A worthy host for the Olympics ?

China was not a universally popular choice for hosting the 2008 Olympic Games. At the time many people, quite rightly, highlighted the human rights record of the world’s most populous country, ranging from the occupation of Tibet, to the high level of executions without due process, the imprisonment of political prisoners, the suppression of religion….

Communist China, is, however, one of the most important economies in the world- not least in terms of consumer manufacturing: most British and American households would be pretty empty if all the Chinese furniture and electrical goods were removed ! The US- the “Land of the free” had, therefore, to become China’s new best friend in order to keep the markets open !
Which is why I was pleasantly surprised that George W. Bush was able to speak out so comprehensively on human rights concerns l on the eve of the games.

“The US believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings… America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates and religious activists," (Source: BBC News 7.8.08) "

Admittedly this was in Thailand , so not a direct insult to his hosts, but it was still a powerful message. China, of course, dismisses any such criticism as interfering in their “internal affairs”. It cannot, however, avoid the fact that as part of its highly controversial, but successful bid to be awarded the games, it made promises on human rights, media freedoms and access to health and education, that seem to have been mysteriously forgotten.

If ever an opening ceremony became a metaphor for China’s shortcomings, this was it. The footage of spectacular downtown fireworks shown round the world turned out to have been touched up- some were completely computer generated; and the little girl “singing” in the opening ceremony turned out to be miming: as the girl with the best voice, Yang Peiyi, was judged to be - and I quote:- “not as flawless” as the pretty little girl we saw on our screens. (Source: BBC News, 12.08.08)

Many of us remember Tiananmen Square only too vividly. Things may have improved, but China still has a long way to travel on the human rights road before it truly deserves the international acclaim that it has (temporarily) won in these Olympics.

Lessons from the cinema ?

The arty theme continues, as I was also lucky enough last week to get along to see the superb film Cass (making me a rarity in Eastbourne, as it involved a late night drive to Crawley for the privilege.) My original reason for making the journey had been because the film features my friend and former student Jayson Wheatley, (who plays one of the main characters “when they were younger”,) however, it left me wondering why this compelling British movie did not enjoy the wide release it deserved

Cass tells the true story of Cass Pennant, a black lad adopted by white parents in the 1950’s, and growing up in the then predominantly white working-class East end. Cass is attracted by the sense of belonging through following a football club, and becomes involved in one of the “firms” of organised football hooligans that characterised that period in the lat 1970’s and early 80’s.
Cass rises to become one of the leading organisers of a West Ham firm, ultimately ending up serving a severe jail sentence. On his release, he finds a new and successful career supervising the doors of nightclubs in London’s roughest areas (including Lewisham… I used to live there….) However, the ghosts of the past are still present, and surface in a number of dramatic twists- which I won’t tell you as you need to go and see the film yourself (or get it when it comes out on DVD.)

Cass is an important piece of recent social history. Young football fans in the family-friendly atmosphere of today may not realise just how far the game has come. The culture of violence permeated the game in the 1980’s- with many other “firms” like those in the film sprung up- attached to all the big clubs (and a few smaller ones as well) Far-right groups like the National Front infiltrated many of these- a number of the current BNP top brass have convictions for football hooliganism. The most significant incident was the 1985 Heysel Stadium disaster, in which 39 fans died, and, as a result, English clubs were banned from all European tournaments (a ban not lifted for five years)

A wide ranging enquiry into football by Judge Popplewell the same year concluded ominously: “football may not be able to continue in its present form much longer” (Source: Conservative Governments and Football Regulation)

The determination of the government to tackle the problem, coupled with the wide reaching Taylor Report that followed the Hillsborough Stadium disaster (which was not in any way hooligan related) brought in a range of provisions to clean up the game. Additionally, following Hillsborough, the terraces were replaced by all-seater stadia, and the perimeter fences were removed. Racist chanting was specifically criminalised, and fans groups (such as Show Racism the Red Card, and Manchester United supporters' anti-fascist organisation Red Attitude) challenged some of the issues of racist and fascist involvement in organised violence.

