity .
But Brexit pushed high earning social liberals away from the party , while drawing old industrial working class communities towards it .
In his book Little Platoons , published in September last year , the Conservative thinker and writer David Skelton argued for the party to commit wholeheartedly to reviving the One Nation tradition as a route to these votes .
`` [ Conservatives ] should look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to utopian extremes , '' Skelton wrote .
`` Unlike these extremes , One Nation is particularly well placed to tackle the problems faced today . ''
By delivering Brexit and adopting One Nation policies built around redistribution and investment in declining towns , Skelton argued an increasingly fractured and fractious Britain could be bound back together .
The book proved influential in Tory circles , providing substance to Theresa May 's unfulfilled agenda .
Johnson himself said on the night of his general election victory that `` this One Nation Conservative government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' .
The 'utopian extremes ' Skelton referred to are neoliberalism and socialism .
And in its initial response to the pandemic , the government showed a readiness to shed the neoliberal dogma of the Cameron years , adopting an extensive state furlough scheme and even reversing some - though nowhere near all - of the benefit cuts of the last decade .
But as the Covid crisis has worn on , the Tories ' old ways have returned .
They never fully went away of course - the welfare state has remained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in food bank use , and billions of pounds have been handed over to private contractors like Serco .
And yet the Rashford row really opened up this seam .
Tory MPs reverted to type and engaged eagerly in the benefits-bashing seen regularly in the 2010s .
Private school-educated Ben Bradley - who in his younger years wrote that `` unemployed wasters '' should have vasectomies - said the extension of free school meal vouchers over the summer holidays had effectively handed money over to crack dens and brothels .
Newly elected 'Red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real problem was absent parents who refused to `` take responsibility '' .
Like many Conservatives , they instinctively assumed the worst about those who need state support .
It is not just that Bradley 's claims were implausible given that vouchers can only be spent on food .
Even if they were true , and there was indeed a smattering of cases of such vouchers being misused , his assumption was that everyone needing support should be collectively punished for it .
This is hardly surprising .
The Tories tried to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of social authoritarians , which influenced the type of candidates the party attracted .
But authoritarian views on immigration and national sovereignty often go hand in hand with authoritarian views on benefits - that 'fecklessness ' should n't be encouraged and parents should be expected to stand on their own two feet , regardless of context and circumstance .
Indeed , the root of literally centuries of benefits-bashing has been the assumption that benefit claimants are inherently immoral , and that benefits incentivise their immorality .
Idleness , entitlement , dependency , fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as core to the character of claimants .
Also on Skelton 's agenda was the devolution of power away from Westminster so as to re-empower forgotten communities .
Johnson has been happy to talk up devolution , but when Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham demanded more financial support , the usual unnamed government 'sources ' launched a briefing war against him , while the Treasury came up short .
Given the historic tendency of the Treasury to revert to type and steer towards tight spending and deficit reduction , the only way One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading Tories actually believed in it .
But they do n't .
To them it is no more than a rhetorical strategy to build an electoral coalition .
Faced with a twitchy Treasury , the government has started to tighten the purse strings , and its MPs have doubled down on a demonised Other .
That , in the end , is what nativists do - immigrants are the enemy without , but benefit claimants are the enemy within .
It was little surprise that one of the few Tory MPs to rebel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who - while hardly a bleeding heart in the Heidi Allen mould - is a genuine believer in One Nation politics .
But there is a difference between a belief system and a strategy .
The Tories wore One Nation as electoral fancy dress .
It 's proving to be a bad fit .
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or @ @ @

By Chaminda Jayanetti
"Everyone knows Republicans love this country – they just hate half the people in it". So said the US comedian Jon Stewart in the dying days of the George W Bush presidency, after nearly a decade of the GOP getting dewy-eyed at the flag while lashing out at anyone who didn't fit the strictures of Leviticus.
There have long been parallels with leading Brexiters, of course – talking up 'the British' while castigating those deemed not British enough, be they immigrants, 'metropolitan liberals' or just any passing Remainer criticising their project.
But nearly a year after Boris Johnson fought an election on bringing Britain together, the Tories' wretched October has exposed the reality. A month that saw the party trying to fend off Marcus Rashford's free school meals campaign and fighting megaphone wars with Greater Manchester did not simply leave the Conservatives staggering around like a drunkard bellowing for a fight – it revealed their One Nation rhetoric for what it is: an increasingly empty sales pitch.
One Nation is a mantle claimed at various times, implicitly or explicitly, by more or less every postwar Tory leader except Margaret Thatcher, who defined herself against it. It was formulated – though not coined – by Benjamin Disraeli as a basis for improving the lot of the Victorian poor while safeguarding the upper classes. The perceived harshness of the Thatcher era led her successors to revive One Nation as an attempt at detoxifying the Tory brand.
The honesty of these assertions was generally limited. Iain Duncan Smith talked up his Road to Damascus moment in a Glasgow housing estate while his policies sent the poor to the food bank. The prime minister who oversaw these harsh benefit cuts was David Cameron, who used the One Nation-esque 'Big Society' as an ideological fig leaf for savage austerity.
But Brexit pushed high earning social liberals away from the party, while drawing old industrial working class communities towards it. In his book Little Platoons, published in September last year, the Conservative thinker and writer David Skelton argued for the party to commit wholeheartedly to reviving the One Nation tradition as a route to these votes.
"[Conservatives] should look to position themselves as a compassionate alternative to utopian extremes," Skelton wrote. "Unlike these extremes, One Nation is particularly well placed to tackle the problems faced today."
By delivering Brexit and adopting One Nation policies built around redistribution and investment in declining towns, Skelton argued an increasingly fractured and fractious Britain could be bound back together. The book proved influential in Tory circles, providing substance to Theresa May's unfulfilled agenda. Johnson himself said on the night of his general election victory that "this One Nation Conservative government has been given a powerful new mandate".
The 'utopian extremes' Skelton referred to are neoliberalism and socialism. And in its initial response to the pandemic, the government showed a readiness to shed the neoliberal dogma of the Cameron years, adopting an extensive state furlough scheme and even reversing some – though nowhere near all – of the benefit cuts of the last decade.
But as the Covid crisis has worn on, the Tories' old ways have returned. They never fully went away of course – the welfare state has remained miserly, leading to a fresh surge in food bank use, and billions of pounds have been handed over to private contractors like Serco. And yet the Rashford row really opened up this seam. Tory MPs reverted to type and engaged eagerly in the benefits-bashing seen regularly in the 2010s.
Private school-educated Ben Bradley – who in his younger years wrote that "unemployed wasters" should have vasectomies – said the extension of free school meal vouchers over the summer holidays had effectively handed money over to crack dens and brothels. Newly elected 'Red Wall' MP Brendan Clarke-Smith said the real problem was absent parents who refused to "take responsibility".
Like many Conservatives, they instinctively assumed the worst about those who need state support. It is not just that Bradley's claims were implausible given that vouchers can only be spent on food. Even if they were true, and there was indeed a smattering of cases of such vouchers being misused, his assumption was that everyone needing support should be collectively punished for it.
This is hardly surprising. The Tories tried to win the Brexit war by becoming the party of social authoritarians, which influenced the type of candidates the party attracted. But authoritarian views on immigration and national sovereignty often go hand in hand with authoritarian views on benefits – that 'fecklessness' shouldn't be encouraged and parents should be expected to stand on their own two feet, regardless of context and circumstance.
Indeed, the root of literally centuries of benefits-bashing has been the assumption that benefit claimants are inherently immoral, and that benefits incentivise their immorality. Idleness, entitlement, dependency, fraud and substance misuse are all casually seen as core to the character of claimants.
Also on Skelton's agenda was the devolution of power away from Westminster so as to re-empower forgotten communities. Johnson has been happy to talk up devolution, but when Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham demanded more financial support, the usual unnamed government 'sources' launched a briefing war against him, while the Treasury came up short.
Given the historic tendency of the Treasury to revert to type and steer towards tight spending and deficit reduction, the only way One Nation politics could survive would be if leading Tories actually believed in it. But they don't. To them it is no more than a rhetorical strategy to build an electoral coalition. Faced with a twitchy Treasury, the government has started to tighten the purse strings, and its MPs have doubled down on a demonised Other.
That, in the end, is what nativists do – immigrants are the enemy without, but benefit claimants are the enemy within.
It was little surprise that one of the few Tory MPs to rebel over free school meals was Robert Halfon, who – while hardly a bleeding heart in the Heidi Allen mould – is a genuine believer in One Nation politics.
But there is a difference between a belief system and a strategy. The Tories wore One Nation as electoral fancy dress. It's proving to be a bad fit.
