Snow problem at all

Triumph in the face of adversity, that old British Dunkirk spirit, oft quoted in newspapers may have been at large in snow-capped south-east England this week.
While the determined few (or those that lived around the corner) battled against the trials and tribulations of road closures and public transport hold ups to get to their offices, the rest of the region pretty much enjoyed a day off.
The joy of it was - given that most people knew they couldn't get to work - they felt freed to let their hair down and enjoy. So consequently, there were hundreds of people in parks all over London with sledges, snowboards and even bits of plastic - just looking for a spot to scream down a hill.
And when you pulled on your boots, and headed out into the white, people started nodding and saying "hello" as you marched up hills or along pavements where no one usually grunts a greeting even if they do know you.
What appeared to be at large was a bit of rare community spirit as we all had fun in the face of adversity. There appeared to be more people having fun and just feeling free of work than even over the Christmas period, when although many of us were nominally not at work there was still checking email and making the odd phone call to be made.
Maybe the old "Save our Sundays" campaign had something sensible to say after all, when they argued against shops and supermarkets opening extensively on Sunday. They wanted to keep Sunday special. And now it seems like we don't get any time off any more: not a single day when we breathe in, and don't go shopping, and don't check our work email. Not at all.
And the day of the giant London snowfall just seemed to be just that, an absolute day off; a day of rest and breathing, where we could all forget for a moment all the trials and tribulations of the economy, and throw a snowball or make a snowman. Read more...

Snow problem at all

Triumph in the face of adversity, that old British Dunkirk spirit, oft quoted in newspapers may have been at large in snow-capped south-east England this week.
While the determined few (or those that lived around the corner) battled against the trials and tribulations of road closures and public transport hold ups to get to their offices, the rest of the region pretty much enjoyed a day off.
The joy of it was - given that most people knew they couldn't get to work - they felt freed to let their hair down and enjoy. So consequently, there were hundreds of people in parks all over London with sledges, snowboards and even bits of plastic - just looking for a spot to scream down a hill.
And when you pulled on your boots, and headed out into the white, people started nodding and saying "hello" as you marched up hills or along pavements where no one usually grunts a greeting even if they do know you.
What appeared to be at large was a bit of rare community spirit as we all had fun in the face of adversity. There appeared to be more people having fun and just feeling free of work than even over the Christmas period, when although many of us were nominally not at work there was still checking email and making the odd phone call to be made.
Maybe the old "Save our Sundays" campaign had something sensible to say after all, when they argued against shops and supermarkets opening extensively on Sunday. They wanted to keep Sunday special. And now it seems like we don't get any time off any more: not a single day when we breathe in, and don't go shopping, and don't check our work email. Not at all.
And the day of the giant London snowfall just seemed to be just that, an absolute day off; a day of rest and breathing, where we could all forget for a moment all the trials and tribulations of the economy, and throw a snowball or make a snowman. Read more...

Progressive dilemmas and the democratic republican tradition

I reviewed David Marquand's Britain Since 1918 in the current Fabian Review. It offers some important challenges about the future direction of the left (and the right): in particular, for us, whether and how it is possible to bring together social democratic, democratic republican and liberal strands of thought.

Following the recent discussions on Red Toryism and Lib-Labbery, I am trying to open up a discussion about this at Liberal Conspiracy, suggesting that these 'big picture' debates about the possible futures of the major ideological traditions in British politics, and whether they can rediscover traditions which have not been recently dominant, lie behind and will probably outlast the debates of this political and electoral cycle.

The initial response at Liberal Conspiracy has been some uncertainty about what democratic republicanism is, though most regular contributors make what are broadly democratic republican arguments from a disparate range of progressive perspectives and so I suspect it is as good a non-academic space as any to attempt such a discussion. (I suspect we might have to arrange a loan deal for Stuart to post something over there on this)

This perhaps reflects the observation that "the attractions of democratic republicanism – its open-ended discursiveness – have also often proved political weaknesses". My other central concern is how we can ensure that calls for a less statist politics don’t end up losing the egalitarian mission of the left, given how easily some of the attractive rhetoric can be picked up from various points of left, right and centre and employed to a range of different ends.