Can we learn from the manner in which a whole culture was changed ?

The fans themselves, supported, but not directed by political leaders on all sides, were able to completely alter the culture around the game. By making the hooligan culture socially unacceptable, and fostering a determination to remove the perpetrators of gang violence from the game (including the imposition of long, or even life, bans from their chosen club) football was taken back for the law-abiding fans and for the family.

Of course, things aren’t perfect, but they’re a far cry from where we were in the ‘80s. Could we learn lessons from the demise of the football hooligan culture in tackling the current plague of knife crime in our cities ? Certainly any ratcheting up of punishments will only have an effect if it is alongside a concerted effort to stigmatise knife-carrying amongst the impressionable young people who currently accept it as a way of life.

(Interestingly, Jayson also popped up in an advertising campaign trying to do exactly that: if you saw the “not a good look” ads on MTV and elsewhere, he was the guy in the orange suit. )

If you get a chance to see Cass (and indeed similar films like Green Street) then do so- pieces of our recent social history- and who knows, maybe we can learn something from it…

Arty Time

It’s been quite an artsy couple of weeks- having enjoyed the Rattonians’ visually stunning Copacabana, and the array of work (so far) as part of my good friend and colleague Steve Scott’s Shakespeare Experience- to date: a fantastic evening at Louise Jameson’s one-woman show Through Women’s Eyes (collection of Shakespeare monologues for women, interspersed with stories from Louise’s distinguished past) then the result of a week’s intense work with Louise by a group of young performers in Wotcha Will- another superb “best of the Bard” piece; and then topped off with An Audience With Colin Baker- a man with a virtual treasury of stories from a long career (and not just the years when he was playing “him”)

I have worked with Steve for many years- our company Grassy Knoll put on a number of quality fringe productions, and on some occasions were lucky to secure some grant funding. This, however is getting tighter, and, the conventional wisdom goes, the only projects that will be funded between now and 2013 will be those that incorporate five rings into the project somehow....

The quality of a civilisation can be measured by its arts: its theatre, literature, music, etc. We had our arguments about this in the 1980’s: Norman Tebbit was a fearsome critic of the Arts Council and the very principle of state funding for arts projects (the Thatcherites believed that the “Market” would solve everything) Margaret Thatcher herself was more accommodating, but made no secret of her dislike for the National Theatre- our only really well funded producer of challenging drama. She made just one visit to a production during her time in office: Amadeus, where she berated the director, Sir Peter Hall, for his and Peter Shaffer's (historically accurate) interpretation of the great composer...

“She was not pleased. In her best headmistress style, she gave me a severe wigging for putting on a play that depicted Mozart as a scatological imp with a love of four-letter words. It was inconceivable, she said, that a man who wrote such exquisite and elegant music could be so foul mouthed. I said that Mozart’s
letters proved he was just that: he had an extraordinarily infantile sense of humour. In a sense, he protected himself from maturity by indulging his childishness. 'I don’t think you heard what I said,' replied the Prime Minister. 'He couldn’t have been like that'. I offered (and sent) a copy of Mozart’s letters to Number Ten the next day; I was even thanked by the appropriate Private Secretary. But it was useless: the Prime Minster said I was wrong, so wrong I was." Source: Peter Hall, quoted by the Shffield Theatres

The former Tory MP Terry Dicks bemoaned the very existence of arts funding – paying for “someone prancing around in a box”: his attack on this in the House of Commons was countered by the late champion of the arts Tony Banks, who opined that “it was proof that a pig’s bladder on a stick can get elected to Parliament” (When Mr Speaker questioned whether that was appropriate Parliamentary language, Banks pointed out “It’s artistic, Mr Speaker” )

Earlier this year, my old union Equity passed a motion of "no confidence" in the Arts Council of England, at a packed meeting in London, including stars such as Kevin Spacey. They were, rightly, protesting that the funding carpet was being pulled from a number of established theatres and other groups- who had enjoyed modest success, but were not viable without some public subsidy. Yet, the real challenge comes further down.

