But unlike the 81 rebels who defied David Cameron on Europe, those voting against him on gay marriage won’t really be rebels at all.  You see the government has promised a “free vote” on gay marriage, meaning that MPs (including ministers) can vote with their conscience.  This band of Tory right-wingers can commit their act of legislative gay-bashing without fear of reprisal from the whips, nor will they lose their jobs if they are ministers.

Free votes are employed on occasion by governments for several reasons.  The ever-knowledgeable folk at the House of Commons Library have produced a rather useful piece of research on free votes.  This identifies 107 House of Commons divisions (votes) since 1997 that have been free.  Of those, 48 related to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons which are (rightly in my view) unwhipped by convention.  Of the rest, about half are on issues like House of Lords reform and the hunting ban, which the government was at best lukewarm about.  The other half are these so-called “moral” issues:  gay rights, stem cell research and abortion.  These are deemed to be “votes of conscience”.

But what is it that makes these issues matters of conscience and morality while votes on other issues are not?  Why is a vote on gay marriage a “moral” issue while a vote to cut benefits from severely disabled people is not?  Under the last government the Labour leadership decreed that the vote which took us to war in Iraq, surely a decision with huge moral implications, should be whipped while votes on abortion were unwhipped.

What appears to define whether an issue is “moral” or not is whether religious groups take an interest.  In 2008 there were no less than thirteen free votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill after sustained pressure from religious lobbyists.  In particular many Catholic Labour MPs demanded to be allowed to vote against measures in this important piece of Labour legislation.

Now I have no problem with MPs defying their party whips.  In fact, I think we could do with quite a few more MPs who are prepared to do so.  But for governments of any colour to give license to certain MPs to vote with their conscience on some issues, usually on religious grounds, whilst denying that right to other MPs on different issues is wrong.  All of us have a sense of morality.  That sense of morality doesn’t come from ancient religious texts, it comes from within ourselves.  For a party to say, for example, that they will allow a free vote on abortion because it is an issue of conscience for MPs of faith is to bring religious privilege into the legislative process.  Just because someone claims faith does not mean their conscience or sense of morality should be held in higher regard than anyone elses.

It’s time to end the practise of “conscience” free votes.  If David Cameron really believes in gay marriage then he should have the courage to whip his MPs to vote for it.  And if some of his MPs don’t like it they can vote with their conscience anyway – they’ll just have to defy the whip to do it.

This rather excellent video spells out how much Londoners will save from Ken’s Fare Deal:

“What good’s first woman if it’s her?  I suppose you’d have liked Hitler if he was a woman.  Mrs Hitler.  Got a lot done.”  Joyce’s rebuke to her sister Marlene cuts to the core of Caryl Churchill’s seminal work, which is an excoriating critique of the impact of Thatcherism on feminism.  Max Stafford-Clark’s revival of the play he first directed in 1982 is fresh and engaging.  The shoulder pads are out in force but the production never feels outdated.  This is a testament to his direction, certainly, but also an uncomfortable reminder of how relevant the play’s themes are thirty years since it was written.  Churchill may have hoped that Top Girls would be of mere historical interest by now but this is, sadly, not the case.  Thatcher may have left office more than two decades ago, but we live in a country which is in many ways still defined by her eleven years in power.  Moreover, the play’s question of whether it is possible to combine a successful career with a happy family life is perhaps more resonant than ever.

The production is magnificently cast with all seven actresses putting in sterling performances (it’s worth noting that as a play with an all-female cast Top Girls is still a rarity in the West End).  The pace is quick and the production never drags, although the occasional line is lost in some of the overlapping dialogue.

It is the first scene for which Top Girls is probably best known.  The up-and-coming Marlene hosts a dinner party for five famous women from history to celebrate her promotion to Managing Director of the Top Girls employment agency.  As the play develops we see the parallels between these historical figures and the play’s modern day characters, as well as the unhappy personal lives that lie beneath their outward success.