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-05--International community must ensure women are defended in Afghan peace process

By Nadia Saracini The Afghan peace talks have bought hope that peace may actually be achievable after forty years of conflict .
But success depends on a political settlement between the Taliban and an elected government which they still consider to be illegitimate .
The challenges are enormous , and there is also fear .
As the talks get underway , Christian Aid has been talking to local and national civil society groups about the need to ensure that there 's no backtracking on Afghan women ’ s rights .
Since the fall of the Taliban , we have seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rights - to vote , study , and work outside of the home .
Women 's representation in politics and the civil service has increased significantly , supported by constitutional provisions , protective legislation and institutional changes .
We need these gains to be maintained .
The Taliban leadership has signalled a softening of its attitudes towards women , but this is contradicted by its actions on the ground .
If a peace deal happens , it will need to include detailed commitments to uphold and progress constitutional , legal and human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoken to have expressed concerns that they will no longer be allowed to be directors of their organisations .
There 's fear that vague assurances on women 's rights - for example that girls will have access to education - will not guarantee a progressive curriculum or even that women will be able to study at universities alongside men .
Even if the detailed commitments to rights are there , there is the possibility of local leaders not respecting that on ground .
Any peace agreement therefore will also need to provide for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and particularly women 's rights groups , to monitor and influence its implementation .
A recent statement by Afghan women 's groups made a plea to the international community not to fight their battles for them , but also not to leave them alone on the battlefield .
Ultimately , it will be the Afghan people who will have to claim their rights and hold their government accountable .
It is Afghan women who will need to continue to negotiate their freedoms in a country which is still very conservative in its attitudes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to do what we can to enable them and keep their hope alive .
There 'll need to be international support for women 's self-empowerment and space for a strong and representative Afghan civil society to make its voices heard if there 's to be a sustainable peace .
The UK government has been advocating for women 's participation in the peace process and for women 's rights to be protected and sustained as this moves forward .
Now is an important moment for it to step up these important efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 , which provides for women 's participation in all aspects of peace and security .
Its implementation in Afghanistan , and UK support for it , has bought significant gains for Afghan women .
A pledging conference bringing together all Afghanistan 's development partners in November will be an opportunity for the international community to ensure that future development assistance , on which Afghanistan still depends heavily , is strongly conditional on progress in this and other key areas of development and good governance , including women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil society .
This is a critical moment .
It is vital to underline both the importance of furthering Afghan women 's rights and also the international community 's responsibilities when it comes to supporting it .
Nadia Saracini is senior inequalities advisor at Christian Aid .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Nadia Saracini
The Afghan peace talks have bought hope that peace may actually be achievable after forty years of conflict. But success depends on a political settlement between the Taliban and an elected government which they still consider to be illegitimate. The challenges are enormous, and there is also fear.
As the talks get underway, Christian Aid has been talking to local and national civil society groups about the need to ensure that there's no backtracking on Afghan women’s rights. Since the fall of the Taliban, we have seen increasing numbers of Afghan women enthusiastically exercising their rights – to vote, study, and work outside of the home. Women's representation in politics and the civil service has increased significantly, supported by constitutional provisions, protective legislation and institutional changes. We need these gains to be maintained.
The Taliban leadership has signalled a softening of its attitudes towards women, but this is contradicted by its actions on the ground. If a peace deal happens, it will need to include detailed commitments to uphold and progress constitutional, legal and human rights commitments.
Women leaders I have spoken to have expressed concerns that they will no longer be allowed to be directors of their organisations. There's fear that vague assurances on women's rights – for example that girls will have access to education – will not guarantee a progressive curriculum or even that women will be able to study at universities alongside men.
Even if the detailed commitments to rights are there, there is the possibility of local leaders not respecting that on ground. Any peace agreement therefore will also need to provide for mechanisms for Afghan civil society organisations, and particularly women's rights groups, to monitor and influence its implementation.
A recent statement by Afghan women's groups made a plea to the international community not to fight their battles for them, but also not to leave them alone on the battlefield. Ultimately, it will be the Afghan people who will have to claim their rights and hold their government accountable. It is Afghan women who will need to continue to negotiate their freedoms in a country which is still very conservative in its attitudes.
At Christian Aid, we will continue to do what we can to enable them and keep their hope alive. There'll need to be international support for women's self-empowerment and space for a strong and representative Afghan civil society to make its voices heard if there's to be a sustainable peace.
The UK government has been advocating for women's participation in the peace process and for women's rights to be protected and sustained as this moves forward. Now is an important moment for it to step up these important efforts.
The end of October marks the anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which provides for women's participation in all aspects of peace and security. Its implementation in Afghanistan, and UK support for it, has bought significant gains for Afghan women. A pledging conference bringing together all Afghanistan's development partners in November will be an opportunity for the international community to ensure that future development assistance, on which Afghanistan still depends heavily, is strongly conditional on progress in this and other key areas of development and good governance, including women's rights and an enabling environment for civil society.
This is a critical moment. It is vital to underline both the importance of furthering Afghan women's rights and also the international community's responsibilities when it comes to supporting it.
Nadia Saracini is senior inequalities advisor at Christian Aid.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-04--America enters the abyss

America enters the abyss

What we 're seeing in America today is not just a disaster for the left , or moderates , or liberals , or whoever would naturally oppose this Republican administration .
It is a disaster for those who believe in democracy .
Donald Trump is trying to rig the election .
He emerged this morning , in a carefully coordinated media statement surrounded by cheering supporters , and insisted he had already won , even though votes are still being counted .
He then demanded that voting cease where he thought he could lose .
`` We want all voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was a clear and explicit attempt to destroy people 's democratic rights .
This would be alarming enough on its own .
But it did not just happen today .
It was clear from the very beginning that this was a tactic Trump would pursue .
He worked to discredit mail-in votes during a pandemic on a baseless accusation of fraud .
The reason early ballots have n't been counted in certain key states was because the Republicans changed the law to ban it .
Trump then emerged this morning to insist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it is : an orchestrated attempt to subvert American democracy .
Trump 's effort to undermine this election was explicit .
It was obvious .
Over and over again he refused to confirm that he would allow a peaceful transfer of power .
He has been planning this right out there in public .
And now it is happening .
There will always be would-be tyrants .
Democracy is a robust obstacle to their emergence , but it can not eradicate the threat .
What is troubling here is not so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which we have priced in for some time .
It 's the fact that he was obviously going to do this and millions of people voted for him anyway .
And that is the terrifying thing .
That is the thing that sends a shiver through the spine .
Democracy can not survive without people who believe in it .
It can not prevail if those who live under it support those who try to destroy it .
It can not endure if voters are so misguided , so lacking in trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that they believe the president 's lies .
The rot is not just in the democratic process , but in its purpose .
Voting is not just an expression of consent in government .
It is also a protective shield .
It is supposed to ensure that no leader can inflict damage on the public .
People do n't vote for famine .
That makes democracy qualitatively different from dictatorships , like Stalin 's Russia , where man-made famines could be imposed on people because they had no opportunity to overthrow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's different .
People are voting for famine .
Trump 's track record on coronavirus is a full-scale intellectual , moral and operational failure .
It is an act of criminal neglect , with a death toll of nearly a quarter of a million people .
And this was not an act of God .
It was the result of a man who suggested people inject themselves with bleach , who would n't support masks , who attacked scientific advisers , who encouraged the view that it was some sort of made-up Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theories .
Democracy is supposed to protect the public from precisely this outcome .
This is exactly the kind of situation it provides safeguards for , by formalising the public 's ability to replace governments which undermine their rights and put them in harm 's way .
But instead , millions have turned out to support the attack .
Those who secretly support Trump but dare n't say so in polite company , or , more commonly , who approve of the global nationalist wave while perhaps finding him somewhat uncouth , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not .
You must have the confidence to observe the reality of events as they transpire .
The reality is plain and simple and must be stated outright : We are witnessing the attempted overthrow of American democracy .
And millions of people appear willing to go along with it .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners .

What we're seeing in America today is not just a disaster for the left, or moderates, or liberals, or whoever would naturally oppose this Republican administration. It is a disaster for those who believe in democracy.
Donald Trump is trying to rig the election. He emerged this morning, in a carefully coordinated media statement surrounded by cheering supporters, and insisted he had already won, even though votes are still being counted. He then demanded that voting cease where he thought he could lose. "We want all voting to stop," he said. It was a clear and explicit attempt to destroy people's democratic rights.