The small grants to regional and local groups may not be in the same league as the £20+ million for the Royal Opera House, but it is these that give the many and varied opportunities to our young people to experience, enjoy, and explore their cultural identities. The move from the Arts Council seems to suggest that funding will only get you up and running, and then it has to be “commercial”.

The Shakespeare Experience projects (and two more still to come- Romeo and Juliet and Lear’s Daughters) could only be commercially viable with massive private sponsorship or a fee to the participants that would be prohibitive to many ordinary families. Even now, there are precious few opportunities for the participants to develop their skills during the rest of the year: the established groups are loathe to stray from the “big musicals” path, as even one poorly supported show could signal the end. Credit to them, it gets people involved and gets people into our theatres: but where do they go next- where’s the next step up ? The challenges ?

Government in the 21st century needs to look at how real grassroots arts strategies can deliver breadth, diversity, and creative innovation in the coming years: the pursuit of excellence, not just the commercial safety of the lowest common denominator.

Brown's Eastbourne

...is the title that a number of bloggers (mainly conservative) are giving to the Glasgow East result.

I was chatting to a Lib Dem friend on Thursday morning, in which I assured her that we were not going to lose Glasgow East. It would be a reduction of a huge Labour majority, and would give us a realistic "line in the sand" about how much trouble we are in, but the polls and the fact that we were up against the SNP who were the alternative "government party" in Scotland meant that an actual loss was not on the cards.

Ooops. Big, big bags of oops.

A tiny majority for the SNP- this is true. The fact that either of the Left candidates' votes (SSP or Solidarity) could have swung it for us another straw to clutch at (actually, given the latest story about a leadership plot, maybe I shouldn't use that metaphor)

As it is so nice to see Eastbourne in the national political news twice in a week (see also Boris Johnson slagging off all of Britian's seaside resorts- really helpful in promoting local economies, thanks Boris...) it's worth looking at the Eastbourne comparison.

The 1990 Eastbourne by-election (mentioned elsewhere in this blog, so no full history lesson: if you want the facts and figures go to wikipedia) was widely credited as a significant event in bringing down Thatcher. A safe Tory seat (although not impenetrable: the opposition tended to be quite split- not least in 1979 when the late Len Caine nearly equalled the Liberal vote) fell to the Lib Dems in a shock result. Whether the poll tax, the malaise with a Thatcher administration that had just gone on too long, whether the fact that the local Labour candidate was unilaterally deposed by Labour HQ- killing off any serious local Labour campaign, it didn't matter. Thatcher had lost a blue-rinse safe seat, and had to go.

Eastbourne was Orange. Eastbourne was a non-tory zone. Eastbourne was under new management. Eastbourne now had a new MP: David "whoops-there-goes-my-football-club" Bellotti.

The Tories went on to lose anything going in a by election. Ribble Valley, Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouth, Langbaurgh, Mid Staffordshire: indeed, post 1992 it continued Wirral West, Littleborough and Saddleworth, Christchurch, Newbury. The Tories failed to hold a by-election seat from 1989 (when William Hague was elected to parliament- and only then because David Owen's SDP stood against the newly formed Liberal Democrats) right up until Uxbridge in 1997.

So where is the hope ? Well, I recall the words of the defeated Eastbourne Tory candidate Richard Hickmet on the radio the morning after his defeat morning. (Although I was not quite 13, I was already a political junkie.)

"Enjoy your six to 18 months in Parliament, Mr Bellottii"

He was right. For, in 1992, Nigel Waterson recaptured Eastbourne, defeating the sitting MP with an overall majority. That same night all of the other by-election losses returned to the Tories, as John Major was swept back to power- although his commons majority was well down, the Tories received a higher number of votes than any party before them. Higher than Thatcher in 1983 or Attlee in 1945 (Ironically, the record was previously held by Labour in 1951- an election they lost to the Tories: welcome to the wonderful world of first past the post constituency elections.)

False hope ? Mindless optimism ? Maybe. But the message to Gordon (and the plotters ?) has to be that a by-election low point does not mean that the game is up. It does mean that the political finger has to be pulled out- that something drastic and effective needs to be done. And it needs to be done now.