Hence my (tentative and provisional) conclusion heads towards a 'fusion' of the social democratic, liberal and republican traditions - which is something David Miliband has sought to explore and a theme of several of Stuart's contributions here last Autumn - while recognising the tensions inherent in this.

Marquand’s ‘Progressive Dilemma’ concluded that Labour would be necessary, but not sufficient, to a successful, sustained challenge to Tory dominance. That argument may now be both more difficult and as important as ever.

This may depend on understanding the republican and collectivist traditions not as opposing armies but as potential, if uneasy, allies. Their on-going, mutual interrogation which could fuse social democratic and liberal thought. There would be several tensions: a thin, majoritarian idea of democracy would be one barrier; a left-libertarian allergy to the necessary role of government in dismantling class disadvantage could prove another. Still, this offers the best hope of creating a politics which could speak in the causes of equality and democracy to the spirit of Lloyd George, Tawney, Orwell and Amartya Sen, and seek to link mobilisation from below with progressive state action. It would not be easy, but the history of British democracy suggests it could also do much to determine which type of Conservativism we face.

Read more...

Progressive dilemmas and the democratic republican tradition

I reviewed David Marquand's Britain Since 1918 in the current Fabian Review. It offers some important challenges about the future direction of the left (and the right): in particular, for us, whether and how it is possible to bring together social democratic, democratic republican and liberal strands of thought.

Following the recent discussions on Red Toryism and Lib-Labbery, I am trying to open up a discussion about this at Liberal Conspiracy, suggesting that these 'big picture' debates about the possible futures of the major ideological traditions in British politics, and whether they can rediscover traditions which have not been recently dominant, lie behind and will probably outlast the debates of this political and electoral cycle.

The initial response at Liberal Conspiracy has been some uncertainty about what democratic republicanism is, though most regular contributors make what are broadly democratic republican arguments from a disparate range of progressive perspectives and so I suspect it is as good a non-academic space as any to attempt such a discussion. (I suspect we might have to arrange a loan deal for Stuart to post something over there on this)

This perhaps reflects the observation that "the attractions of democratic republicanism – its open-ended discursiveness – have also often proved political weaknesses". My other central concern is how we can ensure that calls for a less statist politics don’t end up losing the egalitarian mission of the left, given how easily some of the attractive rhetoric can be picked up from various points of left, right and centre and employed to a range of different ends.

Hence my (tentative and provisional) conclusion heads towards a 'fusion' of the social democratic, liberal and republican traditions - which is something David Miliband has sought to explore and a theme of several of Stuart's contributions here last Autumn - while recognising the tensions inherent in this.

Marquand’s ‘Progressive Dilemma’ concluded that Labour would be necessary, but not sufficient, to a successful, sustained challenge to Tory dominance. That argument may now be both more difficult and as important as ever.

This may depend on understanding the republican and collectivist traditions not as opposing armies but as potential, if uneasy, allies. Their on-going, mutual interrogation which could fuse social democratic and liberal thought. There would be several tensions: a thin, majoritarian idea of democracy would be one barrier; a left-libertarian allergy to the necessary role of government in dismantling class disadvantage could prove another. Still, this offers the best hope of creating a politics which could speak in the causes of equality and democracy to the spirit of Lloyd George, Tawney, Orwell and Amartya Sen, and seek to link mobilisation from below with progressive state action. It would not be easy, but the history of British democracy suggests it could also do much to determine which type of Conservativism we face.

Read more...

Fabian membership hits 35 year peak

A warm welcome to the 209 new members who joined the Fabian Society in January: 135 of whom joined the Society in signing up for or attending January's New Year Conference.

As a result, Fabian national membership now stands at a 35 year high: it is over 20% higher than when Labour came to office in May 1997. It may also surprise people to hear that membership is now double what it was when Clement Attlee left office in 1951. This is a very positive if parochial glimmer amidst much gloomy discussion about political participation in general, and in the Labour party in particular. We enter this, our 125th year, with confidence. I think it does show an appetite for political ideas and values, perhaps above all for engaging where intelligent and open debate, and disagreement in a fraternal spirit of mutual respect, is valued.

So thank you to all Fabian members for their support in making our work possible - and invite new members to join us too. The current total of 6286 national members is not quite the all time high. We remain a net gain of 46 new members short of the 1973 peak of 6332 national members. Why not add your voice to our debates and help us make it!