This would be alarming enough on its own. But it did not just happen today. It was clear from the very beginning that this was a tactic Trump would pursue. He worked to discredit mail-in votes during a pandemic on a baseless accusation of fraud. The reason early ballots haven't been counted in certain key states was because the Republicans changed the law to ban it. Trump then emerged this morning to insist they were not counted.
Call this what it is: an orchestrated attempt to subvert American democracy.
Trump's effort to undermine this election was explicit. It was obvious. Over and over again he refused to confirm that he would allow a peaceful transfer of power. He has been planning this right out there in public. And now it is happening.
There will always be would-be tyrants. Democracy is a robust obstacle to their emergence, but it cannot eradicate the threat. What is troubling here is not so much Trump's attempt to destroy American democracy, which we have priced in for some time. It's the fact that he was obviously going to do this and millions of people voted for him anyway. And that is the terrifying thing. That is the thing that sends a shiver through the spine.
Democracy cannot survive without people who believe in it. It cannot prevail if those who live under it support those who try to destroy it. It cannot endure if voters are so misguided, so lacking in trust in the media and the electoral system, that they believe the president's lies.
The rot is not just in the democratic process, but in its purpose. Voting is not just an expression of consent in government. It is also a protective shield. It is supposed to ensure that no leader can inflict damage on the public.
People don't vote for famine. That makes democracy qualitatively different from dictatorships, like Stalin's Russia, where man-made famines could be imposed on people because they had no opportunity to overthrow the government.
Except this time, it's different. People are voting for famine. Trump's track record on coronavirus is a full-scale intellectual, moral and operational failure. It is an act of criminal neglect, with a death toll of nearly a quarter of a million people. And this was not an act of God. It was the result of a man who suggested people inject themselves with bleach, who wouldn't support masks, who attacked scientific advisers, who encouraged the view that it was some sort of made-up Democratic party hoax, who encouraged baseless conspiracy theories.
Democracy is supposed to protect the public from precisely this outcome. This is exactly the kind of situation it provides safeguards for, by formalising the public's ability to replace governments which undermine their rights and put them in harm's way. But instead, millions have turned out to support the attack.
Those who secretly support Trump but daren't say so in polite company, or, more commonly, who approve of the global nationalist wave while perhaps finding him somewhat uncouth, will call this sort of analysis hysterical. It is not. You must have the confidence to observe the reality of events as they transpire. The reality is plain and simple and must be stated outright: We are witnessing the attempted overthrow of American democracy. And millions of people appear willing to go along with it.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-09--UK must help Biden repair the damage of Trump on human rights

By Kate Allen How should the UK government approach a Joe Biden presidency ?
Naturally there will be a focus on trade and the new No.10/Oval Office relationship .
But after four disastrous years , there ’ s a huge job ahead in repairing some of the human rights damage done by Trump 's wrecking ball .
British politicians and diplomatic officials need to encourage Biden 's administration to steer back toward something approaching a human rights-focused agenda , at home and overseas .
A tall order ?
Maybe , but these are serious issues and our officials must try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many to mention here , but - among other issues - I believe the UK ought to be pushing Washington on the following key areas .
First , support for international law .
The US should be encouraged to swiftly re-join the UN Human Rights Council and - as per Biden ’ s recent pledge - the Paris Agreement on climate change .
It must reverse its hostility to the WHO , the International Criminal Court and the Arms Trade Treaty , among other international bodies and treaties .
Second , gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US ' powerful gun lobby and finally do something about domestic gun violence .
This should include introducing national regulations over the licensing and registering of firearms , mandating comprehensive background checks and banning all military-grade weapons Third , end the mistreatment of asylum-seekers .
After the Trump administration 's shameless demonising of people fleeing violence and persecution , there should be major immigration reforms .
These should include an end to the needless cruelty of separating and detaining families Fourth , police reform .
There should be a major re-think on policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter protesters .
Among other things , national data on police killings should be gathered and published , and all law enforcement agencies should be required to comply with international standards over using force .
While they ’ re at it , British officials ought to encourage the White House to rebuild relations with journalists .
No more trash talk against people simply doing their jobs .
We should n't in any way accept a political culture which routinely denounces inconvenient stories as 'fake news ' or - more sinister still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or 'enemies ' ” .
Of course the UK is n't itself spotless on human rights .
Britain is shipping arms to Saudi Arabia despite the clear risk they 'll be used to commit war crimes in Yemen .
Police reforms are urgently needed here too - from a full review into how potentially-lethal Tasers are used , especially against minorities or vulnerable groups , to the way that ethnic minorities and protest groups are over-policed and criminalised .
But still , the UK must try .
None of this is to suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for human rights - far from it .
But Trump 's presidency has been a nightmarish experience for many in the USA and further afield .
After four painful years in which an unscrupulous and reckless Trump administration has thought little of energising white supremacists and other hate-mongers , it really is time to walk all of this back .
Even under Biden it wo n't be easy .
But it must be attempted .
Kate Allen is director of Amnesty International UK .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Kate Allen
How should the UK government approach a Joe Biden presidency? Naturally there will be a focus on trade and the new No.10/Oval Office relationship. But after four disastrous years, there’s a huge job ahead in repairing some of the human rights damage done by Trump's wrecking ball.
British politicians and diplomatic officials need to encourage Biden's administration to steer back toward something approaching a human rights-focused agenda, at home and overseas. A tall order? Maybe, but these are serious issues and our officials must try.
The reverses under Trump are too many to mention here, but – among other issues – I believe the UK ought to be pushing Washington on the following key areas.
First, support for international law. The US should be encouraged to swiftly re-join the UN Human Rights Council and – as per Biden’s recent pledge – the Paris Agreement on climate change. It must reverse its hostility to the WHO, the International Criminal Court and the Arms Trade Treaty, among other international bodies and treaties.
Second, gun control. Biden needs to face down the US' powerful gun lobby and finally do something about domestic gun violence. This should include introducing national regulations over the licensing and registering of firearms, mandating comprehensive background checks and banning all military-grade weapons
Third, end the mistreatment of asylum-seekers. After the Trump administration's shameless demonising of people fleeing violence and persecution, there should be major immigration reforms. These should include an end to the needless cruelty of separating and detaining families
Fourth, police reform. There should be a major re-think on policing, especially toward people of colour and Black Lives Matter protesters. Among other things, national data on police killings should be gathered and published, and all law enforcement agencies should be required to comply with international standards over using force.
While they’re at it, British officials ought to encourage the White House to rebuild relations with journalists. No more trash talk against people simply doing their jobs. We shouldn't in any way accept a political culture which routinely denounces inconvenient stories as 'fake news' or – more sinister still – slurs journalists as 'bad people' or 'enemies'”.
Of course the UK isn't itself spotless on human rights. Britain is shipping arms to Saudi Arabia despite the clear risk they'll be used to commit war crimes in Yemen. Police reforms are urgently needed here too – from a full review into how potentially-lethal Tasers are used, especially against minorities or vulnerable groups, to the way that ethnic minorities and protest groups are over-policed and criminalised.
But still, the UK must try. None of this is to suggest the Obama/Biden years were themselves golden ones for human rights – far from it. But Trump's presidency has been a nightmarish experience for many in the USA and further afield.
After four painful years in which an unscrupulous and reckless Trump administration has thought little of energising white supremacists and other hate-mongers, it really is time to walk all of this back. Even under Biden it won't be easy. But it must be attempted.
Kate Allen is director of Amnesty International UK. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-10--Is the trade war over? What a Biden presidency means for global trade

The US election is over and people are dancing in the streets .
But what does it all mean for trade policy generally , and UK trade policy in particular , asks absolutely no-one apart from a handful of trade nerds .
And if you 're reading this , that 's you - so I hope you 're reflecting soberly on the life choices which brought you to this place .
The truth is it 's very early and no one really knows yet , but let 's speculate wildly anyway .
On a UK-US free trade agreement ( FTA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the triumphalist pronouncements over the last few years about Donald Trump rapidly gifting the UK a generous FTA because he loves Boris Johnson , Brexit , or just out of his famous generosity of spirit were nonsense .
The US president is empowered to launch negotiations , but actually concluding them is done by the US trade representative exclusively on the basis of what can pass through Congress .
And Congress is never a cheap date .
Much has been made of Biden 's Irish roots and how closely he and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch the implications of Brexit on the Good Friday Agreement ( GFA ) .
On these issues , the Biden administration is most likely to take its cues from Dublin .
If Ireland is screaming about betrayal and bad faith , the US will mirror that concern .
If the taoiseach is more conciliatory , the US will probably mirror that too .
Overall , unless the UK completely tears up the Withdrawal Agreement and thus forces Dublin to build a land-border , the bigger barriers to a UK-US FTA in the short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , politically , entering into FTA negotiations with the UK carries as many risks as upsides .