She's not dead yet, Gordon...

Am I the only one who thinks it’s a bit sick talking about somebody’s funeral before they’ve shuffled off this mortal coil ? Never mind the inappropriateness of Thatcher being given the honour of a State Funeral previously only afforded to Royalty (although Thatcher sometimes got confused about that…) and five non-Royals: Nelson, Wellington, Palmerston, Gladstone and Winston Churchill.

Churchill had an input into his own celebrations- but, of course, as the Man who Won the War it was taken as read that there would be a state funeral. The Old Man, incidentally, made the request that his funeral train should depart from Waterloo Station, and then change at Reading, en route to his familial home at Blenheim. When organisers protested, he clarified that if General De Gaulle died first, then the train could depart from anywhere. But, if the General was to be present, then it would depart from Waterloo…

But even he did not have the indignity of his funeral arrangements subjected to public debate in the tabloids. The late Queen Mother had a comprehensive funeral plan drawn up some years before her death at 101. I was reliably informed by a military friend that this package had the codename : “Operation Hope Not.”

Certainly, Thatcher should have a public memorial service: as afforded to many figures in public life. One of my first tasks as a Labour Party member was to represent the Eastbourne Counctituency at the Westminster Abbey service of remembrance for John Smith. My late general secretary Steve Sinnott was recently honoured by many public figures, including Ed Balls and the Tory front bench spokesman at the QEII Conference Centre.

But a State funeral- including, one assumes, the public lying-in-state of the coffin ? Even Blair- who was not adverse to praising the nemesis of the Labour movement- ruled that out. Apart from the fact that Maggie’s dad Alderman Roberts would probably turn in his own grave (as a Methodist lay minister he was not a fan of the adornments, trappings and rituals of the High Church) why should Maggie be treated any differently to our other former Prime Ministers ?

• She won three general elections: So did Blair, and I doubt very much he would qualify. Harold Wilson won four.
• She brought about massive social change: Yep- some of which destroyed industries, communities and ushered in an era of exploitation and disillusionment of working people. In any case, look at how Thatcher’s achievements compare to those of Attlee, who gave us the NHS, or Heath who took us into the European Union (yes…. I know…but certainly a significant event...) and neither of these were given such an honour.
• She won the Cold War: A bit disingenuous to the likes of Solidarity or those who booed Ceausescu. Does Gorbachev receive no credit ? Jim Callaghan before her was no friend of the Communists. Also, if we are holding up Thatcher as a paragon of international stateswomanship, isn’t it ironic that, when the world celebrates the 90th birthday of Nelson Mandela, we are talking about an honour for the woman who refused sanctions against apartheid South Africa, and branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist ? (Young Conservatives in the 1980’s wore T-shirts with the slogan “Hang Nelson Mandela” Some of these people are now Tory MPs) .
• She was our first woman Prime Minister: Yes- very important and significant, and ensuring her place in the history books for ever. That fact certainly should indeed be celebrated, but in an appropriate way . Does her gender alone give a reason for such an extravagant send off ?

Some cynics suggest that the announcement of the Thatcher State Funeral was a ruse to divert attention from domestic political issues. If it was, then it’s in pretty poor taste, and unlikely to endear Gordon Brown to the core voters who he needs to keep motivated (not least in Glasgow East where massive unemployment and an early Poll Tax did not make Thatcher a particularly popular figure. )

Thatcher is reported to be in good health, and a mere 82 years old (my nan is 100 next month, by the way,) so it is unlikely that Gordon will need to make the decision. However, by opening this rather morbid can of worms, this is now likely to become, (in the words of those insurance policy adverts) a "whole of life" debate. A pity.

Take Back the Track

In the dying days of the last Tory government, the headless chickens and (according to their own leader) “bastards” in the Major Cabinet decided that the way to win back public support was to try and be really, really like Thatcher, and privatise something. Even if this was something that was an essential public service, that would always need taxpayer subsidy, and was acknowledged by almost everybody – even your own side- as a bad idea for selling off.