Thanks to some fascinating information from Giles Wright, our excellent and unsung membership officer, I can offer some interesting and perhaps counterintuitive information from the historic membership records.

Firstly, Fabian membership has, historically, fallen during periods when Labour is in office, but has not done so this time. There were 5093 members at the end of April 1997, as Labour came to office on May 1st, compared to 6286 today. By contrast, there were 4425 national members on 31st March 1945 (and 5089 a year later; almost exactly the May 1997 figure) but this dropped to 3018 by 1951, when Labour left office, sinking further to 2465 by 1956.

Secondly, the historic figures show that the Society has never been an enormously large organisation in terms of membership but we have a very good claim to have punched its weight, and more, in thinking and rethinking the political left. Some fluctuations in membership relate to political events. For example, the formation of the SDP in 1981 had a significant effect. (Shirley Williams, a former General Secretary, was Chair at the time). The annual totals show that national membership was 3757 in June 1980, falling to 3502 a year later and 3138 in June 1982, again curiously leaving membership almost exactly half of what it is today.

And thank you too to everybody who volunteers time to the Fabian Society - particularly in the local societies, Young Fabians and Fabian Women's Network - so giving the Society a reach and range of grassroots and voluntary activity which no other think-tank can match.

(One footnote which local Fabians might find useful: the national membership does not include those who are members of one of our 65 Fabian local societies without being national members. This is fairly common. Tecords are kept locally and have not been compiled and cross-checked with the national list. There was a tally in 1945, finding 2998 local only members. Our rough current estimate is 1000 local only members - which would average around 15 per group, though some have many more and others fewer). Read more...

Fabian membership hits 35 year peak

A warm welcome to the 209 new members who joined the Fabian Society in January: 135 of whom joined the Society in signing up for or attending January's New Year Conference.

As a result, Fabian national membership now stands at a 35 year high: it is over 20% higher than when Labour came to office in May 1997. It may also surprise people to hear that membership is now double what it was when Clement Attlee left office in 1951. This is a very positive if parochial glimmer amidst much gloomy discussion about political participation in general, and in the Labour party in particular. We enter this, our 125th year, with confidence. I think it does show an appetite for political ideas and values, perhaps above all for engaging where intelligent and open debate, and disagreement in a fraternal spirit of mutual respect, is valued.

So thank you to all Fabian members for their support in making our work possible - and invite new members to join us too. The current total of 6286 national members is not quite the all time high. We remain a net gain of 46 new members short of the 1973 peak of 6332 national members. Why not add your voice to our debates and help us make it!

Thanks to some fascinating information from Giles Wright, our excellent and unsung membership officer, I can offer some interesting and perhaps counterintuitive information from the historic membership records.

Firstly, Fabian membership has, historically, fallen during periods when Labour is in office, but has not done so this time. There were 5093 members at the end of April 1997, as Labour came to office on May 1st, compared to 6286 today. By contrast, there were 4425 national members on 31st March 1945 (and 5089 a year later; almost exactly the May 1997 figure) but this dropped to 3018 by 1951, when Labour left office, sinking further to 2465 by 1956.

Secondly, the historic figures show that the Society has never been an enormously large organisation in terms of membership but we have a very good claim to have punched its weight, and more, in thinking and rethinking the political left. Some fluctuations in membership relate to political events. For example, the formation of the SDP in 1981 had a significant effect. (Shirley Williams, a former General Secretary, was Chair at the time). The annual totals show that national membership was 3757 in June 1980, falling to 3502 a year later and 3138 in June 1982, again curiously leaving membership almost exactly half of what it is today.

And thank you too to everybody who volunteers time to the Fabian Society - particularly in the local societies, Young Fabians and Fabian Women's Network - so giving the Society a reach and range of grassroots and voluntary activity which no other think-tank can match.

(One footnote which local Fabians might find useful: the national membership does not include those who are members of one of our 65 Fabian local societies without being national members. This is fairly common. Tecords are kept locally and have not been compiled and cross-checked with the national list. There was a tally in 1945, finding 2998 local only members. Our rough current estimate is 1000 local only members - which would average around 15 per group, though some have many more and others fewer). Read more...