Negotiations will inevitably get stuck on politically sensitive issues around agriculture and food standards .
With a US FTA no longer positioned by the Johnson administration as a holy grail justifying any and all Brexit hardship , and the intense public scrutiny on trade issues in the UK , the concessions the US can extract will likely fall short of US farmer expectations .
Biden thus risks being bogged down in contentious negotiations with a prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fond of , unable to extract sufficient concessions on agriculture to win over rural district votes in Congress , and without sufficient gains in other parts of the agreement to make a whipping operation successful .
You can see why he 's not prioritising it .
All signs suggest the Biden administration will have two guiding principles when it comes to trade policy generally , and the WTO in particular : • Ensuring it has the tools it needs to confront China and • Not being quite so big a dick about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world of contemporary US trade policy , everything can be traced back to the central thesis that existing rules are n't impeding Chinese state intervention in global markets but are hampering US efforts to protect itself against it .
The US views Chinese state capitalism as not only commercially damaging to US interests , but as fuelling the rise of China as a technological and geostrategic competitor to the US .
That 's not changing any time soon .
The ire of the US with the WTO 's appellate body - which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settling appeals on trade disputes - stems primarily from a number of rulings against the US efforts to protect itself from what it argued were artificially cheap goods from abroad .
That concern is n't going away .
For a number of boring technical , historical and political reasons , the rules as written are simply more robust when it comes to limiting the types of action the US is likely to use than the complex , opaque , and at times indirect state capitalism of China .
Given that changing or modernising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent , that concern is n't going away either .
That does n't mean nothing will change .
Trump and his US trade representative Robert Lighthizer believed that legally binding international arbitration is inherently bad for US interests so they cut the appellate body to its knees .
Biden is unlikely to support that approach .
The odds of a reconstituted appellate body therefore go from 'snowball in hell ' to 'yeah , maybe , eventually , under certain circumstances ' .
Biden wo n't be inherently opposed to the idea , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it from unduly impeding US efforts to confront China .
That 'll be a tough negotiation .
For the UK , which as an upper-middle power benefits from a predictable and rules based system , this is a step in the right direction .
Unlike the global behemoths of the US , EU and China , the UK can not rely on its market power to arm-twist concessions out of trading partners when there 's a dispute .
A predictable system where issues are decided on questions of law rather than power is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that same vein , the greater focus of the Biden administration on engaging with allies and the global community is a positive sign .
The UK has one of the most expansive and sophisticated diplomatic networks in the world .
It is at its strongest in a world of growing coalitions , plurilaterals and collaborative forums .
Trump , who thinks such things dilute US power , was a liability in this regard and the Biden administration 's avowed commitment should be an asset .
For example , the UK can look forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trans-Pacific-Partnership ( TPP ) , which the UK itself is hoping to join in coming years .
US membership of that trading bloc elevates it from considerably to hugely significant .
Ironically , simultaneous accession to the TPP could offer the UK a backdoor into many of the benefits it would otherwise require a US FTA to secure .
More broadly , the US political shift away from performative jerkdom could yield other benefits for global diplomacy .
Biden is far less likely to block the appointment of a WTO director-general , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Paris Climate Change Agreement , and will probably revert to the standard US position of deep exasperation with the United Nations rather than outright hostility to it .
The US is also unlikely to keep up the barrage of threats to which it subjected the international trading system during Trump 's tenure .
In addition to blocking the director-general appointment and breaking the appellate body , the US has held the WTO 's budget hostage , threatened to unilaterally raise all of its tariffs , said it will leave the WTO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of other things I 'm just too numb to even recall anymore .
The Biden administration may still throw its weight around , but the chaos should end .
All of this is to the UK 's advantage .
Britain is good at navigating intergovernmental organisations and multi-party diplomacy .
It will be even better when it no longer has to craft increasingly elaborate ways to explain to partners that it opposes whatever gauche thing the US just did but not enough to actually say so publicly .
For all his bluster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump really did n't deliver for British trade policy .
The one thing he could have done was throw his considerable weight behind a rapid FTA with the UK which did n't demand the difficult agricultural requirements Britain would struggle with .
But his transactional approach meant this was impossible .
His departure therefore has few downsides across the Atlantic .
Biden is even less likely to pick fights with Congress in order to secure a rapid trade agreement than Trump proved to be , but a US deal appears to have slipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
At least when it comes time to negotiate , Biden is less likely to follow the chaos-factor and hostage-taking approach Trump favoured .
We can expect fewer ultimatums and more grinding technical work .
Good .
Biden 's arrival should also herald a return to the style of trade diplomacy the UK is more comfortable with , but will not change fundamental US interests .
Confronting China will remain at the heart of US policy on trade , with all decisions viewed through the lens of how they impact that broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparatively low economic dependence on China and wide diplomatic network , is better positioned than some to navigate the turbulent waters that confrontation will stir up… provided it can weather the more local Brexit storms of its own making .
Dmitry Grozoubinski is the director of ExplainTrade , the executive-director of the Geneva Trade Platform , and a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde .
He previously served as a diplomat and trade negotiator for the Australian government , including for three years at the WTO .
You can follow him on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Dmitry Grozoubinski
The US election is over and people are dancing in the streets. But what does it all mean for trade policy generally, and UK trade policy in particular, asks absolutely no-one apart from a handful of trade nerds. And if you're reading this, that's you – so I hope you're reflecting soberly on the life choices which brought you to this place. The truth is it's very early and no one really knows yet, but let's speculate wildly anyway.
UK-US free trade agreement
On a UK-US free trade agreement (FTA), let's begin by restating that the triumphalist pronouncements over the last few years about Donald Trump rapidly gifting the UK a generous FTA because he loves Boris Johnson, Brexit, or just out of his famous generosity of spirit were nonsense. The US president is empowered to launch negotiations, but actually concluding them is done by the US trade representative exclusively on the basis of what can pass through Congress. And Congress is never a cheap date.
Much has been made of Biden's Irish roots and how closely he and the Irish Caucus in Congress are likely to watch the implications of Brexit on the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). On these issues, the Biden administration is most likely to take its cues from Dublin. If Ireland is screaming about betrayal and bad faith, the US will mirror that concern. If the taoiseach is more conciliatory, the US will probably mirror that too. Overall, unless the UK completely tears up the Withdrawal Agreement and thus forces Dublin to build a land-border, the bigger barriers to a UK-US FTA in the short term are elsewhere.
For President Biden, politically, entering into FTA negotiations with the UK carries as many risks as upsides. Negotiations will inevitably get stuck on politically sensitive issues around agriculture and food standards. With a US FTA no longer positioned by the Johnson administration as a holy grail justifying any and all Brexit hardship, and the intense public scrutiny on trade issues in the UK, the concessions the US can extract will likely fall short of US farmer expectations.
Biden thus risks being bogged down in contentious negotiations with a prime minister his own party is less than fond of, unable to extract sufficient concessions on agriculture to win over rural district votes in Congress, and without sufficient gains in other parts of the agreement to make a whipping operation successful.
You can see why he's not prioritising it.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO)
All signs suggest the Biden administration will have two guiding principles when it comes to trade policy generally, and the WTO in particular:
Ensuring it has the tools it needs to confront China and Not being quite so big a dick about it.
Confronting China
China is the ballgame. In the world of contemporary US trade policy, everything can be traced back to the central thesis that existing rules aren't impeding Chinese state intervention in global markets but are hampering US efforts to protect itself against it. The US views Chinese state capitalism as not only commercially damaging to US interests, but as fuelling the rise of China as a technological and geostrategic competitor to the US. That's not changing any time soon.
The ire of the US with the WTO's appellate body – which is akin to a court system for settling appeals on trade disputes – stems primarily from a number of rulings against the US efforts to protect itself from what it argued were artificially cheap goods from abroad. That concern isn't going away.
For a number of boring technical, historical and political reasons, the rules as written are simply more robust when it comes to limiting the types of action the US is likely to use than the complex, opaque, and at times indirect state capitalism of China. Given that changing or modernising the rules to address this requires Chinese consent, that concern isn't going away either.
That doesn't mean nothing will change. Trump and his US trade representative Robert Lighthizer believed that legally binding international arbitration is inherently bad for US interests so they cut the appellate body to its knees. Biden is unlikely to support that approach. The odds of a reconstituted appellate body therefore go from 'snowball in hell' to 'yeah, maybe, eventually, under certain circumstances'. Biden won't be inherently opposed to the idea, but will need to see reforms that preclude it from unduly impeding US efforts to confront China. That'll be a tough negotiation.