Plan A was the Post Office. I had just joined the Labour Party, and stood with local stalwarts such as the late Terry Page outside Willingdon Triangle Post Office collecting signatures and giving out stickers saying “You’ll Miss the Post”. It was a brilliant campaign by Labour, alongside the Communication Workers Union (in the days when Alan Johnson was a trade unionist) and the plans were withdrawn.

Plan B was to sell off the railways.

The splitting up and selling off of individual rail lines produced no end of material for the comedians of Britain. Virgin Trains became the butt of most transport gags (check out Humphrey Lyttleyon’s effort on Radio 4: you will need RealPlayer ), whilst, in my neck of the woods, Connex became a general word for anything that you didn’t like (it is a pity that they lost their franchise: I have been trying to persuade the kids I teach not to use the word “gay” as a catch-all term for something rubbish, and the rail regulator robbed me of an obvious alternative suggestion.) Less funny was the hike in fares, the drop in standards and the cutting of services that followed.

I was at Labour Party conference in 1995, to hear Tony Blair promise that there would be “a publicly accountable and publicly owned rail network under a Labour government” Sadly, this was one of many throwbacks to socialism that Blair was cured of by the likes of Doctor Mandelson and co. on coming to power (at the same conference the education spokesman David Blunkett declared: “Read my lips- no selection by interview or exam under a Labour government” …)

Rail privatisation came to a partial end in 2002 when Railtrack- the privately floated company set up to manage the track, went bust. The ultra-Blairite Stephen Byers was transport secretary at the time, and, while he made it clear that the new Network Rail was as far from a renationalisation as was possible, it did, at least take the management of track back into something like the public sector, albeit as a private company accountable to government. The veteran Labour minister Jack Straw proudly celebrated this fact in ringingly Old Labour terms last year, telling the House:

"... rail privatisation ... was one of the most catastrophic reorganisations, which we have had to resolve, and having done that — [Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) may mock, but we brought Network Rail into public ownership ..." (Source: House of Commons Hansard, 1.2.07)

The campaign by the Co-Operative Party (which has an electoral agreement with Labour) goes one step further, in calling for Network Rail to become a mutual company. This would allow passengers and the interested public to become equal shareholders, to elect the board and to hold the management accountable. Given the huge bonuses that managers still received the year that Railtrack went bust- this has got to be a good thing. It is not renationalisation, and doesn’t relate to the train operators, but would be an acknowledgement of the need for an accountable and service-focused rail system !

Sign up to the People’s Rail campaign here. http://peoplesrail.org.uk/. You can also join the facebook campaign here.

Hastings Academy: Madness !

Following the earlier post about academies: a copy of a general news release that was distributed at, and following, the official announcement of the closure of the Hastings schools. It appears here in full:

MADNESS !

The NUT has been cautiously supportive of the forthcoming three-year federation of The Grove, Hillcrest and Filsham Valley, under the leadership of Sir Dexter Hutt and the Ninestiles team. We were led to believe that this course of action would give additional resources and support to the schools, in order to help them raise standards, and continue to exist as three comprehensive community schools, serving their local area.

How wrong we were !

East Sussex recently announced that the preferred plan is to let the Ninestiles team lead improvement in the three schools… get standards up… and then…

CLOSE all three schools down, and replace them with two privatised Academy schools.

In other words, after three years, they want to start all over again ! This is a slap in the face to teachers, parents and the local community from our own elected representatives.

The NUT (and the other TUC-affiliated teachers associations) remains firmly opposed to the privatisation of our schools through the Academy programme. We believe that every child has the right to attend a good local school, and that schools should be accountable to parents and the communities they serve.

Visit the Anti-Academies Alliance at http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/ or Campaign for State Education at http://www.campaignforstateeducation.org.uk/, or read Francis Beckett’s excellent book “The Great City Academy Fraud” to find out more about why privatising our schools is not the answer !

In the meantime, contact your local County Councillor and ask them why they have decided to condemn The Grove, Hillcrest and Filsham Valley before the federation’s work has even started ?