Lab-Lib coalition responses (and some historic pedantry)

This is a round-up of some of the responses to my New Statesman piece this week arguing for a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Peter Hoskin of The Spectator says "there's plenty to be sceptical about. For starters, I think the chances of a Lib-Lab coalition are near-zero, and there have to be doubts over whether it would actually attract voters. But it's still striking how much the idea is popping up 'round Westminster".

John Rentoul chief political correspondent of the Independent on Sunday says "Coalition? Not yet" though thinks. He agrees that the LibDems and Tories are uncoalitionable, but can't see a pre-election Lab-Lib deal. After the election could be different, he argues, but only with change of Labour leadership.

IainDale kindly included the piece in his daley round-up with the caustic comment "Sunder Katwala puts the case for a Lib-Lab coalition. Worked really well last time, didn't it?". A pedant would point out that there has, of course, never been a Lib-Lab coalition. I take Dale to be referring to the parliamentary "Lib-Lab pact" of the 1970s, though he could alternatively mean the MacDonald-Gladstone electoral pact of 1903, or perhaps Labour's support of what became a minority Liberal government in the constitutional crisis of 1910, to successfully face down the Tory party's attempt to defend its hereditary privileges prevent the emergence of British democracy. Which did, in fact, work pretty well that time around.

There was a scathing response from Mike Smithson on politicalbetting, who would storm out of the LibDems were this to come to pass, and who offered the headline 'How daft an idea is this?' (though I am not sure his objection about LibDem national second preferences is centrally relevant to the scenario set out). While the thread was very sceptical, one or two may have been given pause for thought by the response from Nick Palmer, Labour MP for Broxtowe and a regular politicalbetting commenter:

“For what it’s worth, I’d have few problems with the idea - the Lib-Lab coalition works well in Broxtowe most of the time ... As for how the LibDems would feel, I wonder if it’s an issue where some MPs and some activists might part company - if you’re a LD MPs in a marginal seat, the idea of Labour stepping down in your favour is quite attractive; if you’re an activist fighting Labour in Sheffield, less so.

I’d give 10-1 against it happening, but not 100-1″.

Richard Huzzey at LibDemVoice explains why he would have been for a deal in 1997, but now believes "it would be adverse to principle and pragmatism for us to enter a coalition with Labour - or the Tories - before or after an election" and argues the LibDems should take an issue-by-issue approach to a hung parliament.

There have been a few comments about the local difficulties this would cause on the ground. It would never be popular with either party in Islington, Rochdale or Sheffield. (Emily Thornberry, Islington South MP made a very successful bid from the floor to lower the tone of the Manchester Lab-Lib fringe, though she combines her animosity to the LibDems with being a liberal voice in Labour's debates on several of the issues mentioned in my piece). This point is made, in a highly moderate and considered tone, from an Islington Labour perspective by Captain Jako on frankowenspaintbrush.

Obviously I do not want to see the Conservative Party victorious at the next general election and any strategy which claims to make that event less likely to happen should be fairly considered. However, I would hope that it should be possible for Labour to rejuvenate itself without the assistance of the Liberal Democrats. That way lies (potential) madness!.

Tom Griffin on OurKingdom offers a short overview, and offers his own take:

Katwala is on the right track with ideas such as scrapping ID cards, reassessing Labour's stance on civil liberties and holding an Iraq inquiry. However, if Labour is to start winning over the doubters, it needs to take the initiative on these things, rather than indulge in wishful thinking about a front-loaded political deal. This is not 1997 and Labour is not negotiating from a position of strength. The task now is to ensure that this is not a re-run of 1979 in which progressive politics is eclipsed for a generation.

A similar view was expressed by James Graham, in the discussion kicked off by Sunny Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy. Graham, whose Quaequam blog is among the most respected and engaging in the LibDem blogosphere, wrote that "I feel Sunder’s pain, but the problem with this idea is that it could only happen if Labour was not Labour".

He went on to say "Absolutely, the LDs would be mad to pass up such an offer. And such an offer would be in Labour’s long term interests too. The question is, then, what is stopping it from being offered and how do we change it? Fundamentally, is it even possible to change?"

Well, is it? Read more...