For the UK, which as an upper-middle power benefits from a predictable and rules based system, this is a step in the right direction. Unlike the global behemoths of the US, EU and China, the UK cannot rely on its market power to arm-twist concessions out of trading partners when there's a dispute. A predictable system where issues are decided on questions of law rather than power is to the UK's benefit.
A Friendlier Superpower
In that same vein, the greater focus of the Biden administration on engaging with allies and the global community is a positive sign. The UK has one of the most expansive and sophisticated diplomatic networks in the world. It is at its strongest in a world of growing coalitions, plurilaterals and collaborative forums. Trump, who thinks such things dilute US power, was a liability in this regard and the Biden administration's avowed commitment should be an asset.
For example, the UK can look forward to reengagement by the US in the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP), which the UK itself is hoping to join in coming years. US membership of that trading bloc elevates it from considerably to hugely significant. Ironically, simultaneous accession to the TPP could offer the UK a backdoor into many of the benefits it would otherwise require a US FTA to secure.
More broadly, the US political shift away from performative jerkdom could yield other benefits for global diplomacy. Biden is far less likely to block the appointment of a WTO director-general, has already signalled he wants the US back in the Paris Climate Change Agreement, and will probably revert to the standard US position of deep exasperation with the United Nations rather than outright hostility to it.
The US is also unlikely to keep up the barrage of threats to which it subjected the international trading system during Trump's tenure. In addition to blocking the director-general appointment and breaking the appellate body, the US has held the WTO's budget hostage, threatened to unilaterally raise all of its tariffs, said it will leave the WTO agreement on government procurement and probably a number of other things I'm just too numb to even recall anymore. The Biden administration may still throw its weight around, but the chaos should end.
All of this is to the UK's advantage. Britain is good at navigating intergovernmental organisations and multi-party diplomacy. It will be even better when it no longer has to craft increasingly elaborate ways to explain to partners that it opposes whatever gauche thing the US just did but not enough to actually say so publicly.
Tl;dr
For all his bluster, Farage-hugging and Scottish golf courses, Trump really didn't deliver for British trade policy. The one thing he could have done was throw his considerable weight behind a rapid FTA with the UK which didn't demand the difficult agricultural requirements Britain would struggle with. But his transactional approach meant this was impossible. His departure therefore has few downsides across the Atlantic.
Biden is even less likely to pick fights with Congress in order to secure a rapid trade agreement than Trump proved to be, but a US deal appears to have slipped down the priority list at No.10 as well. At least when it comes time to negotiate, Biden is less likely to follow the chaos-factor and hostage-taking approach Trump favoured. We can expect fewer ultimatums and more grinding technical work. Good.
Biden's arrival should also herald a return to the style of trade diplomacy the UK is more comfortable with, but will not change fundamental US interests. Confronting China will remain at the heart of US policy on trade, with all decisions viewed through the lens of how they impact that broader struggle. The UK, with its comparatively low economic dependence on China and wide diplomatic network, is better positioned than some to navigate the turbulent waters that confrontation will stir up… provided it can weather the more local Brexit storms of its own making.
Dmitry Grozoubinski is the director of ExplainTrade, the executive-director of the Geneva Trade Platform, and a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde. He previously served as a diplomat and trade negotiator for the Australian government, including for three years at the WTO. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-11--Britain legalised medicinal cannabis - and then left it to stagnate

There 's a bill going through the House of Lords which will decide how the country will regulate its medicines after January 2021 .
It 's called the medicines and medical devices bill .
Among other things , it will decide how a post-Brexit UK will maintain a high degree of patient access to the best medicines , guarantee patient safety and high manufacturing standards , and ensure British regulators do not stifle global investments into our life sciences industry .
The main sentiment underlying that debate is that Britain must retain its international reputation within the life sciences and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the unknown .
A no-deal Brexit will create abrupt and fast changes to British regulation , threatening the country 's attractiveness .
But it might at least prompt a shake-up of the regulatory status quo .
One of the industries that stands to greatly benefit from any change to the status quo is the British medical cannabis industry .
Since its legalisation in 2018 , the sector 's environment has stagnated .
British patients have barely benefitted : patient access has been sluggish and confined to less than 20 cannabis products being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million patients who currently self-medicate are stuck paying for pricey private prescriptions or accessing their medicine through the black market and risking arrest .
For such a leader in healthcare , why have so few British patients and businesses benefited from the industry getting the green light in 2018 ?
A lack of NHS funding into research has n't helped , and nor has a highly restrictive prescribing regime .
There 's been an extreme reluctance by the government to approve more domestic cannabis cultivation or allow British businesses to export .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preoccupied with its life sciences status has ignored an industry that complements our existing scientific , medical and agri-tech strengths so well .
Hanway Associates , a European cannabis consultancy , has recently produced a report that offers a glimpse of what Britain 's legal cannabis market could look like .
The report maps a burgeoning ecosystem across the continent , where regulators support industry to produce much-needed data on clinical efficacy , develop best practices and create pharmaceutical-quality formulations that will help consolidate medical cannabis ' identity as a valid , safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary case-study is Denmark , whose medical cannabis market is an excellent example of public-private collaboration and patient-centred policy-making .
The Danish Medicines Agency established two parallel four-year trials in 2018 : one into domestic medical use and one of domestic cultivation .
Through this model , Denmark integrated medical cannabis into its wider life sciences ambitions , fostering the development of the market .
It facilitated patient access by subsidising treatment , maintained high production standards , provided support to home-grown start-ups and created the right infrastructure for foreign investment .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a billion pounds have poured into the country from international investments , helping create around 600 jobs in its first two years of existence .
The Danish example shows how the medicines and medical devices bill 's three main concerns - patient access , patient safety , and attractiveness - can all be ensured through a healthy medical cannabis ecosystem .
Loosening restrictions on GP prescriptions , improving incentives for entrepreneurs and stimulating funding into research through public-private partnerships are just some of the many suggestions by industry bodies and professionals they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government 's remit to develop a nurturing ecosystem that both works for patients and entrepreneurs .
We can only hope that parliament will help build a bill that can start the long post-Brexit journey off with the right step .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By André Gomes
There's a bill going through the House of Lords which will decide how the country will regulate its medicines after January 2021. It's called the medicines and medical devices bill. Among other things, it will decide how a post-Brexit UK will maintain a high degree of patient access to the best medicines, guarantee patient safety and high manufacturing standards, and ensure British regulators do not stifle global investments into our life sciences industry.
The main sentiment underlying that debate is that Britain must retain its international reputation within the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries.
Brexit represents a step into the unknown. A no-deal Brexit will create abrupt and fast changes to British regulation, threatening the country's attractiveness. But it might at least prompt a shake-up of the regulatory status quo.
One of the industries that stands to greatly benefit from any change to the status quo is the British medical cannabis industry. Since its legalisation in 2018, the sector's environment has stagnated. British patients have barely benefitted: patient access has been sluggish and confined to less than 20 cannabis products being prescribed on the NHS. The 1.4 million patients who currently self-medicate are stuck paying for pricey private prescriptions or accessing their medicine through the black market and risking arrest.
For such a leader in healthcare, why have so few British patients and businesses benefited from the industry getting the green light in 2018? A lack of NHS funding into research hasn't helped, and nor has a highly restrictive prescribing regime. There's been an extreme reluctance by the government to approve more domestic cannabis cultivation or allow British businesses to export.
It is a shame that a country so preoccupied with its life sciences status has ignored an industry that complements our existing scientific, medical and agri-tech strengths so well.
Hanway Associates, a European cannabis consultancy, has recently produced a report that offers a glimpse of what Britain's legal cannabis market could look like. The report maps a burgeoning ecosystem across the continent, where regulators support industry to produce much-needed data on clinical efficacy, develop best practices and create pharmaceutical-quality formulations that will help consolidate medical cannabis' identity as a valid, safe and effective form of medicine.
Their primary case-study is Denmark, whose medical cannabis market is an excellent example of public-private collaboration and patient-centred policy-making. The Danish Medicines Agency established two parallel four-year trials in 2018: one into domestic medical use and one of domestic cultivation.
Through this model, Denmark integrated medical cannabis into its wider life sciences ambitions, fostering the development of the market. It facilitated patient access by subsidising treatment, maintained high production standards, provided support to home-grown start-ups and created the right infrastructure for foreign investment. In two years, almost a quarter of a billion pounds have poured into the country from international investments, helping create around 600 jobs in its first two years of existence.