Hastings’ County Councillors are: MAZE HILL AND WEST ST. LEONARDS – Joy Waite , ASHDOWN AND CONQUEST- John Wilson , CENTRAL ST. LEONARDS AND GENSING- Trevor Webb, HOLLINGTON AND WISHING TREE- Phil Scott, ST HELENS AND SILVERHILL- Matthew Lock, OLD HASTINGS AND TRESSELL- Jay Kramer, BRAYBROOKE AND CASTLE- Godfrey Daniel, BAIRD AND ORE- Jeremy Birch. All councillors can be contacted via County Hall, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 1UE, or via the website, here.

Privatisation comes to Hastings

The academy programme has had a good deal of knocking in this blog, but, up until now, always in somebody else’s patch. All that has now changed, with the recent announcement from East Sussex County Council, that it intends to close down Hastings’ three mixed secondary schools, and replace them with two privatised academies.

The three schools, The Grove, Hillcrest and Filsham Valley, are currently part of an innovative project to turn them around. The head of Ninestiles school in Birmingham (turned around spectacularly, resulting in the knighthood…) Sir Dexter Hutt has a three year contract to run the schools as Executive Head, and to implement learning and behaviour systems to ensure a change in their fortunes.

Many people- including the NUT- were cautiously supportive of this plan, as it have us a mechanism to bring about school improvement and secure funding without having to go down the closure and privatisation route of the governments failing obsession of Academies.

Then, the bombshell came. At a mass meeting of teachers, parents, governors and union reps, Matt Dunkley, the county’s Director of Children’s Services announced that academy status was the County’s preferred route, and that a plan had already been secretly drawn up for the schools to be closed (just as Sir Dexter’s management moves into the “pursuit of excellence” phase !) and for their management and governance to be taken over by a consortium headed by the University of Brighton (the main sponsor: universities don’t have to cough up the £2m fee !) with British Telecom as their partner (my fluctuating broadband connection does not fill me with confidence in this company) and East Sussex County Council remaining a minor partner. This option is being touted as the "best" (or at least the "least worse") structure for an academy project: rather like trying to sell the "best" kind of typhoid...

East Sussex (Tory) fiercely resisted the attempts to break up local authorities via schools opting out as Grant Maintained schools, in the mid-1990's. My current school, Ratton, tried to go down this route: thanks to a campaign by parents, the County, staff and trade unions (led by my colleague, albiet NASUWT, Richard Harbourne) the proposals were rejetced in a parental ballot by 85%. Why have the East Sussex Tories so spectacularly changed their minds ?


There is clearly going to be a fight over this. Already, despite protestations of the pro-union credentials of the new consortium, my local officers have already been barred from entering two of the schools and speaking to members (so much for consultation: and the academy is still up to three years away !) All of the trade unions, including the traditionally non-combatant ATL are firmly and fiercely opposed to privatisation. Watch this space for more.

The Academies project is the brainchild of “Lord” Andrew Adonis: a former Labour policy adviser who has never taught a class in his life. Adonis has never been elected- or at least not as Labour: he was a Lib Dem councillor for some years, and adopted to be a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, although never stood. He defected to Labour around the time of the 1997 victory (funny that) although never deigned to lower himself to seeking selection for a democratically accountable Labour seat- preferring the job for life that membership of the House of Lords brings. This also leaves him in the clear to defect straight to the Tories in the event that “Call me Dave” Cameron gets in.

See the Tories' open invitation in The Times by clicking here.

Is it any wonder that this carpetbagger -who makes me ashamed to share a party with him- wants to end any democratic (or indeed parental) accountability for our schools.

As an ex-public schoolboy, the Bland Adonis has clearly swallowed all of the guff that his housemaster would have told him about the dreadful working class, pierced, tattooed, gun wielding, baby-eating pupils in the state sector. Hence, his pronouncements that the way to turn round “failing” schools is to access the “educational DNA” of the private schools. My General Secretary (acting) Christine Blowers, put it much better: “we don’t want their DNA- we just want their funding”

Give any school the facilities, the class size and the freedom from bureaucracy and DCSF diktats, and we’ll show you who has the real “Educational DNA”

Waiting at the Church ?