Suranne Jones is superb as the ambitious, upwardly mobile Marlene, as is Stella Gonet as her downtrodden sister Joyce.  It is the dynamic between these two during their confrontation in the final scene which makes it the most powerful.  “I believe in the individual!” proclaims Marlene.  But we learn that her success is down in no small part to the fact that Joyce was left to raise Marlene’s daughter, Angie (played beautifully by Olivia Poulet), whilst Marlene left home to pursue her career.

Jones’ portrayal of Marlene is one of ruthless drive and naked ambition yet is sensitive enough to avoid falling into cliché.  There are moments of warmth, and even the occasional flash of vulnerability.  In many ways it’s hard not to admire Marlene’s drive, passion and success in a world where a woman has to be ten times as good as a man to get half as far.  One has to suppress the urge to cheer as she tells the wife of the man she beat to the top job to “piss off” when she confronts her and asks her to stand aside for the sake of her husband (“What’s it going to do for him, working for a woman?”)  But Top Girls reflects Churchill’s belief that women must work together to progress their cause rather than simply emulating the ruthless individualism of the men around them.  It has been said that Thatcher smashed through the glass ceiling then taped up the cracks and started walking about on it.  Marlene may have succeeded, but what about other women less fortunate?  By leaving her sister to raise her child she has relied on the support of someone else for her success, yet she is unable to connect this personal truth with any wider sense of solidarity.  Nor can she bring herself to acknowledge that the daughter she herself describes as “a bit thick” will be left behind in Thatcher’s brave new world of the individual.

At the end of the play one can’t help but feel that although there are more Marlene’s in 2011 than there were in 1982, those less fortunate still struggle just as hard for very little reward.

Youth Rep manifesto

Number councillors declared for the candidates in each borough

Inner London*

Ken – 75
Oona – 32

Outer London**

Ken – 72
Oona – 18

This means that Ken’s support is split roughly 50/50 between inner and outer London while Oona has picked up two thirds of her support in inner London (64%) compared to just 36% in outer London.

Oona King often claims that Ken can’t win in outer London, using the “Zone 1 Mayor” argument that Boris deployed against him in 2008.  But these results would suggest that Labour councillors disagree with her.  Oona has declared councillor support in just eight of the outer London boroughs.  Ken has declared councillor support in sixteen of them – all but one of the outer London boroughs in which Labour hold council seats (we have none in Kingston, Richmond and Sutton).  Oona has yet to pick up any councillor support in boroughs like Bexley, which she often cites as having lost the election for Ken last time.

So what does this tell us?  It certainly seems that Oona’s argument that she is best placed to win in outer London is not being bought by Labour’s elected representatives in those areas.  If anything, the map above would suggest that it is she who is the “Zone 1″ candidate.

* Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, Westminster
** Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton, Waltham Forest

Amongst the Lib Dem membership I imagine the response was even frostier. Lib Dem federal executive member, Richard Grayson, writes on Comment is Free that his party’s leadership has “abandoned the party’s centre left roots”. He is wrong – they have no roots to abandon.

It is true that the old Liberal party had a strong history of social liberalism and a desire to defend and extend civil liberties, both regarded as centre-left positions. But economically speaking they have no “centre-left” roots. The old Liberals had no base in the working class or organised labour, and the Social Democratic party with which they merged rejected that base when they split from Labour.

Even before the coalition agreement with the Tories, the Lib Dems’ policy towards organised labour and workers’ rights was driven by a deep-seated suspicion of the unions and a centre-right view of labour relations. Before the general election, Vince Cable (incorrectly regarded by many as on the left of the party) called openly for strikes to be banned in essential public services, which he somehow managed to extend to British Airways, and for the repeal of the EU social chapter. Going back a bit further, it is not widely remembered that the Lib Dems voted against the minimum wage, calling it a “gimmick”. That’s not something they shout about these days.