The Danish example shows how the medicines and medical devices bill's three main concerns – patient access, patient safety, and attractiveness – can all be ensured through a healthy medical cannabis ecosystem. Loosening restrictions on GP prescriptions, improving incentives for entrepreneurs and stimulating funding into research through public-private partnerships are just some of the many suggestions by industry bodies and professionals they could follow.
It is entirely within the government's remit to develop a nurturing ecosystem that both works for patients and entrepreneurs. We can only hope that parliament will help build a bill that can start the long post-Brexit journey off with the right step.
André Gomes is a drug policy researcher and health policy consultant. You can follow him on Twitter and Medium.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-12--No.10 chaos: Small people for serious times

You could n't ask for a greater demonstration of their lack of suitability for government .
Yesterday the coronavirus death toll hit 50,000 in the UK .
Talks between London and Brussels drifted past another deadline , with just weeks to go until the transition ends .
No.10 faces a new American president who is critical of its whole programme and the character of the man in charge in particular .
And what were they doing ?
Stabbing away at each other in a pointless factional power struggle .
The broad outlines of the story , as far as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of leaks and briefings , are depressingly mundane .
Downing Street 's director of communications Lee Cain considered the appointment of Allegra Stratton as TV press secretary to be a challenge to his authority .
He worked with his ally Dominic Cummings , the chief aide to the prime minister , to try to reassert their authority by getting him a promotion to chief of staff .
They pursued this , at least in part , by some aggressive leaks .
A great deal of the news we 've read in recent weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaking war , from the announcement of the lockdown we 're currently under to the events we 're currently reading about .
Under pressure from various others , Johnson stood up to the assault , basically being bounced to-and-fro between tribal groupings .
Cain resigned yesterday , leaving Cummings considering his own position - or at least that 's what we 're told , presumably again on the basis of his own leaks .
It 's very boring , like a Greek tragedy written by donkeys .
This type of soap opera usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in truth there 's no content to it .
That 's the remarkable element to all this .
There 's not the slightest whiff of principle , or conviction , or genuinely held opinion .
It is just pure power games .
This is not about Brexit , or covid , or even the strategic decisions which might go into pursuing those issues .
Just factional manoeuvring without an underlying purpose , the ego freed from the skull .
It is remarkable that Cain is able to resign at all .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguably the most inept aspect of the government 's performance , although admittedly it is a competitive field .
Month after month , the government fails to communicate its message , often on issues of supreme significance .
Of course , that is in no small part due to the confusion and lack of interest in the prime minister 's own brain .
But comms is comms , and the person in charge of them should take responsibility .
When one of the most famous examples of prime ministerial communication is Matt Lucas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work , do n't go to work '' , then you have a comms problem .
And it is extraordinary that the person behind it was able to resign rather than be fired .
We regularly see extremely infantile political disputes in the governing party , from people like John Redwood banging on about some aspect of Brexit they have half-understood or Iain Duncan Smith deciding he can increase his media profile by regurgitating some nonsense about coronavirus lockdowns .
But even in these embarrassingly tiny-minded examples , there is at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is a distant whiff of possible conviction .
This week 's little dimwit soap opera has nothing of the sort .
Trying to care about it is like trying to eat a photo of food .
It would be a pitiful spectacle at the best of times .
At the moment , it is unconscionable .
The country is in a lockdown after the government lost control of the covid pandemic .
The 50,000 death toll is the highest in Europe .
Its plans for alleviating the impact keep falling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in negotiations with Brussels .
But even if there is a deal , British businesses are about to be hit by a brute moment of bureaucracy for which many appear unprepared .
They will need customs entry and exit documents , safety and security documentation , regulatory compliance for sanitary and phytosanitary products , not to even mention the unprecedented customs system being imposed for Northern Ireland .
Many firms will need to stockpile to avoid delays due to Brexit while simultaneously having to preserve capital due to the effect of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are serious times .
But they are such small people .
To spend this week in their little power struggle is a fundamental failure of national responsibility .
There 's little reason to believe that the people left when the dust settles will do a better job than the ones currently having a meltdown on the way out .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the views of the website or its owners .

By Ian Dunt
You couldn't ask for a greater demonstration of their lack of suitability for government. Yesterday the coronavirus death toll hit 50,000 in the UK. Talks between London and Brussels drifted past another deadline, with just weeks to go until the transition ends. No.10 faces a new American president who is critical of its whole programme and the character of the man in charge in particular. And what were they doing? Stabbing away at each other in a pointless factional power struggle.
The broad outlines of the story, as far as we can make it out from the fog of leaks and briefings, are depressingly mundane. Downing Street's director of communications Lee Cain considered the appointment of Allegra Stratton as TV press secretary to be a challenge to his authority. He worked with his ally Dominic Cummings, the chief aide to the prime minister, to try to reassert their authority by getting him a promotion to chief of staff. They pursued this, at least in part, by some aggressive leaks. A great deal of the news we've read in recent weeks may have been a result of that leaking war, from the announcement of the lockdown we're currently under to the events we're currently reading about.
Under pressure from various others, Johnson stood up to the assault, basically being bounced to-and-fro between tribal groupings. Cain resigned yesterday, leaving Cummings considering his own position – or at least that's what we're told, presumably again on the basis of his own leaks.
It's very boring, like a Greek tragedy written by donkeys. This type of soap opera usually gets political reporters really rather excited, but in truth there's no content to it. That's the remarkable element to all this. There's not the slightest whiff of principle, or conviction, or genuinely held opinion. It is just pure power games. This is not about Brexit, or covid, or even the strategic decisions which might go into pursuing those issues. Just factional manoeuvring without an underlying purpose, the ego freed from the skull.
It is remarkable that Cain is able to resign at all. He has been in charge of communications – arguably the most inept aspect of the government's performance, although admittedly it is a competitive field. Month after month, the government fails to communicate its message, often on issues of supreme significance.
Of course, that is in no small part due to the confusion and lack of interest in the prime minister's own brain. But comms is comms, and the person in charge of them should take responsibility. When one of the most famous examples of prime ministerial communication is Matt Lucas mocking it with the phrase "go to work, don't go to work", then you have a comms problem. And it is extraordinary that the person behind it was able to resign rather than be fired.
We regularly see extremely infantile political disputes in the governing party, from people like John Redwood banging on about some aspect of Brexit they have half-understood or Iain Duncan Smith deciding he can increase his media profile by regurgitating some nonsense about coronavirus lockdowns. But even in these embarrassingly tiny-minded examples, there is at least a trace-element of political content to them, there is a distant whiff of possible conviction. This week's little dimwit soap opera has nothing of the sort. Trying to care about it is like trying to eat a photo of food.
It would be a pitiful spectacle at the best of times. At the moment, it is unconscionable. The country is in a lockdown after the government lost control of the covid pandemic. The 50,000 death toll is the highest in Europe. Its plans for alleviating the impact keep falling to nothing.
There is still no deal in negotiations with Brussels. But even if there is a deal, British businesses are about to be hit by a brute moment of bureaucracy for which many appear unprepared. They will need customs entry and exit documents, safety and security documentation, regulatory compliance for sanitary and phytosanitary products, not to even mention the unprecedented customs system being imposed for Northern Ireland. Many firms will need to stockpile to avoid delays due to Brexit while simultaneously having to preserve capital due to the effect of the pandemic: a man-made combination of crises.
These are serious times. But they are such small people. To spend this week in their little power struggle is a fundamental failure of national responsibility. There's little reason to believe that the people left when the dust settles will do a better job than the ones currently having a meltdown on the way out.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-13--Week in Review: The fall of Dominic Cummings

The main lesson is as simple as it is persuasive : it is good when bad people go away .
You can get lost in political strategising or big-picture theorising , but the fundamentals are really very basic .
Bad people are bad and when they go away it is good .
Dominic Cummings is a bad influence on British political life .
He actively works to eradicate truth as a currency with any value in debate , he advanced his projects through division and tribal animosity , he treats critical voices as an enemy conspiracy and demonstrates no capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently , he is going away .
The BBC 's Laura Kuenssberg confirmed he was off by Christmas , with a quote , on the record , from him confirming it , albeit obviously draped in misdirection .
`` Rumours of me threatening to resign are invented , rumours of me asking others to resign are invented , '' he said , swiftly followed by a confirmation that everything he had just said was nonsense : `` My position hasn ’ t changed since my January blog . ''
The January blog had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misfits '' to `` make me much less important — and within a year largely redundant '' .
So in other words , the rumours of him resigning were not invented and doubtless those of asking others to resign were n't either .
This is a fairly standard tactic in politics - to pretend that a humiliating change is in fact the continuation of an existing policy .
It 's quite clearly not true .