In 1978, Jim Callaghan, ahead in the polls was expected to call a general election. He teased supportive trade unionists in his speech to that Autumn’s TUC, by singing the Lily Langtree music hall song “Waiting at the Church”. Everybody applauded, as they didn’t get what he was saying.

There was no election in 1978- and the winter that followed saw a wave of mainly, but not exclusively, public sector strikes that became dubbed “The Winter of Discontent” by a hysterical tabloid press. There was the famous photo of the rubbish piled in Trafalgar Square (complete with a stuffed rat placed there by the photographer- before the days of photoshop, and a few days of action by council gravediggers, that postponed a few funerals- the rest is history…) The following year, Callaghan lost a vote of confidence in Parliament, and "that woman" became Prime Minister.

Experts generally concur that Sunny Jim could have won it in 1978, and he let the last chance slip through his fingers.

When I put up for the Eastbourne Labour nomination, I kept my diary mentally clear for a November 2007 election. In the autumn of that year, we were riding at 47% in the polls: had that been repeated in a General Election we would not only have increased our majority, but we would have won seats that we didn’t even take in 1997.

Now, less than 1 in 4 voters are planning to vote for us.

The Henley by-election was unlikely to be a good day for us. But things are far worse than predicted- and make Crewe and Nantwich look like a Labour landslide.

We have, occasionally, lost our deposit (by polling less than 5% in an election.) We did it in Eastbourne in 1992, when people had a tactical-vote stab at keeping by-election victor David “whoops-there-goes-my-football-club” Bellotti in Parliament. Funnily enough, we kept our deposit in the 1990 by-election that said “bye bye” to Maggie.

• We lose our deposit in rock solid Tory seats that the Lib Dems win on a tactical swing (eg Newbury) We don’t do it when the Lib Dems are also beaten out of sight.
• We don’t come behind the Greens. We have never been beaten by the Green Party in a Parliamentary contest until now. With them champing at our heels in Brighton Pavilion, this is not a good sign.
• We don’t come behind the BNP. While we have lost council seats to the fascists, we have always kept our critical mass in Parliamentary sized contests. To do this in an area where there aren’t BNP councillors or obvious flashpoints is a deeply sinister development.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record- we need to do something.

The RAF used to parody Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If”:

If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs… you haven’t
grasped the seriousness of the situation.

Is this why Gordon, Harriet, Ed and friends seem so calm ? Anyway- to cheer me up, let’s head back to the 70’s…

One interesting fact about Thatcher’s sweep to power in 1979 (it was a comfy majority, but certainly no landslide) was that throughout the election, and until he resigned as Labour leader in 1980, Jim Callaghan was comfortably ahead in the personality polls. A significant majority of voters backed him personally over Thatcher. However, despite their misgivings about the Lady from Grantham, her policies on home ownership, trade union reform and the economy were enough to swing it.

Conversely, in 2008 Gordon Brown is not going to be placed in any Most Charismatic Politician competitions. Unlike his predecessor, he is not a darling of the media, and is never likely to be. What Gordon has is the reputation for having a brain the size of Glasgow, and a wobbly- but not yet discredited- reputation as a safe pair of hands. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 on a slogan that went “It’s the Economy, Stupid…” If Brown can come up with a strategy that avoids the R- thing that we aren’t allowed to mention, can help us ride out the “Credit Crunch” and avoid a meltdown in the housing market, he may still be able to use that moniker a little longer. (Did you notice how I got away with that last phrase just moments after mentioning Clinton… although I think I got away with it.)

So to the policy question. Labour cyber-hero Luke Akehurst finds himself agreeing with Diane Abbott on this. No problem for me- as I often agree with her. Diane told Hackney North Labour Party:

• we'd be nuts to change leader again so quickly
• we all need to stop panicking and that will be helped by MPs going on recess and not all being in London stirring each other up
• Gordon should focus on using the next two years to deliver two or three landmark policies that are the things he really wants to achieve in politics and will be "recognisably Labour, not necessarily left wing, but inspiring and heartening to Labour people"

Good advice. Will it be heeded in time ?