The right of the Lib Dems has been in the ascendancy for many years. The left of the Parliamentary party has been reduced to a small rump of MPs like Charles Kennedy and Simon Hughes. These once important figures have been replaced by the likes of Nick Clegg and David Laws, who would have joined the Conservative Party in the 1990s had it been more socially liberal.

The truth is that the Lib Dems are ruthlessly opportunist. No party in history has exploited the luxury of opposition as effectively as they have. They could be all things to all people – pretending to bat to the left of Labour nationally while pandering to their predominantly well-off, middle class electorate locally. Indeed, in their leaked campaign manual written by the former leader of the Islington Lib Dems, their activists are explicitly told to tack to the left in Labour areas and to the right in Tory areas. And, of course, as the third party with reduced media scrutiny they could get away with it.

But not any more. Going from opposition to government can often be a traumatic experience, particularly for MPs who have grown comfortable with opposition. When the late Michael Foot eventually became a minister after many years as an oppositionist backbencher he found the constraints of government rather troubling. Barbara Castle said of him in frustration that “the trouble with Mike is that he has grown soft on a diet of soft options because he’s never had to choose”.

That is exactly the position that the Lib Dems now find themselves in. But because they have no real centre-left roots, their MPs will, with very few exceptions, walk through the division lobbies with the Tories and vote for a devastating budget despite any nagging concerns they may have.

Today may well be the day the Lib Dems realise the full consequences of the pact that they have entered into, and the damage it could wreak on their future electoral chances.  For years they have managed a clever but precarious balancing act. They have been all things to all people – left where it suits them,  right where it suits them. But now they have had to choose. Power may well turn out to be their downfall.

Article originally posted on Labour Uncut.

You can read it here.

Sam’s manifesto can be downloaded here.

I urge you to nominate and vote for Sam and the other Grassroots Alliance candidates for the NEC – Ann Black, Ken Livingstone, Christine Shawcroft, Sofi Taylor and Pete Willsman.

Let me start out by making something clear: I am not a supporter of either Diane Abbott or John McDonnell. While I agree with some of their positions on certain key issues – the Iraq War for example – I do not regard either of them as credible leaders of the Labour Party. But surely no one can defend these crazy rules that have led to the nomination of one and the exclusion of the other from this contest?

Despite being no fan of Diane Abbott I am pleased she will be on the ballot paper. Not just because she doesn’t look the same as the four white, middle class, middle aged male contenders, but because she adds a different dimension to the debate. Her outspoken views put her well to the left of the other candidates and her presentation and style are entirely different. Her opponents should not underestimate her – she won’t win the contest but her years of regular TV appearances make her a formidable media performer. In what could be a tight race, the way her vote transfers could make an important difference to the final outcome.

But the way in which she got on to the ballot paper shows what a farcical method the party uses to nominate potential Leaders. Looking down the list of Abbott’s nominees, it’s difficult to find more than a handful of the thirty three of them who may actually vote for her. If nothing else the very fact that one of her opponents – David Miliband – has felt the need to nominate her tells us that there is something deeply flawed with the current rules.

All the leadership contenders called for the broadest range of candidates possible. David Miliband, to his credit, put his money where is mouth was and ensured that he and enough of his supporters backed Abbott for her to get on the ballot paper. But he shouldn’t have had to. We need to change the rules to make it easier for candidates to be nominated – and perhaps allow CLPs and affiliates to cast substantive rather than just supportive nominations. MPs should be able to nominate the candidate they actually want to win and not have to nominate someone else just to broaden the field – members and affiliates should be able to do that instead. Undoubtedly members and affiliates would have ensured both Abbott and McDonnell’s presence on the ballot paper without other candidates having to “lend” them nominations.

Of course it’s important that the Leader of our party has the confidence of their Parliamentary colleagues. But MPs and MEPs already have a third of the votes in the Electoral College that will ultimately select the next Leader. If by some miracle she were to somehow win the leadership, Diane Abbott would clearly not have the confidence of her Parliamentary colleagues. But she won’t win, and her presence in the contest will enrich the debate. John McDonnell should have had the same opportunity.