Would Boris Johnson really have taken all that political damage over the Barnard Castle debacle if it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed wisdom ?
Unlikely .
But even within that dishonourable tradition , you could still see the unique Cummings template in the text .
The use of the word `` invented '' was a reminder of how he operated : taking true statements and treating them as false , and then laying on a gruel of innuendo and conspiracy theory .
This was just the last sad appeal to the process he had always promoted - the corrosion of any sense of honour or objective truth in politics .
Far from being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually quite striking how quickly Cummings ' star has fallen .
Not so long ago Boris Johnson was getting rid of his own chancellor , Sajid Javid , because he would n't accept a Cummings loyalist spying on him in his department .
And days ago he was preparing to accept Lee Cain , who had catastrophically failed as head of communications , as his chief of staff , partly in order to placate Cummings .
But the leaking war Cummings engaged in to consolidate his position suddenly fell apart and now his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they entered , in truth by how they have conducted themselves throughout .
The Vote Leave faction was busy last night telling journalists that without them there would be a push from `` Remainers '' - if you can find them in this government let me know - to extend the Brexit transition process .
In fact , this is not possible .
The deadline for extension passed months ago .
So there they were , unchanged : inventing conspiracies , blaming everything on phantom Remainers , lying incessantly in order to advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit proceeds under them is quite different .
It is that they promise the earth and then run away just as it gets difficult .
And on January 1st it is about to get very difficult indeed .
Some people believe that , with Cummings gone , the government will soften .
The culture war will end , with no more attacks on the courts or the BBC .
The aggression - towards opponents and even other government departments - will stop .
That would be highly desirable , but it 's the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see before we believed it .
There are plenty of others around Johnson who follow a similar approach .
Priti Patel - apparently part of the cabal which acted against Cummings - is not about to stop talking about 'left-wing activist lawyers ' .
But even if that were n't the case , the conspiratorial way of thinking is not just about personnel .
It is about the Brexit process itself .
The project is based on the idea that things will magically improve for Britain in some unspecified way once it leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January will see the return of borders to a continent which has eradicated them .
That means bureaucracy - turgid , endless forms and requirements , at ports , exporting companies , freight forwarders , borders , and customs authorities .
It 's going to be chaotic and it is going to be grim .
Johnson will not be able to admit that this is because of Brexit , the project he himself has supported and pursued .
So it will once again have to be the fault of someone else - Remainers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ill-prepared businesses .
Anyone but himself .
And so the post-truth element of government communication initiated by Cummings will have to continue .
Things will hopefully soften .
But the basic outlines of the agenda - using tribalism as a substitute for truth - will endure .
It must do , because the underlying project has no other foundation upon which to operate .
Still .
Basics are basics .
Two plus two equals four .
The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening .
And it is good when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite all the caveats , is what has happened here .
It 's been a fine couple of weeks .
Trump losing .
A covid vaccine on the horizon .
And now it looks like Cummings is off .
More like this please .
We 'll take our wins where we can get them .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or its owners .

The main lesson is as simple as it is persuasive: it is good when bad people go away. You can get lost in political strategising or big-picture theorising, but the fundamentals are really very basic. Bad people are bad and when they go away it is good.
Dominic Cummings is a bad influence on British political life. He actively works to eradicate truth as a currency with any value in debate, he advanced his projects through division and tribal animosity, he treats critical voices as an enemy conspiracy and demonstrates no capacity for competent government.
And now, apparently, he is going away. The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg confirmed he was off by Christmas, with a quote, on the record, from him confirming it, albeit obviously draped in misdirection. "Rumours of me threatening to resign are invented, rumours of me asking others to resign are invented," he said, swiftly followed by a confirmation that everything he had just said was nonsense: "My position hasn’t changed since my January blog."
The January blog had spoken of hiring various "weirdos and misfits" to "make me much less important — and within a year largely redundant". So in other words, the rumours of him resigning were not invented and doubtless those of asking others to resign weren't either.
This is a fairly standard tactic in politics – to pretend that a humiliating change is in fact the continuation of an existing policy. It's quite clearly not true. Would Boris Johnson really have taken all that political damage over the Barnard Castle debacle if it was for another few months of Cummings' supposed wisdom? Unlikely.
But even within that dishonourable tradition, you could still see the unique Cummings template in the text. The use of the word "invented" was a reminder of how he operated: taking true statements and treating them as false, and then laying on a gruel of innuendo and conspiracy theory. This was just the last sad appeal to the process he had always promoted – the corrosion of any sense of honour or objective truth in politics.
Far from being a continuation of existing policy, it's actually quite striking how quickly Cummings' star has fallen. Not so long ago Boris Johnson was getting rid of his own chancellor, Sajid Javid, because he wouldn't accept a Cummings loyalist spying on him in his department. And days ago he was preparing to accept Lee Cain, who had catastrophically failed as head of communications, as his chief of staff, partly in order to placate Cummings. But the leaking war Cummings engaged in to consolidate his position suddenly fell apart and now his faction is disintegrating.
They leave as they entered, in truth by how they have conducted themselves throughout. The Vote Leave faction was busy last night telling journalists that without them there would be a push from "Remainers" – if you can find them in this government let me know – to extend the Brexit transition process. In fact, this is not possible. The deadline for extension passed months ago. So there they were, unchanged: inventing conspiracies, blaming everything on phantom Remainers, lying incessantly in order to advance their interests.
The reality of how Brexit proceeds under them is quite different. It is that they promise the earth and then run away just as it gets difficult. And on January 1st it is about to get very difficult indeed.
Some people believe that, with Cummings gone, the government will soften. The culture war will end, with no more attacks on the courts or the BBC. The aggression – towards opponents and even other government departments – will stop. That would be highly desirable, but it's the kind of thing we'd have to see before we believed it. There are plenty of others around Johnson who follow a similar approach. Priti Patel – apparently part of the cabal which acted against Cummings – is not about to stop talking about 'left-wing activist lawyers'.
But even if that weren't the case, the conspiratorial way of thinking is not just about personnel. It is about the Brexit process itself. The project is based on the idea that things will magically improve for Britain in some unspecified way once it leaves the EU. The reality is that January will see the return of borders to a continent which has eradicated them. That means bureaucracy – turgid, endless forms and requirements, at ports, exporting companies, freight forwarders, borders, and customs authorities. It's going to be chaotic and it is going to be grim.
Johnson will not be able to admit that this is because of Brexit, the project he himself has supported and pursued. So it will once again have to be the fault of someone else – Remainers, perhaps, or Europeans, or ill-prepared businesses. Anyone but himself. And so the post-truth element of government communication initiated by Cummings will have to continue.
Things will hopefully soften. But the basic outlines of the agenda – using tribalism as a substitute for truth – will endure. It must do, because the underlying project has no other foundation upon which to operate.
Still. Basics are basics. Two plus two equals four. The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. And it is good when bad people go away.
That, despite all the caveats, is what has happened here. It's been a fine couple of weeks. Trump losing. A covid vaccine on the horizon. And now it looks like Cummings is off. More like this please. We'll take our wins where we can get them.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-18--Our plan for a moderate Labour party

Our plan for a moderate Labour party

The recent National Executive Committee ( NEC ) elections were a further advance for moderates in the Labour party .
More votes , more seats and , as a result , a working majority for Keir Starmer on our governing body that will allow him to change the party and make it a real electoral force in the country .
Labour to Win co-director Luke Akehurst - perceived as the pantomime villain by the left of our party - was way ahead at the top of the ballot .
It was great to see Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work on the NEC , be re-elected .
But now is the time to grow and not to crow .
Am I disappointed that the rest of the moderate slate are not on our NEC ?
Of course .
Our other three candidates - Terry Paul , Shama Tatler and Michael Payne - would have been a real credit to the party .
Am I upset that the hard left won some representation on the NEC ?
No .
The left has always been a tradition within our party .
They have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But so , for that matter , have we .
There is a misconception that the Labour party was born out of dyed-in-the-wool socialist revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow capitalism .
This origin myth is unhelpful and wrong .
It was born out of trade unions seeking a parliamentary voice , Fabian gradualism , ethical Christian socialism , pacts with Liberals .
It was born out of lived experience .
It was born out of political pragmatism .
There is this assumption on parts of the left that moderates are a somehow diluted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handed around at breaks in the cricket .
Tony Benn used to categorise politicians as either 'signposts ' or 'weathervanes ' .
Signposts indicate the way ahead - resolute , unchanging in the face of criticism or challenge .
Weathervanes spin on their axis , responding swiftly and unthinkingly to changes in the prevailing wind .
It has been fashionable lately to want to be a signpost , rather than a weathervane .