Many of those who nominated Diane did so to ensure that there would be a woman on the ballot paper. But the fact that in 2010 the only woman to put herself forward doesn’t stand a cat in hell’s chance of actually becoming Leader raises serious questions for our party. In the 1994 leadership contest Margaret Beckett stood for the leadership as a very credible and experienced challenger against Tony Blair and John Prescott. It is a real shame that sixteen years later no woman of similar standing within the party has stepped forward.

I believe that Diane Abbott’s presence in this contest will make the debate a lot more interesting. After some consideration my first preference vote will be going to Ed Miliband. My other preferences are up for grabs though. So go on leadership candidates – start impressing me.

Article originally published on LabourList.

Michael Foot

I’ve been browsing the BBC’s excellent new Democracy Live site, in particular the “Historic Moments” section.

A particular highlight is Michael Foot’s outstanding winding-up speech in the debate on the Tory motion of no confidence in the Labour Government in March 1979, one of the finest Parliamentary speeches I have ever heard.  Combining his fearsome wit and intellect in equal measure, Foot both ridiculed the Tories and forensically unpicked their arguments.  A remarkable quality of Michael Foot’s speeches is that he always remains gracious, generous and good-natured even when ripping the opposition to shreds and ridiculing their position.  This speech is no exception.

During the debate he makes reference to a number of Tory attacks against Labour, and what struck me was the similarity of some of these attacks with those of Cameron’s Conservatives today.  A particular case in point is the way the Tories are currently attempting to portray Britain as somehow alone in the world in facing a recession, as if we are much worse off than other economies.  Back in 1979, and referring to Margaret Thatcher, Foot said:

Worst of all, perhaps, the greatest disservice that the right hon. Lady does to the country in the way in which she presents the argument is that she seeks to pretend that all the burdens and problems that we have had to contend with in the past four years—and nobody can say that the storm has not been a fierce one— The Conservatives think that there is no storm blowing outside. So ignorant are they of the outside world that they think that there is a storm blowing only here. So incompetent and ill equipped are they to try to put things right that they do not even trouble to know what is happening in other parts of the world.

He continues:

When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes to conferences to meet the leaders of the United States, Japan and other countries, all that the right hon. Lady and her friends can do in the House is to jeer and sneer as if those were matters of no significance. Moreover, the right hon. Lady does something worse. She says that in some way or other this country has been demeaned in the councils of the world during these past four years. There is no basis for that. It is not what the leaders of the other countries say; it is only what the Leader of the Opposition in this country says.

Sound familiar?  Now, as then, the Tories are talking the British economy down and mocking the efforts of a Labour Prime Minister in his negotiations with other nations.

Whilst extracting these quotes from Hansard I noticed something else that sounded familiar.  Or rather, someone else.  I refer to the then Labour member for Ormskirk, better known as Robert Kilroy-Silk, who also spoke passionately in the debate on the motion of no confidence.  What was unfamiliar though was his robust defence of a Labour Government:

Let us consider the record of the Government in relation to the pledges and promises set out in the manifesto. There has probably not been a Government in this country in the post-war period who have implemented so many of their pledges and fulfilled so many of their promises as the present Government… Labour Members do not have to go on the defensive. Our record is clear and clean, and is a good one. Conservative Members may jeer, but the country outside will cheer. Conservative Members will be the ones to hear those cheers loudest in the next few weeks and months.

It seems Kilroy has changed over the last thirty years, even if Tory attack lines remain the same!

I’d hate to end on a Kilroy quote, so I turn once again to the splendid oratory of Michael Foot, and a quote of his we would all do well to remember when times are tough:

It is sometimes in the most difficult and painful moments of our history that the country has turned to the Labour Party for salvation, and it has never turned in vain.

Sadly, of course, the Government lost the confidence motion by one vote, and the country didn’t turn to Labour for salvation again until 1997.