Benn hit on an important distinction .
It is a disagreement around the nature of context and its importance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is fundamental - it is the end .
It justifies itself and needs nothing more than itself .
Socialism is correct in every possible world .
It is scriptural and it has commandments .
Benn was right – it is rigid and unchanging .
It labels and it categorises groups , it is binary : you are either with us or against us .
It ascribes unworldly power to the establishment and then asks for it to be overthrown .
It is a fundamentalist creed , that accepts no criticism or dissent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the politics of one-size-fits-all .
This view of politics is a part of the Labour party , without a doubt .
But it is not the Labour party .
I know there will be many who will react with fury at these words , which sort of proves my point .
If you feel I am being unfair and the hard left is more flexible than I am arguing , then your response will be one of discussion and not anger .
The left-wing tradition in the Labour party which the Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the party .
But let 's be clear : There has always been a mainstream , majoritarian tradition too .
So , what is this moderate alternative ?
It starts with the realisation that socialism is a means towards an end rather than an end in itself .
The real end is human flourishing and opportunity .
It is a commitment to pluralism as the only honourable means towards that end , a belief that wisdom and truth have many fathers .
It is also a willingness to understand the demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world as we find it , not as we want it .
Instead of commandments , it has what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called a family resemblance .
You can not define that context but you can understand it .
If people are struggling for money at the end of the month , the answer is not socialism or revolution - it is a wage increase .
Our tradition has no set texts and scriptures .
In their place , it has dialogue and discussion .
It will make mistakes , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tradition of the museum .
But crucially , it has election victories - not least '45 and '97 .
Historically , there has always been room in the Labour party for competing traditions .
It is not a lack of bravery that is stopping moderates agreeing with the left .
It is a different conceptual way of looking at the world .
As the national organiser for Labour to Win I do not want my organisation to simply rely on turning out those who already consider themselves moderates .
I do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back the current Labour leadership to support our candidates in internal elections .
I want to reach out to those on the left of the party and suggest there may be a different way of being a socialist , one that actually has more chance of practically changing society for the better than dreaming of an unattainable utopia .
It may not provide them with the certainty that they now have .
It may not give them the satisfaction of always knowing who is wrong and who is right .
It is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often means that you find yourself criticised by all the sides .
However , it is a rejection of the politics of the pantomime .
It is a willingness to push boundaries and be a collection of different positions .
There are no loyalty tests or pledges of allegiance .
You can dip in and out .
You can believe people disagree with you from a position of good faith and not bad .
Tony Blair is not Voldemort , and neither is Tony Benn .
Try our form of politics on for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , it gave us the NHS , the minimum wage and the Good Friday agreement .
If you do not like it , there are other traditions to return to .
So my message is clear .
Labour to Win will be a home for anyone in our party that wants a Labour party under Keir Starmer to win .
If you voted for Laura Pidcock this time rather than Johanna Baxter , you are still welcome to vote for our slate next time .
Our aim is to build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on socialism but acknowledges its current weakness with the electorate so we can build a better form .
We do not believe that socialism ended with Karl Marx .
It 's something that is living and breathing and open to change .
Apart from being the national organiser for Labour to Win , I am on the executive of Labour For A Basic Income .
I know many other moderates will not agree with me , and that is okay .
We can disagree with common goals in sight .
This is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged .
We do not want to be weathervanes for the sake of it .
We want to understand the weather , so that one day we can make it .
I hope , with your help , that one day we will .
Lloyd Duddridge is the national organiser for Labour to Win .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Lloyd Duddridge
The recent National Executive Committee (NEC) elections were a further advance for moderates in the Labour party. More votes, more seats and, as a result, a working majority for Keir Starmer on our governing body that will allow him to change the party and make it a real electoral force in the country.
Labour to Win co-director Luke Akehurst – perceived as the pantomime villain by the left of our party – was way ahead at the top of the ballot. It was great to see Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan, who have already done such great work on the NEC, be re-elected.
But now is the time to grow and not to crow.
Am I disappointed that the rest of the moderate slate are not on our NEC? Of course. Our other three candidates – Terry Paul, Shama Tatler and Michael Payne – would have been a real credit to the party. Am I upset that the hard left won some representation on the NEC? No. The left has always been a tradition within our party. They have been there since before it was founded.
But so, for that matter, have we. There is a misconception that the Labour party was born out of dyed-in-the-wool socialist revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow capitalism. This origin myth is unhelpful and wrong. It was born out of trade unions seeking a parliamentary voice, Fabian gradualism, ethical Christian socialism, pacts with Liberals. It was born out of lived experience. It was born out of political pragmatism.
There is this assumption on parts of the left that moderates are a somehow diluted version of themselves, a weak squash handed around at breaks in the cricket. Tony Benn used to categorise politicians as either ‘signposts’ or ‘weathervanes’. Signposts indicate the way ahead – resolute, unchanging in the face of criticism or challenge. Weathervanes spin on their axis, responding swiftly and unthinkingly to changes in the prevailing wind. It has been fashionable lately to want to be a signpost, rather than a weathervane.
Benn hit on an important distinction. It is a disagreement around the nature of context and its importance. For people on the left, socialism is fundamental – it is the end. It justifies itself and needs nothing more than itself. Socialism is correct in every possible world. It is scriptural and it has commandments. Benn was right – it is rigid and unchanging. It labels and it categorises groups, it is binary: you are either with us or against us. It ascribes unworldly power to the establishment and then asks for it to be overthrown. It is a fundamentalist creed that accepts no criticism or dissent. It is a constitutional creed. It is the politics of one-size-fits-all.
This view of politics is a part of the Labour party, without a doubt. But it is not the Labour party. I know there will be many who will react with fury at these words, which sort of proves my point. If you feel I am being unfair and the hard left is more flexible than I am arguing, then your response will be one of discussion and not anger.
The left-wing tradition in the Labour party which the Corbyn project evolved out of has always been part of the party. But let’s be clear: There has always been a mainstream, majoritarian tradition too.
So, what is this moderate alternative? It starts with the realisation that socialism is a means towards an end rather than an end in itself. The real end is human flourishing and opportunity. It is a commitment to pluralism as the only honourable means towards that end, a belief that wisdom and truth have many fathers.
It is also a willingness to understand the demands of context and how that has shaped the world as we find it, not as we want it. Instead of commandments, it has what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called a family resemblance. You cannot define that context but you can understand it. If people are struggling for money at the end of the month, the answer is not socialism or revolution – it is a wage increase.
Our tradition has no set texts and scriptures. In their place, it has dialogue and discussion. It will make mistakes, as it is a living politics and not the tradition of the museum. But crucially, it has election victories – not least ’45 and ’97.
Historically, there has always been room in the Labour party for competing traditions. It is not a lack of bravery that is stopping moderates agreeing with the left. It is a different conceptual way of looking at the world.
As the national organiser for Labour to Win, I do not want my organisation to simply rely on turning out those who already consider themselves moderates. I do not even just want to encourage those who back the current Labour leadership to support our candidates in internal elections. I want to reach out to those on the left of the party and suggest there may be a different way of being a socialist, one that actually has more chance of practically changing society for the better than dreaming of an unattainable utopia.
It may not provide them with the certainty that they now have. It may not give them the satisfaction of always knowing who is wrong and who is right. It is a messier way of doing politics, and often means that you find yourself criticised by all the sides. However, it is a rejection of the politics of the pantomime. It is a willingness to push boundaries and be a collection of different positions. There are no loyalty tests or pledges of allegiance. You can dip in and out. You can believe people disagree with you from a position of good faith and not bad. Tony Blair is not Voldemort, and neither is Tony Benn.
Try our form of politics on for size. You might like it. After all, it gave us the NHS, the minimum wage and the Good Friday agreement. If you do not like it, there are other traditions to return to.
So my message is clear: Labour to Win will be a home for anyone in our party that wants a Labour party under Keir Starmer to win. If you voted for Laura Pidcock this time rather than Johanna Baxter, you are still welcome to vote for our slate next time.
Our aim is to build a Labour party that does not give up on socialism but acknowledges its current weakness with the electorate so we can build a better form. We do not believe that socialism ended with Karl Marx. It’s something that is living and breathing and open to change.
Apart from being the national organiser for Labour to Win, I am on the executive of Labour For A Basic Income. I know many other moderates will not agree with me, and that is okay. We can disagree with common goals in sight. This is not just possible – it is to be encouraged.
We do not want to be weathervanes for the sake of it. We want to understand the weather, so that one day we can make it. I hope, with your help, that one day we will.
Lloyd Duddridge is the national organiser for Labour to Win. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.